with that, i recognize the ranking member for his opening statement. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. to date, this investigation has been characterized by a series of unsubstantiated accusations by members of congress with no evidence to support their claims. today's preceding is the latest unfortunate example. i often say that i would like our committee to operate more like a courtroom by gathering evidence in a responsible and impartial way. before drawing conclusions or making judgments. if this were a courtroom, the first question to ms. lerner would have been -- how do you plead? ms. lerner would have been able to state her innocence, and she never would have been forced to ,ake the stand, swear an oath

or publicly assert her fifth amendment right. in this case, ms. lerner's attorney wrote to inform the committee before the hearing that his client would exercise her fifth amendment right. unlike in a courtroom, the chairman issued a subpoena forcing her to appear. made her stand and swear an fifthand challenge her amendment assertion by posing questions to her anyway. now the chairman wants the committee to conclude as a legal matter that ms. lerner waived her right because she made a statement or fessing her innocence. -- professing her innocence. if this happened in a courtroom, the judge would likely hold a hearing on this question before making tell so would repair written briefs with legal and his circle recedent before

making a determination based on .he facts and based on the law again, this is not happening. the chairman is going about this in reverse. he is asking the committee to vote on his resolution first without taking basic commonsense measures to help committee members, republicans and democrats, make reasoned and informed decisions. let's look at the evidence now before the committee. exhibit a is the letter from lernererner -- ms. clearly invoking her fifth amendment right. exhibit d is a letter from her council on may 38 citing the dent by the

supreme court, explaining that, and a witness compelled to appear and answer questions does not waive her fifth amendment privilege by giving testimony proclaim her innocence. the chairman never responded to letter to my knowledge or legal precedents it contains. i ask this the in the record. >> it is already in the record. hibit c stating i do not leave her introductory profession of incidents -- innocence constitutes a waiver of her fifth amendment rights. i asked that that document be entered into the record. >> without objection. >> exhibit d is a statement from daniel richmond who served as the chief appellate attorney

in the united states attorney's office in new york stating, as a matter of law, she did not waive her privilege and would not be found to have done so by a competent at a record. >> why a competent federal court. >> all conclusions on your list will be included. letterbit e is a requesting an additional here he canwith experts so members consider this in a responsible way. i ask that document be in the record and i understand it will be. with all this information, what is on the other side? >>t sherman has a memorandum that chairman has a memorandum that he has declined to let other committee members say. the memo is not in the record before us. inmy letter on- wednesday- the gentleman please

yield before us. the instruction was that it cannot be released publicly since house counsel represents us. you are certainly free to have each individual member as long as they are bound by the same understanding. our counsel is subject to attorney-client privileged, and you received separate advice from house counsel. a decision you make relative to the normal rules. >> i reclaim my time. to pay deference to the chairman and two staff memos. 26, is a memo dated june p.m. 8:07

i am reading it and will take such time as is necessary. i asked you not distribute it like to all members. next it says it is reasonably foreseen that a wide distribution could lead to public disclosure. the staff member that gave you this gave you this without a prohibition on any one of your members reading it. the concept would be that members could predict, could seek independent counsel, every member on both sides and go to house counsel and seek an independent decision on their art. we simply were recognized and we did not public disclosure. as you and i would not want published his closure of any attorney representing us. >> are you saying, because i have not die vaults to one - divulgedf this -

one syllable of this to my members. you are saying my members can have -- >> your members can seek counsel directly and your members can read it, and suzanne is well aware of that. we are -- you and i may be rusty, but we have both have good counsel. the fact is every single member of the house can seek house counsel, and you did seek and received separate note from house counsel. this only implies not to lead to public disclosure. >> i want to make sure that -- i want now from our members, since i made a mistake. i was under the impression you were saying that my members could not see it, seeing what

they are going to be relied on from counsel. i asked that it be distributed to our members now. and it not be disclosed to the public. >> i would caution members if they want to see any further, they can, but this is attorney- client from which, this is your house of attorneys at counsel, but their sightings are available to any member. i am trying to stay within the bounds that i thought were set. ask, once want to -- they read it, is that out of bounds? you follow what i am saying? in other words, my members are now going to be reading what you depended upon to hold this hearing. >> this is a markup. the resolution is available for

