minutes, a briefing at the pentagon. in 45 minutes, representatives on reauthorization of the federal aviation administration. leaders reached a deal late this afternoon to resume full faa operations until september. then a hearingthe u.s.-mexico b. then silvio berlusconi addresses the italian parliament about the economy. a couple of live events tomorrow here on c-span. president obama will be at the washington navy yard to talk about administration plans to help veterans re-entering the workforce. that is at 11:00 a.m. eastern. at 12:45 p.m. eastern, the joint economic committee would get the jobs report from the bureau of labor statistics. >> this month, c-span radio

features more of the lbj tapes, a ring for the first time, final releases from the johnson library. hear conversations between the president, secretary of state, and senate armed services committee chairman. >> i am trying as hard as i know how to get peace in viet nam as quickly as i can. for that reason, i am not running. >> listen to that nationwide on satellite, and online at c-span radio. >> defense secretary leon panetta says congress cannot balance the federal budget by just cutting discretionary spending, which includes the defense department. meeting with departures -- with reporters at the pentagon, the secretary warned again against automatic defense cuts that would be triggered by the debt ceiling deal.

this is 45 minutes. this is 45 minutes. >> good afternoon. this is my first press briefing here at the pentagon as secretary of defense. as you know, i have just completed my first month as secretary. during that time, i have had a chance to travel to the war zones to meet with the troops and commanders. i have had a chance to consult with a number of the ministers of defense. i hosted four of my counterparts at the pentagon. i visited north, last friday.

i will be traveling to socom on monday. i have had the privilege of visiting walter reed and meeting with our wounded warriors. finally, i have established a regular dialogue with congressional leaders on the hill and a very close working relationship with the service chiefs and service secretaries. i meet with them on a weekly basis. i've been truly impressed with the expertise and professionalism of the department's senior leaders. i am proud we are going to build on this terrific team in the weeks ahead. we just announced yesterday -- the president announced he would nominate ash carter to be the next deputy secretary of defense. the senate confirmed general marty dempsey and admirable sandy [unintelligible]

to be the chairman and vice chairman. i am very pleased the senate was able to rapidly approve the nominations. there are a lot of challenges that will face this department and the nation. and the nation. we have efforts to meet our fiscal and national security responsibilities. that brings me to the debt ceiling agreement that was enacted this week. it had an impact on our national defense. as i said in a message to dod personnel that i issued yesterday, a reduction in the

defense budget enacted as part of the debt soon agreement is largely in line with the civilian and military leaders of this department. this department. it is what we were anticipating and preparing to implement. make no mistake about it. we will face some very tough challenges here. we're trying to meet those numbers. but those numbers are within the ballpark that we were discussing with both the president as well as with others. as with others. and we have the opportunity to make this decisions based on sound and balanced strategy and policy, and with the best advice that we can get from our service chiefs and the service secretaries on how to proceed, to build a strong defense not

only now, but in the future. thankfully, so far this is a very different process than has so often been used in the past when there of been defense drawdowns. defense cuts were applied across the board. the force as a result was hollowed out. it was left undersized. it was underfunded relative to the missions and responsibilities that this country must fill. country must fill. that approach would be particularly harmful, because of our nation at war. we face a growing range of security threats and challenges that our military must be

prepared to confront, from terrorist networks to rogue nations that are making efforts to obtain nuclear capability, and to dealing with rising powers that look at us to determine whether we will maintain a strong defense here and throughout the world. it is that multitude of security challenges that makes me particularly concerned about the sequester mechanism that was contained in the debt ceiling agreement. this mechanism is kind of a doomsday mechanism that was built into the agreement. built into the agreement. it was designed so it would only take effect if congress fails to enact further measures to reduce the deficit.

but if it happened, and god willing that would not be the case, but if it did happen, it would result in further round of very dangerous cuts across the board, defense cuts that i believe could do real damage to our security, our troops and families, and our military ability to protect the nation. it is an outcome that would be completely unacceptable to me as secretary of defense, to the president, and i believe to our nation's leaders. most importantly, it would be unacceptable to the american people. the american people expect that our military will provide for their security. rather, they expect that will always protect our core national security interests

while meeting reasonable savings targets. as i have said before, we don't have to choose between fiscal discipline and national security. security. i recognize the resource limitations with face as a result of the size of the deficits that confront this country. country. but i also recognize that the department of defense has a responsibility to do its part in dealing with that, and we will do so. but we always have to remember those who are doing their part, men and women in uniforms and their families.

truck this process, i will be working closely with the leaders of this department, including the service chiefs, to insure we do not break faith with troops and their families. we have a volunteer force. it is the heart and soul of our military strength. military strength. we have to do everything possible to protect the volunteer force. i have no higher responsibility as secretary of defense and to do everything i can to protect and support them. and support them. every decision i make will be made with them in mind. they put their lives on the line. too many have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of this country. country. we owe it to them to do this right and do this responsibly.

>> thank you, mr. secretary. i would only add that the chiefs and i fully agree with you. we have no issue with the military budgets being held to account in these challenging times, or with the need to make tough programming decisions moving forward. we have long ago braced ourselves for a decrease in defense spending and of work hard to ease some of that by finding efficiencies where we can. we're gratified an agreement was struck to raise the debt ceiling. we believe the terms of that deal are, at least in the near term, reasonable and fair with respect to future cuts. the cuts required for this agreement are in keeping with the president's previous budgetary direction. we are already hard at work to find the requisite savings. we also share your concerns about the devastating impact of further automatic cuts should the congress failed to enact additional budget measures.

the defense department may represent 50% of the discretionary budget in this country, but there is nothing discretionary about the things we do every day for our fellow citizens. from the wars we are fighting in iraq and afghanistan to the support for nato allies in libya and disaster relief missions in haiti and japan, the training haiti and japan, the training and exercises and joint operations with conductor around the world, the u.s. military remains a linchpin for defending our national interests. to loosen that with capricious cuts nearly double to those already in the offing puts at grave risk not only our ability to accomplish the missions we have been assigned, but those we have yet to be assigned. i was struck by the degree to

which the debt and the state of our economy preoccupied our troops. they probably saw the media coverage. there was not an engagement i conducted in which this issue was not raised. i found it encouraging that the troops were informed and interested. on the other hand, i found it lamentable that they needed to be. our men and women downrange have enough to worry about just getting the job done. they should not also be concerned about whether or not they will be paid to do that job and whether or not their families will continue to get the support they need during long absences. we can do better than that as in military and a nation. our growing debt remains the single biggest threat to our national security. the military exists to eliminate or mitigate the security threats.

we will do our part in this regard. but we cannot allow that effort to go so far and cut so deep that it jeopardize our ability to deal with the very real threats around the world. the cannot afford to break the all-volunteer force on whose backs we rest. backs we rest. we seek it successful cuts. we look forward to working with you, mr. secretary, as you lead the effort to make these critical decisions. critical decisions. >> mr. secretary, as you start to look across the defense budget, which has doubled in the past 10 years, where would you see the best opportunities for saving, among health care and all those other benefits? and do you think these cuts will

affect the pace and drawdown in afghanistan, and equipment the u.s. can lead in iraq beyond the end of the year? end of the year? >> with regards to the first part of your question, we have, and it is ongoing, a comprehensive review to look at all areas of the defense budget. all areas of the defense budget. the service chiefs are looking at all of those areas and will ultimately make a recommendation as part of this comprehensive review. my goal is to be able to use that comprehensive review to inform the strategies we will have to make. that is going to be key in the areas we look to for savings. >> from the standpoint of troop presence in iraq, afghanistan,

and around the world, i do not think there is a decision now that is not one to take cost into consideration. we have to do that. our budget has doubled. a significant part of that has been the investment in our people and families over the course of the last 10 years because of who they are and what we have asked them to do in fighting these wars, and the stress they are under. i would argue with the strategic comprehensive umbrella the secretary described that a balanced approach looking at operational costs, investment in our people, and in programs -- where the service chiefs are is recommending strongly that, we looked at all of these. we looked at all of these. given the strategic approach, we

can adjust accordingly. all of that said, i have no expectations, from what i have seen from secretary panetta or the president, that we will send people in harm's way without the support they need. there are resources necessary to fund that support. i expect that will continue, whatever the outcome in iraq and afghanistan. >> the comprehensive review is ongoing. how can you make the claims he said today and yesterday about the amount that can be implemented as fair and reasonable and the amount that would cause great damage, when you do not have the analytical factor completed yet? factor completed yet? >> we are not sitting in the office is doing nothing at this point. point. what i am basically doing is

having a number of discussions with the service chiefs, with budget people, with policy people, to talk about all of the areas that need to be considered. we are waiting for the review itself as it goes through. that is not stopping us from the ability to have discussions about how we would have to implement the savings requirement we are facing. >> secretary gates implied the review would inform the public and congress about the risks inherent in different approaches to cutting $400 billion. to cutting $400 billion. do you intend to make this public later this year, some date on this review? >> the most important responsibility we have is to make public the recommendations we have with regards to our budget. that will reflect some of the decisions and recommendations in the review. i think what the american people are entitled to is a presentation of what our

defense system will look like in the next five or 10 years. that will reflect a lot of the decisions that went into making the final recommendations to the country. country. >> is it fair to say you are drawing up contingency plans in case be sequestered cuts are triggered? >> i am not. we are focused on the number that was part of the debt ceiling agreement, which is very much within the ballpark number that we worked out with the president and omb. i feel confident that number is manageable and we can achieve it in a way that will protect our national defense. i am not even beginning to consider what would happen with regards to sequestration. all i know is that from the

review we have been doing and what we have to deal with in these numbers that anything that doubles that would be disastrous. i am going to give congress the opportunity to have this committee work. i think that is what we are all looking toward. i think the president and everyone who was part of the debt ceiling agreement really believe and hope this committee will exercise their responsibility to look at other areas of the budget other than just discretionary to come up with the kind of numbers that have to be part of a deficit reduction agreement. reduction agreement. >> i understand the debate is ongoing. but you have inherited a military which has grown significantly in terms of budget and manpower since the start of the wars.