amendment. it is distributed. ms. norton has a stripping amendment. days,ct is we have had 37 plenty of debate. we have soft counsel. i have chosen a resolution even though i had the right to rule, even if i did not have counsel. this resolution is effectively a ruling of the chair that ms. lois lerner waived in her voivity, and we are ting on the ruling of the chair. it is available format amendment. i caution never to use their five minutes. i will not limit debate. this is a markup. it is like any other markup, and i have chosen to do that so my ruling would be published and open to a vote rather than simply the procedural tapering

of the chair that otherwise would happen. >> i am almost finished, thank you. on wednesday i asked every member be even the opportunity to hear directly from house counsel and pose any questions have about the legal standards and historical precedents. the chairman declined to honor my request. here's what may happen if we continue down this path. the republicans could adopt a resolution on a partisan vote. the chairman could force ms. lerner to return and director to answer questions. heard attorney will disagree with the legal basis for the resolution, and ms. lerner will continue to assert the fifth. after which the chairman could schedule a vote to hold her in content and send the entire matter to a court. after that happens, the record before the court will be the record we established today. the committee has held no hearings on this issue. the committee has taken no testimony from any legal

experts. the chairman never responded to legal counsel. to chairman never responded her counsel. chairman declined my request for a meeting to allow members to hear directly from counsel. the chairman chose not to allow all committee members to review the opinion, and that has just been changed. thank you. the committee adopted no report or other analysis of the applicable legal provisions in the historical precedents. let me close by making clear that i want to hear ms. lerner's testimony. i think her testimony is very, very important. i agree she has information that is relevant to the committees investigation. for example, i want to ask why did she not inform congress in 2012 of the improper practices she discovered in 2011. -- we must respect the press the constitutional rights of every witness who comes before this committee, and whatever

your interpretation of the law is in this instance, we should all agree that this is not a responsible record to put forward because it undermines the credibility of this committee and the legitimacy of the resolution itself. i request stands, i asked the committee first take the preliminary commonsense step of holding a hearing to listen to legal experts former party members to vote. otherwise as a member of the congress who is sworn to uphold the constitution, i cannot in good conscience support this resolution, and with that i yield act. no, i will not hold a hearing. no, i do not agree with your position that you were denied any access to counsel. opinion that was shared with you out of courtesy was an opinion we sought among which means we gave you more than would ordinarily happen. >> when you say we, i want to

make sure i understand what you are saying. >> the house counsel information that was shared with you, we requested and we shared what we got back with you. >> who is we? >> the majority. the fact is you can seek counsel, every member can seek counsel. oddng said that, i find it that you would decide that we need to make a record before the court. if this were going to a federal judge, the judge would only consider ms. lerner's actual activity and would be making a decision de nova. norng said that, i cannot would any chairman of either party hold hearings every time there is misbehavior, improper conduct of a witness. you can understand the committee everyone turned into

coming and doing that. ms. lerner was here pursuant to a subpoena, and was represented by counsel. >> mr. chairman, one moment. to chairman, i am not trying make this more difficult than it should be. it is just that i think when we are dealing with -- i'm very sensitive to this constitution, because i would not be here if it was not for it. we are dealing with people's rights, i think we need to make sure that at least -- the only thing i was asking and i know you have denied it, and that is all well and good, the only thing i was asking is we make sure that the members when they vote, they have access to the assessments of these

arguments. the chairman is the chairman, and so i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. i will hold the record opened the end of the day. does any member wish to speak of the bill? the gentleman from florida. the perspective of being here, a senior member of the panel, i have never seen witness we in which a responsibility in such an offensive manner. i am saddened that the ranking us on would not work with moving forward. he says some things that are correct. he said some things that are dramatically wrong.

theo of all, if you hold up constitution, just open it up, has three distinct branches of government. branch, ande executive branch, and a judicial branch. at the endcontained in the bill of rights, and we want to comply with those. . but in fact, the right of this committee and the congress to conduct its business as set forth by the constitution is attempted to be thwarted by a government employee. our job -- we were sent here to review the conduct that is clear. veryesponsibility is important to conduct oversight and investigations. we are the chief panel in the house of representatives.

lois lerner is a federal employee who failed to appear at our request. andr the rules of the house this committee, she was issued a subpoena. she appeared. she was given the opportunity to exert her fifth amendment. she in fact waived that right by giving her testimony and her position, thumbing her nose at this rightful committee under constitution and our legislative authority. fact a poster in child for thumbing her nose at congress. i'm telling you, i have absolutely had it with what we have seen, the power of this new at stake. it not in the constitution that there is a fourth branch that can tell us to go to hell. we have a responsibility to

investigate what was going on. rights.been given her what the ranking member said is correct. we will follow the process. the decision is this committee today, to act on the resolution, and in fact this individual has thwarted the responsibility of this committee to investigate for her to testify. she will be given the opportunity when she comes back to take the fifth, but in fact the factting today on that she waved it. that is a committee decision. we have a right to make that. chairman back our edents forec the future, and it is important that it should be set. today is a showdown in who is in control of the government and

whether we honor the constitution. the rules of this committee and our responsibility as members of congress center on behalf of people out there this morning, got up in the middle of the night, work and at hey there taxes and expect us to sit oversee what the bureaucrats are doing. in fact, when you have the thencial arm, the irs, of united states spinning out of control, as we have seen in this instance, with a aircraft in thumbing her nose -- with a bureaucrat in thumbing her nose at our process, there's something dramatically wrong. i urge the adoption of this resolution. she will have heard they. she will have her right to exercise her fifth amendment member is the ranking correct. she may be held in contempt in the future. again, this is in fact a showdown today between an emerging pure rocker c that has spun out of control, and if you

do not see it, folks, you're in trouble, and the system is in trouble. i yield back. >> thank you. or what purpose does the lady request recognition? >> i have an amendment in the nature of the substitute. >> the amendment in the nature of the substitute to the resolution of the committee on oversight and government reform, all offered by ms. norton. >> the memo is considered read. >> thank you. is fond of citing the constitution. i offer this resolution in order to allow us to show we mean it. that a with the chairman hearing here would be unusual, when there is reported this conduct. we do not have a hearing on it every time someone objects. it is also clear that this is a novel issue and a close question

, and all one has to do is to look at the authorities and see how they line up on both sides herhen a witness waives constitutional rights. both sides are anxious to question lois lerner, because she may be the witness in the get to the root of where the arjun of the controversy involving the irs -- of where the origin of the controversy involving the irs was. department has itself opened an investigation. the fifth took amendment and issued a short statement proclaiming her innocence. i have looked at the authorities

. the reason i offer this amendment in the nature of a substitute is that although i most of my professional life, when i was not a public official, either as yer or acing law professor of law, i have no immediate opinion probe work on -- pro or con and still do not. i only have a few minutes on my scant the authorities. i decided to write this last night only upon learning that there would be a vote on this matter. i would have to vote that an american citizen had waived a constitutional right. burden.a very heavy

i learned that there had been correspondence from the ranking member, that there had been an expert opinion from house counsel. that counsel was regarded as an attorney-client matter, was not available to us. i learned further of course that is lerner's counsel had written to the committee to offer his authorities to my that she did not wait for constitutional rights. , wherever you come down on this issue, there are decidedly different prec edents on when an american citizen waves her constitutional rights, including her fifth amendment rights. i do not see any basis for the committee to conclude that the question of waiver is clear and

on the information before us now. might well yield no different results from what the chairman seeks through his resolution. but it calls for a hearing, but , would educatest members sufficiently to make them feel comfortable in actually voting that an american citizen had waived a precious constitutional right. the fifth amendment has become perhaps the most unpopular amendment of all the amendments in the bill of rights, but it was one of the favorites of the framers. no court would strictly construe a waiver of any constitutional right without more information than we have before us now.

we are not a court. taught the committee took seriously, even revered the constitution. the fifth amendment has a long and storied history in this congress. much of it among the most discredited in the history of this body. lernernt of calling lois was to discover what no other witness can tell us. it is still our -- >> with the gentlelady please wrap up. i wouldill our purpose, hope that we could find a way to get to the real point of hearing from her, perhaps by offering her immunity through some kind of negotiations with her counsel. that is what we all want.