the think you need a military that big? can you shed personnel, regardless of whether it is $400 billion? >> i am not going to get into the particulars of what we will or will not decide here. or will not decide here. i think it is fair to say the goal here is to design a defense system that will make the threats not only of the present, but of the future. but of the future. there are three areas we have to protect. we have to protect our core national security interests. we have to be able to provide the best military in the world. we cannot break faith with the troops and their families. those of the key elements that have to be part of what we decide. >> the question presumes that we have dramatically increased our strength.

that increase has been in our ground forces. when you look at the increase in the army and the marine corps, even before this decision, the numbers are starting to come down. the army is programmed to come down to 520. the marine corps is at 202 and will come down 15,000 or 16,000. at the same time, the navy dropped its strength by 50,000. the air force came down 20,000. when you look at the totality of the and strength buildup, it has not been that significant, relatively speaking. >> on your recent trip to iraq, you were emphatic in urging the iraqis that if they wanted american troops to stay beyond the deadline for withdrawal at the end of the year, they need to make that request soon.

this week, vice president joe biden is quoted in "atlantic monthly" as saying the deadline has passed, it is too late, and all american troops will be out by the end of the year. is that the case? if there were a dispute within the administration about whether to keep american forces in iraq beyond that withdrawal date -- date -- >> i think everyone appreciates the comments that were made yesterday after the taliban meeting in iraq. those comments and decisions are now being reviewed to determine what the next steps ought to be. we will always maintain a fraught long-term relationship with the iraqi people. with the iraqi people. whatever decision we make with

regard to our military presence will be done in that context. >> you have contingencies to consider looking forward to the budget. what numbers are you thinking about in terms of how many american troops may need to stay beyond that deadline? >> that has to be part of the process of discussing exactly where we need to go in the next steps between now and the end of the year. i think we appreciate the fact that they have made the decision to engage. now the question is for us to engage and decide what that will look like. >> yesterday, defense officials said there should be no more cuts from the super committee to the pentagon.

they should look at taxes and entitlements. do you think that is a realistic position? >> let me put my old bucket hat on. you cannot deal with the size deficits this country is confronting by simply cutting the discretionary side of the budget that represents less than a third of the overall federal budget. you have to, as the president has made clear -- you have to look at the mandatory side of the budget, which is two-thirds of the federal budget. you have to look at revenues as part of that answer. while i am commenting on that, let me make a point on the discretionary budget. the discretionary budget has taken some pretty serious cuts, both as a result of the continuing resolutions from last year as well as the decision that was just made.

when you look at national security, i think you have to look to the broader context national security is not just dependent on a defense budget. it is also dependent on quality of life in this country, which involves the domestic side of the budget. it is also dependent on the state department budget and their ability to conduct diplomacy abroad. all of those areas are contained in the discretionary side of the budget. i think all of them represent in a very real way the security of this country. i would hope that the leadership and the congress will take the time to look at the areas they should be looking at if they're serious about dealing with deficit. with deficit. >> do you think the answer is

that there should be no -- >> we are already taking our share of the discretionary cuts as part of this debt ceiling agreement. those are going to be tough enough. i think anything beyond that would damage our national defense. >> recent analysis at the pentagon, over the past 10 years, found the dod spending more and getting less for it. some of the things driving that are likely to continue. how will you deal with that in your budget review, should that go forward? >> as you know, the last couple of years we have focused very heavily on the efficiencies aspect of who we are. that continues to be the case in terms of the review on going right now. underneath the process of this comprehensive review, we will continue to look at our staffs,

to look at the overhead that exists here. we recognize that resources that are going there are not going to those that are out on point. there is a trade. we also fully recognize that at some level, depending on where we take the cuts are what the cuts are, that our force structure comes into play dramatically. that is why i talk about this balanced approach. i think programs that cannot meet schedule, but cannot meet cost and schedule requirements, are very much in jeopardy and will be very much under scrutiny, if you will. i am confident we can meet the targets we have been given thus far.

it is in that review that we have understood or do understand, if those cuts were to double -- we have looked into the abyss, if you will. the service chief view is that is very dangerous for the country. all of us are looking at better and more efficient ways to do this while continuing to focus on these national security requirements, the demands of which are still out there, and will be in the future. will be in the future. you said you hope sequestration would not happen, but the military is fond of saying hope is not a strategy. you said you could not allow the cuts to go so deep as to risk national security. with respect, the question is -- if sequestration happens, just how unacceptable?

do you feel at this point that you could continue in office? >> [laughter] i did not think he was going to sequester me. >> seriously. there are serious cards on the table here. table here. >> i know what you're saying. i did not come into this job to quit. i came into this job to fight. my intention is to fight, to make sure that hopefully some common sense prevails, and that the committee that is established does its work in looking at these other areas of the budget. i also have to emphasize the dangers of sequestration and the impact it would have on our national defense. i think mike and i and others

have a responsibility to educate the leadership on the hill of the dangers if they allow sequestration to take place. i was involved in the conference on grammar. i know what sequestration is about. at that time, the decision was to use this tool as a way to force the right decisions. it has not worked. i do not think it will work. it was the approach taken in the past. past. congress made the decision not

to proceed with sequestering because the results would be so damaging. every time the trigger was about to take effect, it would be postponed. >> twice within a number of months, before you came here, you have had to say to the troops you do not know if they would get paid. i do not know if any of us can afford that happening. how can you command in a war when the troops come to you time after time and wonder if they are getting a paycheck? >> i tried to address that in some of my comments today. i think putting them in a position where they have to worry about this and their families is something we just have to make sure in the future debates does not occur. debates does not occur. we have a significant number of our younger force who are married and who are living paycheck to paycheck. paycheck to paycheck. that was a source of the

question the other day, when i was in afghanistan. all of that said, throughout my career, when pay starts being discussed, it comes to the top of the list for our troops. it always has. but i do not think we should put them in a position to have to ask that question. >> talk about the threat picture for a second. as you are doing this review, tell us how you perceive the security threats to the country. in your last job, you worried a lot about that every day. when you were in afghanistan on this recent trip, you said you thought al qaeda was on a strategic level almost defeated. obviously, there are offshoots. what are the threats to national security, and how do you match that to national security? >> that is one of the fundamental issues we have to deal with, to make sure we are prepared to confront those

threats. that is what the defense is all about. clearly, terrorism networks are still a threat, even though we have badly damaged al qaeda and their ability to conduct attacks in this country. they still remain a threat. there is a threat coming out of yemen, a threat coming out of somalia and elsewhere. that means we have to continue the pressure to deal with the threat of al qaeda. in addition, as mike mentioned, we have two wars we are still dealing with in afghanistan and iraq. we have responsibility to try to bring those wars to a stable conclusion.

that is what we are trying to do. in addition, we have threats that come from iran and north korea. we need to continue to watch them closely, with the danger be in the could achieve nuclear capability. in addition to that, the responsibility is obviously to be able to project power in the world in order to make sure that rising powers understand the united states still have a strong defense. strong defense. all of those are important national defense areas we have to pay attention to. to pay attention to. >> what is your level of concern with north korea and chinese military expansion? >> having visited china

recently, i think we are all concerned with sustaining continued stability in the region. north korea has historically generated provocations which included last year, where they killed 46 south korean sailors. killed 46 south korean sailors. i think they killed three south korean marines. the south koreans have taken a strong position they are not going to tolerate that anymore. south korea is a tremendously strong, longstanding ally. we support them. we continue to work with them to try to ensure that stability. that is a lengthy discussion i had when i was in china. there is concern throughout the region with the growth of china, the pace they are growing their defense, the capabilities, which in many cases are anti- access. they would like to see the united states stay out. we are threatening those issues. we could restart military to

military negotiations, a relationship, so we can have the discussions. there will be rough times. i hope we can sustain that relationship and build on it over time. it is an area of growing concern as china builds. we are speaking to china about strategy. how are you building this? >> the unity of the countries in the region, with respect to the south china sea, is important. we need those disputes to be settled in to support stability in the region. that is what we are focused on. that is what we are focused on. >> could you give us more details about who will be in charge of the negotiations with the iraqi government's? the iraqi government's? do you believe the mission can

last for more than two years? can you use contractors without u.s. troops? >> the general heading our forces there and the ambassador will be heading that. will be heading that. >> some members of the procurement sector there was not enough industry experience in the under secretary. in the under secretary. will his replacement come from that background? >> if he has a long and distinguished history on defense issues. having worked with him in the time i have been here, having worked with him in past capacities as well, i find him

to be someone who is serious minded and very capable, and a good manager for the department. that is the primary interest i have, is making sure the deputy understands his department and can help manage this department. i think he will do an outstanding job. with regards to his successor, i have obviously asked for a list of individuals that we think can replace him and that have an industry knowledge and i think is important to that job. >> i would add to that. i have been in and out of the acquisition in my career. i have watched secretary carter worked inside acquisitions for the last couple of years. i have been incredibly impressed with how he focuses on programs. he is a bright, capable guy. he has interacted exceptionally well with industry in that regard. his other focus has been on

those things we need in the fight. he has made huge difference. i think he will continue to do that, should he be confirmed in this new assignment. >> two questions on the war that has not been mentioned, libya. you have warned about allies essentially becoming exhausted in libya. i wonder if you think there are more steps the u.s. ought to take in the near term to break the stalemate. second, i think the request for additional forces from the nato commander -- has there been a decision on that? >> i am not going to comment now on what additional steps we may be considering here. with regards to working with our allies, i do believe nato has done a very good job at conducting the operations in libya. we have been working within the nato context.

we think they have made pretty good progress. the key, obviously, is for the opposition to continue to exert itself, to bring pressure on the regime. the combination of nato and the opposition has given us a better opportunity to put diplomatic pressure on gaddafi to step down. >> on the isr feed, i would not comment on what combatant commanders are asking for or not. i would say, with respect to isr, there is not a combatant commanders who would not like more. it is something we look to adjudicate and a portion all of the time. >> we have time for two more questions. >> of the alliance, ours is not

the only country facing serious budget problems. many of our european allies face them. can you talk about what you see the future of nato being and what the future challenges are four nato, considering how many of these countries are in tight financial times? financial times? >> bob gates i think made some excellent remarks with regard to the responsibility of the nato countries to be able to put up their fair share in order to make sure nato remains strong. i am a believer in those partnerships. i think it is not enough for the united states to maintain a strong national defense. it is important that other countries work with us to assume responsibilities that an increasingly difficult world is presenting, not just us but to other nations throughout the world. my goal will be to do what i can to strengthen the partnership with nato.

i think one of the keys is we have to approach that and try to develop some kind of resources for nato so that it can be strong for the future. i think it is important. i think it plays a very important role in terms of world security. i think more needs to be done to strengthen the partnership. >> congratulations. you have both been in you have both been in afghanistan and pakistan and have met the officials there, inside and outside. some of them perhaps are targeting high level officials in afghanistan. what role do you think india will play and is playing now as far as afghanistan and the region?