iving -- voting to waive her constitutional right is a last resort. >> will the gentlelady yield. i will not be supporting your antedment, but i wha to make clear, trying to get her testimony, offering immunity, all of that by definition comes after the assertion during the earlier hearing that she had waived. as i said earlier, we are dealing with a motion that originated that she had waived, a decision that i reserved for 37 days-- >> are you saying since she waived, we do not need to discuss whether perhaps she would testify if given immunity? >> the decision to whether she

waived and the decision of whether they would proffer and all those decisions, quite frankly are not going to happen until after we conclude her testimony, which she began, continued, and then stopped earlier. she is still a witness pending from a recessed hearing, and that is what we are doing today, repairing to go forward with the hearing. >> have you considered offering immunity so we may discover the evidence received from her? >> i apologies, but there are some things that cannot be said in an open hearing. >> but the way for constitutional rights -- but to waive her constitutional rights? that is very serious. eligiblee all here, or to be here. we have noticed this markup

pursuant to the rules. the gentlelady had 37 days in which to seek counsel's. >> 37 days you noticed this hearing/ >> as to the question of a statement made -- the gentlelady's time is expired. i will now recognize the gentleman from south carolina. >> the prospect of having another hearing seems to resistible accept that that would not disclose one single solitary relevant fact. all facts necessary are already in the record. ms. lerner is not coming back, and i do not need law professors to home for a second hearing and reading the case law. there were not be one additional , uncovered at a second hearing. what facts do we have at our disposal? i have identified nine separate

specific assertions made by lois and i wasmay 22, after she asserted her right against privilege. nine separate assertions, including i have done nothing wrong. i have broken no laws. i have provided no false information to congress. i had violated no irs rules. i've violated no irs relations. and then she authenticated a document. all of this after she info to nineight to remain silent, separate factual assertions in the authenticating of a document after, with advice to counsel, with the advice of counsel behind her.t she testified to nine separate assertions, and then authenticated a document. law to mean, the case

is clear. that is not the way the fifth amendment works. you do not get to tell your side of the story and then avoid the very process that we have in this system for eliciting the truth, which is cross examination. why do we have a confrontation clause? do mto my colleagues on the othr side? the cross examination is the best tactic for eliciting the truth. every witness has to sit on the stand, and they have to weigh in balance, what are the benefits of saying nothing, which is my right, or what are the benefits of getting my side of the story out? that is what you have to balance, saying nothing versus telling her side of the story. noher chairman, there's contemplation in the constitution that you tell your you arethe story and never cross examined. the supreme court agrees with. mr. chairman, these are two

quotes -- a witness may not testify and then vote against self-incrimination when questioned about details. states, aersus united witness waives the privilege by givingry testimony. a denial of activities that might provide a basis for prosecution constitutes a waiver of that privilege. she has a right to remain silent. she could have said nothing. he had a witness this week you did that. we had a witness who said nothing. she did not. she made nine separate factual assertions. and then she authenticated a document. if that is not waiver, if that is not express waiver, then clearly it is implied waiver, and if not implied waiver, what is? if getting your side of it, nine

and, mr.facts, chairman, i have to add this. aside from certain factual assertions, this witness volunteered -- and this is important -- she testified that she has done " nothing wrong. -- "nothing wrong." that is an amazingly wrong statement. it is a double negative. what she is really saying is i have done everything right. to say i have done nothing wrong is to really say i have done everything right. so, mr. chairman, what possibly could be a broader assertion of fact than to say i have done everything right? i want to say this in

conclusion, because my time is almost up. i have had private conversations --h kylix on other sites with colleagues on the other ide, other than to say that have benefited from their counsel. the way i view this is this is congress asserting its constitutional obligation to provide oversight. yes, she has a constitutional right to remain silent, and she could have invoked it, but she did not. and we have a constitutional obligation to provide oversight. hearinguld have another . there is not going to be one more fact that is part of this record, not one. we will bring a law professor to say she waived, you will bring one to say that she did not, and we will be right where we are today. all the facts that we are going to have our here right now.

nine separate factual assertions. if that is invoking your right to remain silent, then there is no such thing as waiver, no such thing. yields back.man for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> i wish to speak to the resolution. with the gentleman be speaking to the amendment or the resolution? >> the gentleman is recognized to speak to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentlelady from the district of columbia in regular order. >> could i ask that my time has been restored? >> no, he took it. >> thank you. amendmentsupport the offered by the gentlelady from the district because i think there are more facts to be heard and there are other points of view to be heard.

what we are about today is not to prosecute lois lerner, ably though our colleague from south carolina seems to be doing. it seems to ensure the constitutional rights of a citizen. her as areferred to bureaucrat thumbing her nose at congress, and that is what this is about. that is not what this is about. this is first and foremost it was lerner, a citizen, invoking one of the most sacred privileges and tried in the bill of rights, her fifth amendment right to protect yourself. -- herself. the record will show which he was summoned she resisted him and she invoked her fifth amendment right. subpoena, ae under partisan issued subpoena, not supported by our side. against her will.

statement and then refuse to answer any questions, and was dismissed by the chairman come up properly so. gowdy would have you believe the fact that she made any statement constitutes a waiver of her constitutional right, not just self-incriminating. i beg to differ. a slot is very clear, that the fact that she made a statement does not somehow constitute a waiver. there's a famous case during a different era, united states vs. made an which mr. hogue statement. i am not so engaged. i will not so engage in the future. i am not a spy or saboteurs. and then invoke the fifth amendment. the court found that did not constitute a waiver, just like s.is case, loi

another case, the supreme court was crystal clear that it is a very high standard you have to meet before you can determine that someone in fact has waived their fifth amendment. i think the record is quite clear ms. lois intended from the beginning to invoke her fact amendment and protect herself as an american citizen as she is entitled to do. i would, too. if we do this today, every american citizen is at risk who is ever summoned before this committee, and it could be construed, as though i am sure that is not the intent, that by insisting she appear under subpoena and having her at that -- at thatable witness table, one observer could claim she could claim a constituted entrapment. is what our that

intent was, but i would put out that the d.c. bar ethics code says when someone has invoked the fifth amendment, it is wrong to haul them before a committee, and the word they use is, if the only purpose to be served by doing that is to pillory them, that is the verb, which invokes images of different eras in american history that the fifth amendment was designed to prevent from recurring. like the salem witch trials. where people were pilloried and worse. i believe that if we pass this resolution, we are trampling on the rights of an american citizen him and that trumps everything. that trumps the need for her testimony to my that trumps her status as a federal employee, that trumps her status as an official at the irs. if we are not about protecting

the rights of american citizens, what are we about as members of congress? to put aside politics here. i urge my colleagues to the to carefully about what we are about to do. you may make a small lyrical gain by passing this resolution, at a north long-term costs, and you will erode the confidence in ,he people in what we are about and there is an institutional commitment all of us need to be concerned about. and i plead with my colleagues to think carefully, why not take some time and have a hearing so we can air this out? i yield back. >> i recognize the gentleman from tennessee. >> i rise to speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute. >> the gentleman is recognized. the actions of the

chairman in bringing up this resolution, which are entirely appropriate, and i understand they are bringing done under the advice of house counsel and i wish to second their marks by my colleague mr. gowdy. i spent many years as a law year and a judge coming to congress and spent the last7 1/2 felonyrying criminal cases. every case i have read about the fifth amendment would not have allowed and in fact as a lawyer i never would have advised a client that they could give a oath and thenr plead the fifth. as a judge, i would never allow a defendant in my court to testify and make a statement and emphatically declare their innocence and then plead the fifth at that point. out ofuld make a mockery

the fifth amendment. and i think it is accurate to say the record will show that i was a judge who leaned very much in favor of defendants. i was never a prosecutor, and i did everything possible as a judge to bend over backwards to make sure that all defendants appearing in my court got every right that they were entitled to. andlois lerner came in here on nine separate occasions declared her innocence or strongly asserted that she had done nothing wrong, repeatedly. i cannot allow witnesses to and thennder oath plead the fifth to keep from ross- questioned or c examine. it is not fair, it is not consistent with the history of

our country and judicial history. the key here is that committee is operating under rules different from other committees. most other committees in the congress do not swear witnesses beforece them under oath they testify. lois lerner came here under oath and he essentially told her side of the case and then pled the fifth, denying them i self, mr. gowdy, and other members any opportunity to question her or cross-examine her. opposition or speak in opposition to the amendment in the nature of a substitute, and i believe the actions of the chairman in bringing forth this underlying resolution are entirely appropriate and consistent with all the legal precedents and history in this country. thank you very much. >> i thank the gentleman.