>> i came out of afghanistan a couple of days ago. with respect to threats growing in afghanistan, clearly we had some expectations that they would move to the spectacular assassinations. we do not dismiss them. they are very serious threats in that regard. the taliban suffered for the significantly last year. they no longer own the battle space. we expect this will continue and that is what they have moved to. we're working hard to protect our forces and provide security for the senior afghan officials which are targeted here. the second part of the question was -- >> how do you address growing security concerns?

>> as you know, i have felt it is a regional issue, a south asian regional challenge that all countries have. the united states has a global interest in the region. so do the countries that lived there. we need to continue to work together to address those challenges, or they are going to get worse. i am encouraged specifically with the discussions between pakistan and india in recent weeks and months. if i understand both governments, those are going to continue. i hope they do. i consider that to be a positive step. >> thank you, mr. secretary. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> in a few moments, a republican representative on the reauthorization of the federal aviation administration. >> congressional leaders agreed to fund the federal aviation administration, ending a -- in 40 minutes, a hearing on border security. then italian prime minister berlusconi and dresses the economy. -- addresses the parliament about the economy. on washington journal tomorrow morning, how the debt ceiling bill may affect defense spending. we will discuss tomorrow's new employment numbers with the deck -- deputy administrator of the small business administration. and we will be joined by a member of the brookings institution to look at how the proposed super commission to cut

federal spending compares to other commissions appointed by the president. washington journal is live on c- span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> the supreme court is available as a standard and enhanced the book and tells the stories through interviews with the justices themselves. this new edition includes an interview with the newest supreme court justice, elena kagan. add to your experience by watching multimedia clips from all the justices. available now wherever the books are sold. >> congressional leaders agreed today on a deal to fund the federal aviation administration, ending a stalemate that had furloughed several thousand workers and it stopped airport construction projects throughout the country. before that announcement, representative steve latourette spoke with reporters in the capital. this half hour contains language

some may find offensive. >> thank you for coming. i wish there was a more famous republican to stand in front of you today. i called my friend the speaker yesterday after a witnessed what i considered to be a disgusting display in the press conference in the capital and that occurred in the white house press briefing room yesterday with the secretary of transportation. i asked the speaker if he would be kind enough to invite all of you so i can share a perspective. i do not think any member of the united states house of representatives or senate thinks it is ok for the faa to not be extended while the differences are worked out on a long-term bill. however, i would also add that i was still a member of the committee when the last

extension or bill was passed. we have now had 20 extensions. to be completely frank about it, the last serious attempt to come up with a long-term bill in the last congress -- mrs. pelosi was the speaker. the chairman of the aviation subcommittee was a friend of mine. they could not get it done. one of the sticking points as to why they could not get it done did not have anything to do with labor issues or essential air services. there was a fight over something on the slots at national. those of you that cover aviation news know that reagan national has a perimeter rule and only a certain number of flights per day are permitted to go in and out of reagan national. there were some boats in the united states senate that

wanted to expand the number of slots to permit them to go outside the 1,600 mile radius and take nonstop plans to their districts rather than having to stop. i will avoid the obligatory minnesota airport joke when i tell you that was a nonstarter in the house of representatives because the proposal favored u.s. airways and they would have been awarded 48%. nobody agrees with the effects of that shut down. i think we are all agreed that there are 4000 furloughed workers. a number of them came to visit me yesterday. idle construction workers are about 70,000.

about $2.50 billion in projects that should be under way in airports across the country, including mine. there is a ticket tax that is going uncollected at the rate of $30 million a day which is not going into the aviation trust fund to pay for these projects. what is at dispute here, the essential air services -- their budget, which they tell me i might have screwed up -- they said it might be $200 million a year. for the purposes of this discussion, we will say no more than $300 million a year. already, as we enter our 14th day of the shutdown, the ticket tax lost to the aviation program has exceeded the entire cost of the essential air services budget for an entire year. why i wanted to give you a unique perspective on this is that i was offended by the way the secretary of transportation and the senate majority leadership yesterday attempted

to message this discussion. this is my 17th year in the house of representatives. to show you how geeky i am, i look forward to how the democrats and republicans are going to go home for the august recess and what the messages coin to be. our friends the democrats have settled on hostage taking. i doubt you will conduct an interview over the next few days where the words hostage- taking are not mentioned. they got into trouble with the media when they attempted to call some of our colleagues terrorists. the have pivoted in a classic message shift and are hoping that if they call us hostage takers some of the public may

connect the fact that terrorists sometimes take hostages, so we are terrorists at the same time. what i have to bring to this discussion is that last week ray lahood called me and asked for help with the republican leadership in unraveling this matter. i suspect it is because we are classmates from the class of 1994. that was the class of 73 republicans, the newt gingrich revolutionaries. i remember they thought we were crazy. we have nothing on the current crop of 87 freshmen. frank and i are the cochairs of the republican labor caucus. on the labor issue in the big bill, frank and i differ with the chairman on the legislation. frank and i and president bush

suspended the prevailing wage laws in the gulf coast after hurricane katrina. we worked to have those reinstated. when president bush had a dustup with air traffic controllers, i led the fight to get the controllers a good and decent contract. i could go on about the number of labor issues in which we have differed from a number of our republican colleagues. but also to read the national mediation agreement on the house floor. not to get to into the weeds, but frank and i and a number of other house members wrote to the nmb in support of a petition by the afl-cio to change the way unions can be certified under the national rail labor act. it was that since the 1930's if you had a thousand people in the union, a majority had to vote yes in favor of certification.

that seemed odd to us. the rule is now 50 plus one of the people who show up and vote. kind of like the elections we run in every two years. chairman micah's bill in the house attempted to put it back to the old rule. i argued on the floor that i did not think that change was appropriate. frank and i immediately in response to our friend's colorado went to work. we went to the majority leader and the speaker of the house. even the speaker boehner was busy last week with some things you might have read about, he tasked his chief of staff to negotiate with the folks in the senate to see if we could not the ground way to make sure this problem went away before the august recess. a number of offers went back and forth without result. we were not able to work it out. on monday, the vote of the debt ceiling bill, we went to the

speaker and barry again and said even though we would be in pro forma session we only have three hours were the house is going to be conducting special orders to get this done. mr. jackson empowered me to go over to the senate and indicated that we cannot leave town with the faa closed down. the speaker is willing to agree to a clean extension and shake hands on the issue of eas and other issues. i indicated we would move forward without prejudice, which meant we would continue to discuss them and everybody got back in the fall. i was advised that now i am going to be called a bipartisan sniper are rounder and have problems with senator coburn. we immediately ran to the cloakroom and the senate side and i talked to senator cockburn

by telephone. i will describe that conversation in a second. i think it is important to talk about who the hostages are and who is holding them. the house of representatives passed an extension of the federal aviation legislation on july 20 of this year. it has been sitting without action by the senate since that time. what there is -- there is no labor provision in it. there is no anti-labor provision in it. there is no poison pill. it is six pages long. i invite you, unlike some others that want to talk about it, that apparently have not read the six pages. what it does have is essential air service is language, an amendment. the essential air services

maybe monday in, but in order to provide air service to people who live in outlying regions, the federal government will subsidize and pay money to airlines if they offer flights from some of these more remote airports. a couple of things about poison pills and what the coburn language is and is not. the coburn language, people might say there must have been this release spirited debate in the senate that broke down by party lines and everybody was yelling. it passed the united states senate by voice vote. if this was such a big deal, surely democrats in the senate would have approved final passage of the bill because it contained that language.

87 senators, and i do not have the roll call, but you can't figure out who they are. when you get 87 senators in this town to do anything, it is an accomplishment. i assume in that 87 are a number of members of the democratic party. that language, to be clear, indicates that for those airports that are within 90 miles of a hub airport, rather than the american taxpayer subsidized and the cost of the ticket and paying the airlines to transport those people, we are going to ask those folks to get in their car and drive less than 90 miles to a hub airport. that is what this fight is about. there have been a lot of allegations that this is somehow a mean republican trick to target airports in democratic districts.

the coburn language that is in the senate bill passed by 87 votes deals with these 10 and only these 10 airports. just to walk you through them, here is where the community is. next to it are the members of congress, members of the house next to that is the largest air port you have to drive. you'd have to go to high killed international and it is 72 miles pictures until the language was adopted, let me continue on.

6715 passengers have got not a plan rather than getting on their car and going to the american airport. that paid one of the $7,000 -- $157 per passenger. their only two air force center in districts that are currently active by democratic members of the house. that is mr. higgins. this the only has word for word appropriate language, it added another requirement.

it's a very wide to deal with those airports of the 90 miles. look for they're paying more than $1,000 per person to subsidize the airport. you can see they're the greatest distance from the airport. go to the mayors want comedy would have to try to under 44 miles to the salt lake city international airport. how many people i've taken

advantage of that fax 471. the price that the american taxpayer is paying is $3,720 ticke. note are the 10 that we're want to pay 1000 bucks on. that brings us to 13. they were represented here. all three are in districts that are occupied by republicans. we spend a lot of time attempting not to be impolite.

that is why we say things like my distinguished colleague from across the aisle is surely confused on the subject matter at hand. it is time to not be impolite. proud graduate of the university of michigan. the good to watch a football game, when the red makes a call that is questionable, 105,000 people go bulls 6hit. it is time to call b.s. and strip away what is going on. the takers are not the teaparty. they're not the house republicans. they're not even anybody in the

united states, republicans are democrats. here are the two people that have had the ability since july the 20th to make this problem go away. iran to the court room to talk to ask himr cockburcoburn if he would permit the house to remove the language from the extension. he said it is the first piece of the legislation that the senate has adopted in 2011.

i have some sympathy for that argument. about is thelking fact that -- we will go to this one. we will take another airport. if west virginia as an example. if you do not want to fly out, you would have to drive 75 miles to the pittsburgh international airport. 20,000 people have chosen not to drive to pittsburgh. the american tax labor has paid $73 for every one of those 20,000 people.

to be clear, this cannot go away. i happen to be in favor of what signature is doing. this was adopted in the senate. it is in the f a bill. 87 senators voted for its. for people to talk about the fact that this is some kind of poison pill is not accurate. such a rockefeller as that we passed the house a bill that is pending. the senate has always had the power to open it in a day it shows suit. that decline to do that.

i'm not going to ascribe motives to the signature. i did nothing $73 a passenger is a lot of money. he also has had the ability to drop his objections to the house version. the construction would go on. america's infrastructure could be improved. he is my partner and all of these endeavors. he is not here today. he is in new jersey burying his mother. for our friend and classmate, the secretary of transportation to stand behind a podium in the white house press briefing room and waved his arms and say things like you just the to come

back from vacation, the house republicans are taking this matter hostage. it is vulgar. i think he owes him an apology. the last thing that has not been reported to my knowledge that people need to understand is that if people take the time to read the bill, the extension, on page 6 line 20 there is a provision that says waivers. it says the secretary may waive these airports with respect to any location. if the secretary determines that

the characteristics result in undue difficulty in assessing the nearest medium. in concert with the leadership, they indicated that they is called of the secretary. there is a provision. would you grant me a way very? the secretary has the unbridled authority to grant a waiver for one of these airports ticke. eels and to dig in its hill make fun of the congress, this matter could go away by passing

the house extension. that is where we are. senator harry reid has publicly indicated that it is embarrassing, that the american taxpayer is paying 35 under dollars to support people flying out of nevada. he has been willing to work with the speaker throughout this process. and did not believe this is the problem. >> you said you carry them off the road. >> he indicated that the speaker because this was someone that no and wanted to see would be willing to do the handshake of the new provisions on this issue.

he indicated the problem would be the senator. the author is never extensive. he would not remove himself. >> what are the chances that this issue will be resolved? are you hearing anything doin happening toward that direction? >> there are things continually happening. i would be shocked if this turns into the street without something happening. they can take the bills. they can work out something else which would require the spin that can come back to washington, d.c..

it permits the speaker of the house to indicate that we're not just spending legislative business on that day. we have to get everybody to agree. those are the two things that exist. i thought this of the words out before monday. it is not for these figures laslack of trying. >> he thinks will fold first acts i do not understand the roles. one senator can stop the whole country. he thought about the airport. -- you talked about the airport. we know how much criticism. to a degree, is that not

emblematic of what this issue is that so much of it was associated. they say the government's not been involved in that type of money for a facility. >> i know of no motive on his part that we would somehow put it together. this was an objective standard. is the unreasonable to ask them to get in their car and drive 90 miles or as or less. there is only that and mr. higgins in buffalo. they're the only two democratic

members that are involved. suggest ago by the other guys. it is a stretch. >> talk a little bit about the spirit. are there members that are holding a bag? obviously, you have it. is mr.? >> i think there are a number of issues. on this issue, i do not support the position. >> is it actually there? >> it is one of the issues that is holding it up. the amount of money is still being discussed. there's a disagreement on the level that should occur. if the labor issue went away, would we have a deal? >> i do not know. >> duty there is a possible compromise tax >> -- do you think there is a

possible compromise? >> i only have 16 republican votes. a number of them said if the rules were changed to merit the current rules, we can go for that. iran the traps with my friend. they do not seem to be jumping up and down. this is a compromise. that may be one path forward. >> did you call him this morning deaths ? >> the secretary did not call

me. he indicated he would go. he went on television. he is a friend of mine. i called him more than i call my wife. we talked a regular basis about where it was and what we read doing. he was very helpful. to turn on a dime when the democratic party has decided that this will drain the swamp, it is offensive to me. >> he said they will go out. will be resolved? does that have to be changed? >> is what they have had for close to two weeks. i think that is what is happen.

the speaker's stand willing and ready. this is something they have not negotiated on. they like it even less. they will be up against a time deadline. >> that is such a great question. >> i do not have been to thinkpad putting poison pills on straight extensions was a good idea. if he had chosen to but the language on this, we would not be having this conversation.

what i think it's disingenuous is that this language 87 senators voted for. some may not like it. this is not a poison pill. >> you said the speaker stands ready. did he give the indication that he was willing to move and get this done desks >> that is what he did last monday. we were there. the house is just the house. that is why i was passed to go speak to him. he made it clear. he will adjust to a clean extension that does not include the language. i do not disagree with him in

terms of philosophy. i live close to pennsylvania. the closest airport for me is 40 miles. if yes what the choice was, this is ridiculous. these figures are ready to solve the problem. i think it is full. people are somehow it did congress is at a 6% approval rate. we do not need any more bad publicity. this is not a house of representatives problem. we have done our job.

>> two more. >> do you know when this might give resolve? >> that is all but my pay grade. i'm not involved in those decisiondiscussions. the rumor in this town is field. is that it will be resolved. >> why not do it dyslexia's already objected. -- why not do it? >> he has already objected. we produce all kinds of legislation in the senate.

this happened during the debt crisis. they should either put the bill on the floor and vote it down or not. this notion that we have to continue to bid against ourselves in the house is ridiculous. thank you all very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> wii of johns by keith. in scenes like this -- it seem like a series of chess moves. >> they had agreed to pass the bill that the senators have for two weeks. included subsidies for rural airports in exchange for the house agreeing to not challenge

ray lahood from waiting those cuts. these workers will get back to work here. this is what they really want. two bills thattw were here. they disagree to pass more for the faa. this of the the 20 seconds. in the longer term bill, at the house that included some labor provisions and did some rules.

they had adopted to make it easier for railroads. they were vetoed direct from the president. when those negotiations stalled, they pass a short-term extension. this is when they answer did these pets. >> on the timing of this, why did the president and secretary of the hood make such a push for action on the bill after

congress had gone on for recess that's >> the secretary have been making the push senses began 13 days ago. the last short term expired at midnight on july 22. here is pushing for an extension even before that day. it did not get much attention. this move to center stage. everyone rams of their rhetoric. >> he mentioned it is a short- term solution. how quickly will they get back to where? >> probably write a way. there also be popping up against is a simmer 30 a deadline for a highway bill. >> keeping an eye on that

debate. it read his work. thank you for the update. >> a hearing on border security. in an hour, the italian prime minister addresses parliament about the economy. then there republican senator has the conservatives sitting conference. a look at violence on the border between sudan and the south sudan. a couple of live events to tell you about. president obama will be at the navy yard to talk about plans to help veterans we entering the work force. then at 12:45, the joint economic committee will get the jobs report from the bureau of labor statistics.

>> they have been off eight weeks already this year. did you get a week's vacation that i sure didn't. they tried to take a more irreverent view on washington and the u.s.. >> we're willing to step outside the box and try something different. she will talk about her network enter show sunday night on c- span. >> the head of customs and border protections says the u.s. is moving toward what he calls satisfactory control of the u.s.mexico border. allen burson was one of the speakers at the event hosted by the americans for progress. this is an hour and a half. >> i think we'll get started. welcome, everybody. my name is marshall fitz, i'm the director of immigration

policy here at the center for american progress. thank you all so much for coming. we obviously have a packed house, and i think it's going to be well worth your time. for the next hour or so i'll be moderating the conversation between our two highly distinguished panelists. we're going to be focusing on u.s.mexico border security, evaluating the past, present and future. the last 30 minutes i will open up to questions from all of you and so keep your questions ready. we'll pass the mike around at that time. so the focus of our discussion today is really on the most recent chapter in what is a rich and storied history at our southern border.

over the last 18 years, it has gone -- undergone what can only be described as a dramatic transformation, and we're fortunate to be joined today by two people who can tell the story of that transformation perhaps better than any two people in the world, same going to introduce them in a minute but let me start by setting the stage. if you listen to some politicians and some radio and tv personalities, you might think the last 18 years had never happened. the story that they tell is one that's built on sensationalism and half truths at best and frankly demagoguery or falsehoods at worst.

they describe porous borders where the borders are penetrated equally by international terrorists and economic migrants. they talk about spillover violence from the deadly cartel wars that are occurring on the mexico side of the border. they talk about our deserts being littered with headless bodies. and most importantly i think and what we want to address and tackle head-on today, they claim the federal government refuses to do anything about it. the facts belie each of those claims, attempted unlawful entries are at historic lows. the rates of apprehension are at historic highs. our border communities are safer than they've ever been. the crime rates have been on the decline for more than the last decade. and border cities of all sizes, in fact, have lower than the national average in terms of crime rates, in many cases well below the national average. unfortunately, though, sensationalism sells. and false as it may be, it does

tap into what is a continuing sense of i think national vulnerability in the most-9/11 era. criticalll the more for us, and this is the reason for our conversation today, to tell the real story of the evolution of the border the last 18 years. by discussing where we started and how far we've actually come, i think we're going to be able to help debunk some of the most persistent myths and shine a light on where we still need to go. i don't plan to gloss over the difficulties or challenges with managing a 2,000 mile border that spans four states and some of the most treacherous terrain in the country. i also don't want to ignore the unintended consequences that have come from this border buildup and really the singular subject of enforcement.

wille today's conversation help advance the public's understanding of just how far we've come in what is really a shared objective and that is to strengthen our national security and assert control over the border. and who better to have us explore this issue than doris meissner, the former commissioner of the naturalization and immigration service when this border buildup began in the early 1990's, and the current commissioner of customs and border protection, allen burson. i'm only going to briefly cover their bios because a full description of their accomplishments and their experience would frankly take most of the next hour, but let me just start with allen burson. he's been the commissioner of customs and border protection for the last year and a half or so, since march of 2010. he overseas c.b.p.'s 57,000 employees. it's a small city. more than 21,000 border patrol

agents. but commissioner burson has a long history well before he assumed this position at the southwest border. he was previously the assistant secretary for international affairs and the special representative for border affairs in the department of homeland security and also in the 1990's, the u.s. attorney for the southern district of california and the attorney general's southwest border representative. doris meissner is currently a fellow at the migration policy institute doing fascinating work and cutting edge analysis but as i indicated during the 1990's, from 1993-2000, the entire tenure of the clinton administration, she was the commissioner of the immigration and naturalization service and really oversaw this initial phase in the border buildup. but her rich, and frankly unparalleled experience in this field

goes back well beyond that. she was actually the acting commissioner and the third in line during the first half of the 1980's as well at i.n.s. so i want to thank you both for your extraordinary public service and for taking some time to be with us here this afternoon now. you represent really i think book ends on what is this most recent chapter in our southwest border history. and while i would normally go first to the commissioner as a matter of etiquette and good form with my first question, i think it's really important that doris have an opportunity to help kind of set the stage for us and describe to us what was really happening on the ground in the early 1990's and kind of what led to the genesis of this border buildup. let me start with you, doris. you think you could try to kind of provide a picture of what you walked into in 1993 and where you carried that forward?