i take a short moment to respond to my friend from virginia, who spoke so eloquently about the sanctity of the fifth amendment. i think it is important that somebody be represented by counsel, and ms. lerner was. it is more important through realize that most important that she made voluntary decisions, not just a decision to make an opening statement that made claims and assertions on point, but then to answer additional questions after she invoked her fifth-amendment privilege to answer additional questions. i am not an attorney, even though i serve on judiciary and have this obligation here today. is why we sought counsel and took the time. recognizingsult of there is both a legal precedent for this, and many people here have not taken the time for it

over the last 37 days, but the important thing is the respect for the constitution is also ifpect for the fact that somebody comes and gives testimony, they become subject to cross-examination. and the decision here today is to my did she have testimony, and did she choose to take offense,, and is she subject to that cross-examination? i know everybody here in this room, if accused of a crime or even just being sued a month they would want a right across- cross-tion -- a right to examination. we the people would like to examinatioe her. i thank the gentleman for yielding back.

>> the gentleman is recognized. >>i think this is an incredibly serious question put to this committee. all of us want to hear what she has to say and what information she may bring. we want to do our job and get on on with the investigation that underlies this. where hopefully just as concerned about aching sure this committee upholds the constitution, particularly, the fifth amendment rights on any citizen matter what we think of the citizen's earlier activities or statements. i am concerned that this unusual for sitting, that she was subpoenaed her attorney made it clear that she was going to plead the fifth, and yet he continued to force her to come in before the committee. as mr. connolly said, what for, tupelo. -- what for? to pillory her? in the judicial process, and i

think mr. connolly made it clear, that is not the usual way to proceed. in this bar it would be considered a questionable practice to put somebody in that kind of an untenable situation. i'm concerned from the outside of what that was about, about spectacle or about trying to move this matter forward on that. i am also concerned that we are dealing with an issue of law here. you're asking this group of non- lawyers to make a decision based on a consultative legal question, and it is not as cut as dried as some wish it were. we have had some days where we relight the chairman was going to move in this direction to seek out some advice and we get t advice on both sides. , on either side of the issue, and it deserves a full exposition here as the amendment would do of having experts come in and breathe us

atd testify as to whethe underlies their opinions. the formal counsel stated that to thetroduction committee was a profession of her innocence, offered prior to the commandments -- commencement of questioning. it contained no fax relating to the subject matter and denied wrongdoing. he would not recommend that she be brought in for contempt or found that she had waived her rights. columbiaxpert from makes it clear his opinion that her willingness and response to the requests that she authenticate her prior statements deprive her to the fifth amendment treasury which -- privilege did not happen. authenticatess to them to admit the prior statements are made without concessions of veracity is not

testimony of substance to the prior state and straight he gave a siding for that. there's conflicting information on that. although the chairman indicates members were allowed to see his requests for house counsel opinion, i am looking at the e- mail that went back-and-forth that says i says i would also ask that you not distribute it widely, " like to all of your members." my question is, which of your members here, would you like not to see this, would you like not to be fully briefed before they made this decision? which members have different status than members on your side , whom you were willing to share this in advance? that is entirely unreasonable and unfair and should not happen, and i find that his offenses to people who might be included in that category. we have not had ample time that an exposition of facts.

mmings likely to determine-- >> would the gentleman yield? a second. the ramifications are bad for the house. i would ask that you not distribute it widely like to all of your members. i would yield only of the gentleman wants tell us which one of all these members in the majority would not want to see the report? >> the chairman yields? >> for that purpose. >> the gentleman should not have to answer that question. >> i am sorry that you are offended -- >> if you are not going to answer, i claim my time -- >> this was an opinion given to the majority on my request. this was the chairman's request. >> it was an opinion to the members of the house -- >> no, that was not correct.