>> well, thank you. i will do that, marshall. i want to begin, of course, by thanking you for such a kind introduction and for all of you coming today to listen to this program. it's always great to be on the podium with commissioner burson. and i'm looking forward to having this discussion. but the way that you asked me the question and the way you set it up, you have to indulge me in a little bit of personal reminiscing to sort of get this going because these stories are always policy stories and inspirational stories but ultimately they often come down to people and particular circumstances where people are concerned. so to take us back, and it seems in some ways we're going back to ancient history, but we are talking now about the early 1990's, the election of president clinton in november of 1992. the announcement of my being the designee appointment was in june of 1993 and my confirmation hearings were in october of 1993, so we're talking almost a year into the administration.

but after confirmation hearings in october i was sworn in in november of 1993. and that period and what was taking place in the fall and in the broader backdrop was very critical to understanding how it is that this issue of the border and border enforcement unfolded because during october, something took place in el paso called operation blockade. operation blockade was an idea put in place by the border patrol chiefs down there at the time whose name was a familiar one because he is today a congressman, is congressman silvestre reyes who was the chief of the border patrol and tried a new technique. his technique was basically to take all of his resources from across the el paso sector, added to by money for details, overtime, etc., and put them right on the border.

so the idea was overwhelming force moved forward at the border to see what would happen. and basically what happened was that it shut the border down. now, that made national headlines and national news just as i'm going up to the hill for confirmation hearings, and of course members asked about it. and pressed me very hard to pursue those kinds of tactics where border control was concerned broadly and we had quite a discussion about what at that time was called operation blockade. simultaneously, the attorney general who was janet reno and also was quite new in her position took a trip to the southwest border, went to san diego and saw the southwest border

firsthand and came back and said to me as i was coming in to my new duties, doris, you must do something about the border. sometimes that's the way policy is actually determined. and in this case, it was very clear that my first priority was to be to deal with the southwest border and particularly the circumstances as we saw them or as they were taking place in san diego because in san diego at that time proposition 187 was on the ballot in california, governor wilson was running a re-election campaign based on these failures of a federal government where immigration and immigration enforcement were concerned. and that was buttressed by lawsuits that had been filed by the federal government by the state of arizona and i believe the

state of florida, i don't even remember anymore. but there were several lawsuits suing the federal government for abdication of their enforcement responsibilities. so these are not new scenes, they've been around a while for a long time. different ways, different players. but the focus on the border was absolutely essential. so the question was what to do. well, o.m.b. said that it would support a new budget focused on the border, border enforcement fit very effectively with president clinton's broader anti-crime law enforcement agenda which was an agenda that was a centrist democrat kind of a priority. intended obviously to take the law and order issue away from the republican party and border enforcement fit into that broader frame. so i went to the border patrol and said you're the professionals, you know what's

needed, if we really had resources to do border enforcement, how would we do it? and they came up with a plan and with a strategy that led to changing the budget between november and december when it actually goes up to the hill in january, and i then spent a lot of time on the hill trying to convince members of congress to accept the strategy that we wanted to put into place to change the dynamics on the border. i remember in particular a meeting with senator feinstein who was essential, of course, because she was from california and our effort was to persuade her that whereas there would have been enough money in that budget for 600 new border patrol agents, could we please hire only 450 border patrol agents, i think these are the numbers. they're close. and use the rest of that money for equipment, technology, support, vehicles, other things that would make those border patrol agents be more effective. that was not an argument that had ever been made before and we had to really argue the point, but they gave us the chance, they did change the budget and we began, then, to set the standard for different kinds of budgets that were comprehensive budgets on how it is that you go about doing the border.

now, those new resources then allowed us to mobilize a couple of new operations and the first operation was operation gatekeeper in san diego which we announced in the fall of 1994, and that really, along withhold the line in el paso, which came at almost the same time really was, i think, the official start point of the buildup of the border that has continued through republican and democratic administrations in the congress as majorities in the congress as well as administrations in the white house continuously, from that time to today, this has been an issue of bipartisan support and engagement from the start.

now, what did we really try to do? what were the key characteristics of these operations and of a new approach to border enforcement. i think there are six critical characteristics. the first one is the idea of deterrence through prevention. that's the idea that silvestre reyes first demonstrated. and that is that you move your personnel and efforts to the actual line of the border in order to prevent people from entering in the first place. that is not what the border patrol had traditionally done. traditionally the border patrol had stood back to some extent, because there were not very many of them, and try to apprehend people once they entered the united states. that was a recipe for chaos and

it was a recipe for all kinds of corollary problems, the most vivid example of it was the famous soccer field in the san diego sector where every day as nightfall approached, you saw hundreds of people on the mexico side of this huge bowl get ready to cross at nightfall. the border patrol stood on the other side of the bowl and as people came across, the chasing began. and many, many more people obviously got through than were ever caught. so the idea was move your people forward, prevent people from entering in the first place, and then you will begin to get deterrence. the second major principle was

to concentrate your resources. the concentrating of resources meant to look at where the crossing patterns had actually -- were actually taking place. and it was very clear it had been this way for decades, that there were four corridors of high crossing corridors, they were the san diego sector, nogales, el paso and mcallen. if you could get control of those corridors and there were relatively few number of -- number of miles in each of those place. if you could get control of those quarters, you would be controlling 60% to 70% of the apprehensions that had been taking place, and those, of course, were the corridors that were linked to transportation routes in mexico and that's where the smuggling took place. that was what the network looked like. so the idea of concentrating resources in those high crossing

corridors seemed now to make perfect sense. but it was very different at that time and quite unheard of. what had happened prior to that time was what i always thought of as sprinkle around which is that every border patrol sector, every chief, every community ought to get pretty much a pro rated share of any new resources that came into the agency. that made everybody be happy. but at the same time, it never led to enough critical mass anywhere to actually make a difference. so the idea here was to concentrate and begin to gain control piece by piece by piece of parts of the border and to have more force available as you were gaining control, but then once you gained control, to be able to leave enough of a residual force in place to hold it permanently as you then began to move on to other parts of the border. the third big idea had to do with the mixture of resources. we called it the people equipment technology combination. it was a mantra, people,

equipment, technology. because the history, of course, was to just put money in personnel. and border patrol agents. that was the coin of the realm. but that persuading of people on the hill that we did initially to let us have a mixture of resources of course carried through, so the idea was to give those agents support staff, implant more sensors, put cameras in place, do night vision, all the kinds of things that are now very familiar, stadium lighting, come recontouring so you had more access for vehicles, have enough vehicles, and one enormously important innovation which was automated booking through a system called ident, bringing that kind of technology to the border. because up until this time huh a system called i-2 p 13 system, if there are any hold hands in the group, you'll know what this is, it was carbon copy 3-5 part form filled out by hand on the top of the vehicles by each person being apprehended. so one of the things that happened in operation gatekeeper and in the others of these operations was when people were

apprehended they were brought into stations, there was an actual booking operation in place. everybody's

fingerprints index were taken in order to create an automated system that kept the records of arrests and made it be possible to know who were the repeat crossers, who were the new crossers and have real information on what it was that was taking place. i think the fourth big principle had to do with mobilizing all of the department of justice resources. after all, this was i.n.s., it was in the department of justice, so to mobilize all of the justice department's resources beyond simply the border patrol and to engage in very intensive aggressive community outreach was a major feature of the border buildup. that's of course where allen burson comes into the pick, as you mentioned and that's how he and i got to know each other and work together because he was the u.s. attorney in san diego at the time. therefore the chief federal law enforcement official on the ground. of -- and the idea of course, that prosecution policy needed to support what the front line law enforcement agencies were doing and more than that, that there needed to be continuous communication and coordination

among all the federal -- all law enforcement agencies on the ground and with the government of mexico. we worked very hard at the national level with the embassy here in washington and in mexico, and allen and the chiefs and the border patrol officers on the ground worked very carefully with the consuls in those locations to stop problems before they began or to keep them from escalating when they did come up so that we didn't have international incidents and foreign policy stalemates over things that could be solved on the ground. that allowed us to do an enormous amount of outreach. there was a press release for every new agent that arrived in any sector on the border. there was a continuous drumbeat of what it was that was taking place of new things coming into sectors. i think i know every coffee shop in east county because we went

to community meetings, we were with editorial boards all the time. you can envision the city council room in nogales because of hearings that we held with the city leaders, etc. so outreach, communication, information, shaping expectations, preparing people for the changes was an incredibly important element of this all along the way. another thing that was extremely important had to do with the ports of entry. the ports of entry were viewed to be an essential part of an effective border enforcement effort. so that the terminology we used was idea of seeking borders that work. and borders that worked meant preventing illegal crossing but facilitating legal crossing. and the facilitating of legal crossing was extremely important and in some ways the most difficult task in enforcement because that's where the legal and

illegal come together. the more you tighten up between the ports of entry, the more likely it is that you're going to have pressures through the legal avenues of entry. so that needs to be part of the equation. and where that was concerned, we were most dedicated to helping the flows of legal traffic. we created what was called a 20- minute rule at the key ports of entry, the most heavily crossed port of entry in the world, allen knows it well, and was actually able to observe no more than 20 minutes' rule through a whole variety of techniques we used with staffing and so forth to bring people through the border.

that was combined with introducing the sentry lane concept which was the fast lanes that go through san diego and el paso and i think they're in a couple other places on the border. that actually required legislation because there was a prohibition in the appropriations against that. so we worked with the san diego delegation in particular in order to change that legislation to make it be possible to do fast lanes. and then finally, i think the final piece of it was the border safety piece because as there was increasing success in closing off and controlling the most heavily trafficked parts of the border, of course it pushed people to the less heavier crossed areas and those tended in many locations to be more dangerous areas. so you now saw people crossing in larger numbers in the old

time mountains. you saw them crossing in the deserts on the outskirts of nogales. you saw them in more dangerous parts of the rio grande river in south texas around mcallen. you saw them coming across the all american canal in el central. now, the border has never been a benign place. it has always been dangerous. there were -- there was a lot of crime and a lot of personal danger in the soccer field area, etc. the highway, the interstate coming up from san asadro, allen knows it well, always had big posters of a father and mother and child, pedestrians crossing, because people came through the port of entry and they went up the highway, they were not accustomed to what an interstate was like and they got killed. it was dreadful. so the issue of safety at the border has always been an issue. but what happened, of course, with these operations was that it heightened and intensified. the border patrol had always been engaged in rescue missions of one sort or another but now

became an explicit priority to have water be in all the vehicles, to have trained e.m.t.'s available constantly, to work with local officials, deaths at the border, for instance, had always taken place. they had never been counted. we made it an explicit policy to keep track of that, to work with mexico to respond to the families, to provide information, etc. resources were deployed over deserts, drones, aircraft, etc. -- we didn't have drones at that time, helicopters, six-winged aircraft in areas that were not heavy crossing areas but for the purpose of dealing with safety issues when there were dangerous issues. so i think that that question of border safety was one of the

adaptations that was made that wasn't envisioned at the beginning of the program but that had a very prominent part of it all. so there's a report card for all of this. we probably want to talk about that later. there certainly are lessons learned and things that we might have done differently but that's what it looked like from the front end. >> that's fantastic. i don't think anybody could have given us that type of -- the breadth of challenges that were faced and the thoroughness with which you guys approached it, and so, you know, what it does, though, is it suggests that while we had some really significant challenges that were just, you know, right front and center in 1993, you spent the next eight years, you know, adopting a series of initiatives and mechanisms to try to confront them, but still there were -- i mean, in 2000 you can look at some of the data about how high the apprehension rates still were, that there still was enormous pressure. commissioner, can you then fast

forward us or carry us forward from there to today because that was phase one, but phase two has seen perhaps even -- an even more tangible set of accomplishments. >> thank you, marshall. and i think doris has done a terrific job of setting the stage of where we were in 1993 when in fact in the same month i'd forgotten i was confirmed in november of 1993 and just so you don't feel alone, janet reno said something very similar to me. it was in december. but let's look at -- take what doris has laid down foundationally so well and move it up to the present time. when we describe the situation in 1993, recall that there were fewer than 3,000 border patrol

agents. from the entire length of the -- just under 2,000 mile border from san diego to brownsville, mcallen, texas. today we have just under 22,000, a commitment that actually started in 1994 in the budget deliberations that doris described and have continued steadily with the major points being by 2006, 2004 there were 10,000 border patrol agents and we have doubled the size of the border patrol in the last six years. . there was a dramatic impact on enforcement presence. this might be an opportune time to discuss why apprehensions, which are depicted on the map,

that he did say having watched a just under 20 years. it is the most coherent statement of what has happened on the border from 1993 to 2011 in terms of the change in the infrastructure. in san diego, in those early years, it is fewer than 450 agents for the entire sector. today there 3300 agents. stamen of passover. almost an increase by tenfold. the specific theory of action was to push people out of easy urban places to cross the border, but to push them out of

the situation we could simply walk across the border, get into the transportation networks and then move anywhere into the interior. in 1993, and the two places, there were really two places in which most of the migrants entered illegally, a san diego and the plaza. it is not very difficult to walk across the bridge or wade across their river. or to stand at the soccer field until the surge across the border. there were two in a chance. every house was surging by. he did not have to go into difficult places to cross picket if you follow the

progression of the traffic of illegal migration, we'll see a basic phenomenon of squeezing the water balloons so that when you have sufficient personnel in san diego, five years later the traffic had moved out a san diego and into the valley immediately to the east. in fact, it moved into the next sector, which is arizona.

.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] as they are dragged into a resumption of the northern war against them. we discussed this war during the subcommittee's june 16 hearing on south sudan. at that time, the fighting in southern kordofan was as

horrific as any attacks waged by the khartoum government. people who have seen the carnage first hand will reveal the extent. we'll discuss ways to address the suffering of this particular region of sudan. i would like to yield to my colleague for any opening comments. >> thank you very much. let me commend you, chairman, for calling this very important hearing. i just rushed here from an earlier meeting that we -- that was called on, the problem of somalia and the drought that is going on there, and so i appreciate the tcharme giving the aention -- the chairman giving the attention to this region of course with our pressing problems here in the

u.s., we know we have a primary obligation to our nation, to make it strong and to correct some of the errors that we have made in the past. we still cannot forget that we have a world that is really being shattered by unshared bread and that we have a responsibility still as it says in the bible to be our brother's keeper, and so, i know that it is difficult to focus on areas outside of our immediate problems but i do appreciate the chairman keeping the issues before our nation because we do, i believe, have an obligation. less than a month ago, we witnessed the birs of a new nation, the republic of south sudan. i was among the delegation present at the ceremony. i witnessed the joy of the people of south sudan that day,

many decades of struggle, struggle before independence. struggle since the independence in 1956, struggle with the civil war that broke out in 1989. struggles that continued until the c.p.a. was signed in 2005 and struggles up until the conclusion of the referendum on july 9, 2011 when independence was announced and celebrated and so it has been a struggle for the people of south sudan and the struggle continues. the sudanese people accomplished a great deal in their celebration and it is well deserved and certainly overdue. the peaceful nature in which 98.8% of south sudanese voted

for their independence, was commendable. so serve as a witness to what sudanese people are capable of, as a matter of fact, the voter registration strange was probably in excess of 90% also and it's recorded that this turnout, even exceeded the turnout of south africa when they had their first election when mr. mandela was a candidate for president of a new south africa. so we have to really commend the people of south sudan for their determination and their appreciation for democracy. unfortunately, though, persistent violence in south kordofan and other border areas also remind us that important work still remains to be done to ensure peace within both countries, north and south sudan, and a peaceful

relationship between the neighboring states. in june, the subcommittee convened to discuss the challenges that the pending nation of south sudan would face. we're now on the other side of the independent celebration and are witnessing some of the challenges that southerners living in the north are facing. in today's hearing we will be focusing on the disputed region of south kordofan and the human rights violations that are occurring at the hands of president bashir and against the nuclear bombian people. noobian people. -- nubian people. in 1956, the lines were drawn. had they been drawn today, we would know that south cord phenomenon and abeye and the

mountains would indeed be a part of south sudan along with the s.p.f.m. however, the popular consultation has not taken place. the referendum and abeia has not taken place. the elections in south cord phenomenon were not fair and free so we have problems that persist today and in today's hearing we will be focusing on the regions of south cord phenomenon and the human rights violation occurring from

president bashir against nuba peep. -- people. they are using weapons including helicopters, fighters, bombers, to hunt the nubans.

there was at that time was the front line and i saw the first hand suffering of the people in that area when i returned, i introduced a resolution saying that the people of south sudan had the right of self-determination. with deep sadness, i remember visiting abyei in may, 2008, just after the town had been attacked and burned to the ground by the bashir forces and progovernment military. upon return, i introduced a resolution to highlight this hideous act of violence that continues with the war. in late may, sources invaded

abyei. killing over 100. he does not want to have a war that would sbeer fear with a resolution of the crisis. we must remember the human cost of these acts of these acts of aggression. people of abyei and southern kordofan and throughout sudan have suffered. for many, the violence and oppression continues. let us also not forget the ongoing to cry sis in darfur where many remain in displaced camps and malnutrition and without any way to support their families because of the oppressed government of the bashir people and the military tactics. i along with my fellow sudanese

caucus co-chair sent a letter to president obama urging him to condemn the violence in southern darfur. we must combat these human right ace abuses including possible sanctions and other accountable measures. the proposed foreign and aid budget cuts would greatly hinder our ability to provide relief to these affects areas and to help bring stability to the region. that's why foreign operations -- i proposed an amendment that would have increased funding for the u.n. peace-keeping budget for the president's request of $1.921 billion and to have funds to specifically address these atrocities we are now witnessing in southern card

kordofan. i'm encouraged to see that president obama announced a new initiative directing a comprehensive review to strengthen the united states ability to prevent mass atrocities. this will include the creation of the atrocities prevention board that will have the authority to develop prevention strategies and aid the u.s. and its allies to respond to early warning signs. the president has also issued a proclamation barring those who participate in war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of human rights from entering the united states of america. i applaud the president for remaining engaged and combating the atrocities occurring in sudan and around the world. on july 9, people celebrated with the people of south sudan.