>> who did you not want to see that report? >> the gentleman's time is expired. theegitimate excuses -- waned,an's excuses have too. >> losing the focus of our purpose. i have great regard for the gentlelady from washington who has looked from the perspective of both sides of the equation. we are doing a great deal of the characterization of lois lerner and the idea that somehow we are here attempting to embarrass the witness. i go back to the point, we are not here with regard to lois lerner. there aree because american citizens who were affected by the agency that she

her authorityed in the irs to what we believe to againstpressive fashion what could be their constitutional rights, and, potentially, any criminal fashion. and so, what we really have, we are engaged in a civil proceeding. and to the extent to which lois lerner has rights that she can invoke using her fifth anyment, they were to ultimate question that she may be accountable to any criminal for, not here. what she says here may be relevant, and there's plenty of of history with regard to that issue. but let's go to the facts of what happened here. we are here on a civil proceeding, and we do have a responsibility, and oversight responsibility, to address that which we just articulated, it is the responsibility to assure that the rights of citizens have not been oppressed by the irs.

lois lerner does not have any right to refuse to answer questions before this committee unless they would in fact incriminate her. and it isn fact even-- not uncommon in the civil process of law, for a person to come in and be deposed and under normal course of questions go she has competent counsel, and there are questions that will be answered, and counsel will take a particular question and say that goes to the potential, that it might be a meaningful basis that it could incriminate her criminally, and there is a broad reading of that. i suspect that lois order comes back here, she will invoke the fifth amendment to quite a few. in fact, everything. the fact of the matters, we we have changed the dynamic here. with competent counsel, some of the best attorneys available, and lois learner is it to her

-- lois lerner is an attorney herself. change therilyi dynamic. when she chose to use the foreman, where she was aware there was going to be a national forum for her to declare whatever it is that she wanted to do, and she used this occasion very specifically, and the gentleman from south carolina but through an eloquent way the number of ways she opened the door. theve in my hands here letter from counsel. we knew what she was doing why invoking the fifth grade all she had to do was sit there and say the fifth." and in case, we would not be here today. she was the one who put into the record, the subject matter. she opened the door to the subject matter. she is the one that included the

i.g.ence to the report. she is the one that brought the to this.report in she is the one who made these statements, i did not break any laws, i did not violate any irs rules or regulations, i did not give any false testimony to this or any other congressional committee. with respect all of the things things that had just previously been identified. that is the subject matter in which she put it into play. that is a voluntary waiver. into determination on her private, with counsel sitting right behing her. she made a choice to use this form for purposes. and i ask this committee to

remember why we are here, not for lois lerner, but to make sure that we stand up for the rights of those who have been oppressed eydie irs irs. i conclude my comments by saying most lerner is not surrendering any fifth amendment rights, as we can see what is happening going down line. to the extent she will invoke fifth amendment privilege and we would hold her in contempt, it will go before a qualified court of law. and there it will be brief, and there they will have the best of it gets to the matter, and prior to that there may be a decision for other kinds of activities the committee would make that would make that issue not relevant. but as to today, as to this moment, it was lerner opened the door and she cannot have it both ways. and i believe at this point in time, this is a simple resolution which is simply saying that we have the ability to ask her to come back to answer questions with regard to

the issues that she opened the door to. and she may ultimately than invoke her fifth amendment, and we will be back for further proceedings, but this is not something that violates her rights. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution. >> the question is on agreeing to the amendment offered by the the lady from the district of columbia -- all those in favor will signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. i did not recognize atonement. are you are cresting a roll call vote? >> i am asking for five minutes

to speak. >> you will have five minutes on the resolution. >> i am asking for a roll call vote. >> the clerk will call the roll. >> no. >>no. >> no. >> no. mr. mchenry? mr. jordan? haffitz no.mosh votes mr. mann votes no. votes no. hastings? no.woodall votes

mr. massey votes no. mr. collins votes no. mr. meadows votes no? desantos votes no. cummings votes aye. tes aye.on vogtes votes aye. votes aye.ght duckworth votes aye.

cardenas votes aye. jordan, you are not recorded. >> mr. hastings, how do you vote? >> no. no.r. hastings votes >> does anybody else think recognition for the vote? the clerk will report. 6 ayes.os, 17 amendment is not agreed to. since we have a vote on the floor, we will stand in resource -- in recess -- we will do one more on the underlying -- we will stand in recess until five minutes after the last vote.