people here have played such an important role in what we see today. so we have a -- we are a critical partner in the sudan peace process, as we all know. while our efforts are fruitful, our work to ensure stability is far from complete. we must remain engaged and commit our support to the democracy rule of law. thank you very much. >> for a statement, i recognize anne. >> thank you for calling this extremely important emergency hearing. just reading the testimony for today's hearing is a sobering reminder that the suffering of the sudanese people remains ongoing going. we cannot forget the fellow

sudanese across the border. they have been beset by disease and slaughter and heartbreak for decades. these people who were responsible for the darfur genocide are still in positions of authority, still carrying out their horrific war crimes and now with the struggles over abyei, the crisis in south kordofan is escalating and it is destabling an already fragile region and that means the cost of thousands of lives and presents a serious threat to those in thes and contested areas and also to the newly born south sudan. thank you to our witnesses for being here today. thank you mr. chairman . i yield now. >> the chair recognizes chairman wolf. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman . i will just be very, very brief. one, i want to thank the

witnesses. two, i want to personally thank both you and mr. -- for having this hearing so fast. when the two of you got together, i think i personally want to thank both of you. i think it is incredible, your interests and how the two of you work together and both deserve a lot of credit. last thing, i would just say to the church in the west, i think the church in the west has to really do a better job of advocating the persecuted church. i see one of the witnesses representative richard -- who i read his books over the years and visited him once in romania. the silence of the church in the west is actually incredible. when i think of what is taking place, to believers in that part of the country, that part of the world and others, and yet i hear total, complete silence, it is sort of incredible. hopefully this can motivate not

only the administration but also the church, the leaders of all the denominations. we'll see what comes out of this hearing. i want again to thank you for just working together, getting this thing done right away. somebody comes up, an idea, and 48 hours later we have got a hearing. thank you very much. i yield back. >> thank you very much, let me introduce our panelists today. bishop andudu adam elnail. of south kordofan. he chairs the committee for this region. he has been outspoken and courageous. in a recent interview, bishop andudu writes if they had been -- not been in denver receiving medical treatment in early

june, he might be in a mass grave now. that's how volatile and how dangerous the situation is today and again, we are deeply indebited that he is here and flew here -- indebted that he is here and flew here. very, very important insight and will be a rallying cry for action. we'll then here from br bradford phillips who serves as president of the persecution foundation. two nonprofit organizations dedicated to serving the persecuted church and i would point out that in 1980, i read the book "torture for christ." cement years of being tortured. that's what got me involved in

religious freedom issues after reading that book. he is one of the leaders, the voices of the martyrs. he is founder and president of the persecution project. since 1998, he has helped document acts of genocide committed by sudan. he recently spent two weeks interviewing victims of war crimes against the nuba. the reason we're here is his urgent plea on monday that this congress bring life, scrutiny and hopefully a plan to mitigate this terrible, terrible worsening situation in south kordofan. he is also the founder of 100 wells that provides clean water to darfur refugees and we'll hear from dr. luka biong deng. he is the head of kush inc.

he has published numerous articles addressing these issues. he is also founding member and chairperson of the board of directors of the abyei committee. dr. deng serves as minister of cabinet affairs for the government of sudan and he is also working for the world bank and southern sudan centers for statistics and evaluation. again, thank you all for being here on such extraordinaryly short notice. i would like to begin with the bishop if i could and please proceed as you would like. >> thank you mr. chairman for calling this emergency meeting on human rights and human security in my home region of south kordofan. >> if you could just pull the microphone a little closer or

make sure that -- >> i want also to thank the ranking members of the leadership support for the nuba people. as well. i'm here to testify about all my people and my members of my church and the -- they just give me all the time is the news from the ground. i want to start with what happened in my town, where the atrocities are taking place. my house was shot with the guns and my chaplain was able to escape through the window and also -- the cafe was burned down. and the atrocities taking place, not only the christians but also the muslims.

so and one of my -- told me very clearly he has seen the earth mover in south school of -- and digging to -- and in the evening they brought bodies in the location and the militia -- people putting on the uniforms and also some people walking with -- and people were put in the body bags and they were put on the beach. so he has seen this personally and i talked to him many times and i believe really what he is saying. and also this is -- consistency with the image that was taking

with the satellite and really i -- for the united states to deploy its own satellite so it can prevent the eyewitness and also for the government -- with a marked grave that was found. and to find out exactly what is taking place. and in the nuba mountains now, the children are killed, the women, the bombing is -- the civilian -- the war of horror. so to really -- ethnic cleansing in the nuba mountains. every day i have been -- from different cities of south kordofan and we are experiencing people running in the mountains and -- i have given a -- for the people just

eat greens. eat greens and there is no food and at the same time this is very important time for us in the nuba mountains. we are cultivating. if you have not died by the bombs, we will not have any food and then also you will die. that's why we are calling for the u.n., the government and the other international communities and the african union. this is the people that help us to -- and we are very grateful for the position of south sudan, but at the same time, the nuba mountains is left struggling and i want to -- the u.s. government really to go farther and to secure our people in nuba mountains. really we need the government and international community to stop this bombing.

they are killing people. if this plan can be stopped to spare the lives of people. it is not thrown on the military but it is thrown on the civilians and in places where there is not any -- of the -- and at the same time, the government is not allowing the -- access. they were forbidden to get food. i'm also calling on the international community and the u.s. to make any ways for the humanitarian to get access to give aid of food and also to give -- for the injured people in the nuba mountains. and at the same time, the u.n. troops in south kordofan, they

were threatened by the government or bashir. they have been told they have to move. they were not allowed to go and get -- the mass grave. really want the increase and also effective, keepers in the nuba mountains. the people of nuba, they want peace. but they are forced to fight to defend their people. nuba people have fear. they don't know what is going to happen. they fear they are forgotten because nothing is done there tangible. to give them the freedom. and bashir and heron, these with people wanted by international criminal court.

they are the same people. we -- in other parts of the region, like south sudan, they start war in dar for. -- far fur. -- darfur. this is a -- the government we're dealing with for over 20 years. this is a government that is just killing people. their own people. and people who continue to engage in the -- will be broken. we have not alone calling for the international community to help us but all the people. in the world. like here, we have the petition. over half a million of the people around the world that are striving and calling for the stop of ethnic cleansing in the nuba mountains. so we are calling for real

action in the region of the nuba mountains. thank you. >> bishop, thank you very much for your testimony and for your urgent appeal to the united states and the world and the intention of the community to respond and to do so immediately. mr. phillips? >> chairman smith, members of the committee, thank you for inviting know testify in this hearing on the republic of sudan. my name is brad phillips and i'm here on behalf of two organizations that have a relatively long history working in sudan. first is persecution project and second is voice of the martyrs. much of the emphasis has been on sudan for the last decade. my very first trip to sudan

brought me to the nuba mountains after reading the reports of the genocide that was happening there, alex had written reports, i had heard about the extermination of more than half of the nuba population and so that was my first introduction to sudan, and at that time, as was with my most recent visit, there were bombings going on every day that was part of an ariel campaign of terror against civilians. mr. chairman, i realize that you and your colleagues are only now concluding a very busy time concerning the recent debate on raising the debt ceiling so i'm extremely grateful that you have taken time to hear about this very important issue, which is a nonpartisan issue, the issue of genocide currently being perpetrated in the nuba mountains in the kordofan state

of the republic of sudan. i know you have had opportunity to hear testimony from my friend roger winter who has acted in many different capacities and during his last testimony on june 16, he reported to you on this war of genocide now being waged in the nuba. i'm here to say that everything he presented in his testimony about southern kordofan state is true. i've seen it with my own eyes. less than three weeks after mr. winter's testimony, i was in the nuba mountains for 12 days. i fully understand that what is happening now in the nuba mountains requires some context and some background and i appreciate very much the long history that you have had mr. chairman and ranking member payne and congressman wolf and so many others on this issue. but for the sake of others in

1989, through a dude that, -- coup deetat. as soon as the national islamic front came to power, it began an intensive -- in southern sudan, the blue nile and the nuba mountains region of southern kordofan state and more recently in darfur. during the 1980's up until the -- 1990's, up until the peace agreement was inside in 2005, people, most of whom were christian, were slaughtered. but in the nuba mountain the 1980's and 1990's, roughly half the population, an estimated 500,000 people were slaughtered in a similar genocide and all of us, i think, are aware of

the genocide that took place in darfur in 2003 that claimed an estimated 400,000 lyes. the primary resistance came from the splm led by its charismatic leader. dr. john was a christian from south sudan but he desired freedom for all the sudanese people and his vision was called the new sudan. after more than 20 years of fight, they fought the national islamic front to a standstill and with the help of international pressure, much of it led by the united states, they were forced to negotiators. and all of that was consummated in january of 2005 with the comprehensive peace agreement signed in kenya. this agreement provided them with referendum vote on self-determination.

while we do celebrate with south sudan, its independence from this murderous regime, we must not forget many groups in the north were not given the same guarantees it is a south, specifically the i.b.a. region in southern kordofan state, the nuba mountains also in southern kordofan and the blue nile state received implicit promises for self-determination and for as well as some explicit promises in this agreement. but subsequent actions have shown that the n.i.f. really had no intention of granting self-determination to these margin alliesed areas. under the c.p.a., the nuba were guaranteed a free election. it most recently was supposed to have taken place in may of this year.

where by elected leaders would interview their constituents and determine what they wanted to do in regard to their future. this hopefully would pave the way for regime change for some kind of power changing arrangement in khartoum that would recognize and respect the rights of all the diverse communities in the southern kordofan state. as of today, the popular consultation that was propsed by the c.p.a. has not taken place. more over, bashir star stated if they could not get their way to the ballot box, they would lose the ammo ball. he said he would smoke the nuba people out of the mountains using tanks and cams. this was really a deck layers of war on april -- declaration of war on april 27. earlier that month in april, as

an intimidation tactic and i believe as an attempt to draw the splm into war before the election, bashir sent militia forces to an area which is the home of the new commander, the home area of the commander. and 27 members of his family were murdered in this attack. he didn't take the bait and he went through with the elections. when the elections finally took place, the evidence of large scale vote rigging was reported, yet even with the evidence of vote fraud, bashir jumped a few steps and sent down his advisor to declare their candidate, an indicted war criminal, the winner without any verification process taking place. the newly elected governor then

ordered all splm forces out of southern kordofan by june 1. this order was in direct violation of the c.p.a. which allowed them to operate in southern kordofan up to 90 days after the close of the interim period on july . this attempt to cleanse the north before the july 9 independence of south sudan was also carried out in the disputed region. forces invited on may 20 forces most of the population out. some estimates of the number of refugees from this area were as high as 100,000. it became obvious to all watching these events unfold what was happening. it is no wonder that the splm refused to disarm or to leave southern kordofan state. when the order was not obeyed by the june 1 deadline, they

tried to disarm them by force and this was the beginning of the war on june 5. on june 6, they attacked the capital murdering potentially thousands of civilians in the subsequent days. they also pulled out an old card from their deck, which is the daily indiscriminate ariel bombardment of civilian targets. using mig fighters and helicopter and jets, they launched a campaign from the skies. i've included some pictures of these bomb locations which i think are playing now on the screen. bombing civilians. i personally arrived in the nuba on july 4 in one of the few private charters that was flying to nuba since all humanitarian flights had ceased and during my visit, had you want to spend time with and interview more than a dozen of

people who had escaped during the first few days after the ethnic cleansing started and all of whom shared the same basic story, one which the ref rend shared and which you will hear from others. sudan armed forceses went from house to house searching for any nuba citizen, anyone who was identified with the church or anyone who was associated with the splm. anybody fitting either of these three descriptions was either killed on the spot or arrested and never seen again. fortunately, a few thousand residents had shelter at the commound but the commound after being filled and i have heard many stories of people being killed at the gates of this compound.

that they entered the compound and took nuba people out of the compound while they stood and watched. i spent time with reverend andudu. another escaped within a few days after it started, and what he said to me, i have submitted the interview to him to this committee. they are targeting the church in this war. he received a call from some of his friends after first escaping and then making his way out of the county. they basically told him that he was on the list, which is what the bishop here has told me as well. meaning that if they find him, if they catch him, they are going to kill him. reverent luca's testimony corresponded with so many others that i have seen.

i just mentioned one story of a man that i have meant whose fingernails were pulled out. his genitals were crushed. he was dragged behind a tank. he was in and out of prison for eight years and what he pointed out to me was this is the very same regime that did this to him that is now bombing his village and we saw the planes passing over three or four times a day. luka said they do not distinguish between a christian and a mep of the splm political party. they say assume if you are sews crated with the church that you must be spl m&s pla. this was the testimony that we got from so many of the pastors. they asked them for a list of all the members of their congregation because if you're part of the church, you're the enemy.

consequently, even today, the pastors and church leaders are being specifically targeted as leaders and recruitors of the splm. another pastor i interviewed was arrested and tortured in some of the most horrific ways and as mentioned, he was forced to divulge the names of his church members. during his capture, which i have already mentioned, they pulled out his fingernails and toenails and hung him by the neck and they crushed his genitals. they poured gasoline on his hands and they set them a light. and they did many other cruel acts. he was a prisoner for a total of eight years. although he lived several hours from the area where reverent luka was from, his testimony was the same. another church leader that i met in a completely different

area was stabbed 10 times. his name was musa. they stabbed him 10 times. he told me that he was killed along with seven other elders and postars in his church. they -- pastors in his church. they destroyed his church. they stabbed him 10 times. they believed that he was dead but he survived. each one of the people they killed they cut off their ear as a trophy to go and take back to show what they had done. and his message to me was again, that these are the same people that are bombing us today. these are the same people that are cutting off people's heads and sluthering people like animals and if they have their way, they are going to exterminate us. i heard these stories over and over again during the 12 days that i was in the nuba mountains. the only difference is that the

splm has clearly taken the initiative and taken the fight as a word to their enemies led by their leader, commander, the people of the nuba mountains are fighting back and have won some impressive victories on the ground and this has occurred without any significant help from the international community. this determined resistance by the splm in the nuba mountains is a popular uprising. the only thing that has prevented another rwanda-type genocide from happening. but time is running out. most n.g.o.'s operating under the umbrella pulled out. the rainy season in south sudan has effectively closed supply routes to the south until november and december. daily bombings have terrorized the local populations.

cultivation is not taking place during this crucial planting season. they are cut off and facing a severe crisis within 60 days unless relief flights are allowed to recommence. this will not happen while gunships continue to patrol the skies. they refuse to allow human being observers to document what is happening, which should not surprise anyone. it is absolutely essential that the international community bring pressure to bear on the united nations to immediately declare humanitarian emergency in the nuba mountains and to impose a no-fly zone to stop the bombing campaign and allow humanitarian access so that relief flights back into the region may resume. im conclude by stating there is more than enough evidence to justify speedy action on the part of the united states government and the international community to

address have dire situation in the nuba mountains. the president of sudan is an indicted war criminal. the current governor of the nuba mountains also an indiagnosticed war criminal because of his role in the darfur genocide. he was the one carrying out the genocide in the 1990's. these many make gaddafi look like a choir boy. many seasoned reporters from the "new york times," "time," al-jazeera english, independent and others who have visited the nuba mountains. some were with me during my time there. they brought back pictureses and testimony on the crimes being committed now against the nuba people. i've included some of these articles with my testimony and i ask the question how is it

then that the u.s. government still claims there is not enough evidence to charge them with war crimes? why does the u.s. government deal with the n.c.p. and the victims of their crimes with a moral equivalencey? we know what they are doing in darfur and abyei. they pursue other villains who have not killed 1/100 of the people that bashir and his regime are responsible for. 3 million lives and counting. when will we say enough? >> thank you very much. that is very powerful testimony. dr. deng? >> i thank you for inviting me to testify today. good morning.

>> if you could pull that closer and make sure the microphone is on. >> thank you for inviting me today and good morning chairman smith and ranking member payne and other members of the committee. it is indeed an honor for the opportunity to testify on such a critical issue. the issues facing sudan, southern sudan and the people of nuba mountain. i am currently serving as an exi of kush inc., an organization trying to promote the stability between africa and the u.s. but indeed

focusing on i.b.a. and southern sudan. importantly, i was negotiating the -- of the two areas. the people of nuba mountain not only participated in the -- for their rights but -- the choice was to have the right of -- that did not get it. having the consultation as a step to per sue the right of -- but i want to -- before i became the director of kush, i

served as a minister of -- and on the 21st of may this year, after bashir and his government invaded, and when he invaded, i saw thousands of people marching out, crying children, and i saw a pattern, a clear pattern of a leadership focusing on selectively targeting its own people. it started with darfur but coming through to i.b.a. through what you have seen today in southern kordofan. a clear case of ethnic cleansing. people being displaced and --

so i decide to -- what i saw. and i -- just an example of the pattern that is happening along the border. we should look at the border between the north and the south. what is happening is unacceptable. and we should remember also there is another region, that is the blue nile. i appreciate the opportunity you have provided me today and to discuss the situation in southern kordofan and others.

that's why i would like to look as those issues as well. i think the people of southern sudan, when you talk about -- we should look at the -- in that region of southern sudan. and i think when we talk about the relationship between the north and the south, southern sudan is a reflection of -- to gain independence. echoing again what happened to people we are seing in nuba mountains and i.b.a. and definitely in darfur. but the most important for you, for us, i think it is critical

that the emerging or the continued leadership in northern sudan -- going the radical elements coming and the nuba government and directing the -- echoing -- now they have -- sudan, only having two elements, muslims and arabs. you can see emerging in that country, in northern sudan. personally, i feel what is happening in southern kordofan is not only ethnic cleansings a you have put, it is indeed a crime against humanity. i put it in that context

because it would help us to focus more. it is about the people and about the conditions of the land. i came 10 days ago from a -- area and i saw the atrocities affecting the people. two months ago, 100,000 people got displaced and when i saw them again, no shelter. children are dying. because of one african in khartoum. but i feel also with this statement also in northern sudan, it is critical for -- to look for the opportunities in sudan.

these are the only credible political party that i see as an ally -- in order to transform the system in khartoum because these are the people who fought the war and who believe truly -- committed to peace. but what we are saying is that these people, because of what's happening in southern kordofan, -- and that would affect eventually the people, the civilians. it is very important for us to take into account what's happening. i am negotiating with the sudan

government in -- the offices of the african union, and to understand what happened in the nuba mountains in sequence what happened. the people of nuba mountain -- for the public consultation. but you know congressman payne, the election in the nuba mountain was -- with the hope to dilute -- but it is important also that even the blue nile, the consultation was supposed to be done by the

people. but before that, the public consultation, the nuba people, the blue nile, are not satisfied, it should be discussed. what happened is -- the member of the south -- an assembly that would not -- nuba mountain. because members of the -- that is supposed to be there after the ninth of july. it is important to know also that n.c.p. -- to disarm the -- in these two areas. the commitment was for us to have this -- to continue july 9, 2011, but decided to attempt

to disarm them. that's what triggered the conflict that we are seeing today. it is important also to know that during the negotiations an agreement was reached between the -- and the n.c.p. for an arrangement so that the people -- people continued to die, though. what happened, the n.c.p. rejected that agreement and that agreement was -- n.c.p. about the forces. in the same pattern, i also want to share with you what is the i.b.a. we agreed of having -- and in

that agreement, the protocol, we agreed there would be a commission, that commission was formed and we agreed it should have a final binding -- for the founders of i.b.a. we -- deliver that and go to the arbitration. we went to the federal court of arbitration and for the sake of peace, to define the area for the i.b.a. when the court rejected it, said this area belongs to -- we agreed with the n.c.p. that we should be able to appoint the candidate of the commission and

we -- i mean by then, to appoint -- the i.b.a. commission. they refused. when we come to a -- they invaded. because we failed to condemn we asked the african union to come up with a solution. may 20, 2011, and -- the leadership, honoring what ever you agreed with. and i think with that one in mind about what they have been doing, i think it is very important to look at the south because these people, the hope

for them and the nuba mountain, darfur, a new nation has been formed now in south sudan. it is very important to know this is a pride to all of us. a collective -- that we did together. how much people will describe this country, i am seeing in that country a passion to build a new nation and as mentioned by congressman payne, i think it is there is a level of difficulty and that's why we're seeing have been a viable sudan is important. i think it is very important that we should focus on africa.

>> i want to conclude with some messages. definitely i would like to say there is a leadership problem in sudan. and this leadership in sudan is a liability. it is a liability to the continent. it is a liability to the people of southern sudan. and i think it is very important for the world to focus attention on what is happening in sudan. because if we don't do it now, there is going to be a huge crisis in the region. in the north but it is going to affect this region and the affect this region and the continent.