>> pursuant to the previous method, committee will come to order. is there anyone here who wishes to speak on the resolution? i will be patient.

i will recognize myself lest we lose the time. today we have had ample debate on the question of a straightforward resolution did ms. lois lerner on may 30, 2013, in all parts proceed after asserting her fifth amendment from lynch, and if so did she privilege, and if so did she waive? what purposes the gentleman from massachusetts seat recognition -- seek recognition? the geminis recognize for five minutes. >> area originally requested

time on the minute, that time has been denied me. nothing i can do about that now. agree this is a serious question before the committee. balancing interests here. we need to be able to call witnesses before this committee and expect the truth. i think that is at the very conductour ability to meaningful oversight and reasonable oversight. that certainly is essential especially to this many in the role of place. on the other hand there is a constitutional right in the fifth amendment to have a self information. that is extremely important as well.

one believe i know the gentleman from florida spoke earlier today amide he seemed citizensthat american might come before this committee and, their nose at this government. i think considering the fact that congress is --congress's favorability rating is low that might be true. >> are you referring to the up coming parades? >> i am reclaiming my time. only withe skills not the irs at but the nsa, a lot of americans seriously doubt the integrity of some of their governmental institutions, including our own.

but this hearing does not set the president that he joe manchin florida spoke of earlier. we have not had in the hearing on this -- we have not done a meaningful investigation that would explain to the court -- look, we expect there will be a continued citation issued by this congress. it will be used -- looked over by the court and they will see how did congress arrive, how did the committee, on government reform, arrive at this decision was in. lerner wasn't -- contempt? oft is the thoroughness congress's inquiry? debate in this committee over this.

we have not had one word. we had debate over this motion, but we have not had witnesses, we have not had constitutional scholars come in and implore the decisions of the members. you have a lots of non- constitutional lawyers here. i they will find our decision was based on political considerations and not on meaningful increase and fellow oversight. inquiry and fellow oversight. what we're doing here today is our efforts to hold ms. lerner accountable. we are playing into their hands need ourving that, we decision be held over the court level. whowould have people justifiably agree with the way, at least in the artful way ms.

lerner came forward and asserted her fifth amendment. i think that is all being wiped out by a political process. as was to be a legislative process, and none of that, we have not had the meaningful deliver to ross is that i think would give weight to our decision. that is a failing of this process today. this will not be precedential. thatould have a decision has precedent on how a witness must act before this committee, and we will not get that from this process. we have had no underlying credit ability links to this process, this is just a local process, and i regret that. -- soill bow to get this i will vote against this. i yield back.

>> thank you. i now move -- >> you indicated at the beginning of this portion that we would get time. >> we recognize the member. >> this bickering is another -- is an embarrassment. it's more like showing off. it is the same grandstanding we have seen repeatedly in this committee. the chairman continues to focus this committee on divisive hearings rather than identifying solutions to making reforms to government programs and agencies. mr. chairman, and set up reading up a resolution to challenge a person's right to plead the fifth, why aren't we bringing forward a resolution

to require the irs to bring their 501(c) four regulation primarily into compliance with federal law. this is no longer just about lois lerner. there are clearly problems at the irs. that much is clear. but mr. chairman, instead of this resolution, why aren't we ninewing up with the recommendations that the inspector general already made to guarantee that the targeting that happens to both conservative and liberal groups never happens again. mr. chairman, these are the issues the american people want us to focus on. not partisan pickering and gridlock. until we focus on solutions, congress will continue to be held and the lowest of regard among the american public. to beone do not want part of caring this institution down, but building it out.

the american people are rightfully upset with us. >> will the gentleman yield? >> no i will not. the american people are rightfully upset with us. it is because of what we are doing here today. -- if this resolution were to pass, what sort of precedent are we setting? what committee are we to take away anyone's constitutional rights? this resolution does nothing to fix it. --completelyis a improper. i will oppose the motion. yield.not i have not yielded. we are in regular order government is the jobless time. >> it is the gentleman's time.

nine provisions within the inspector general's report that we have not taken any time to follow up on or implement. we have heard from the new acting commissioner of the irs that they are regulation is in fact out of compliance with federal law. we have taken no action to bring forward a resolution directing the irs to do its job to update that regulation to make sure isn't compliance with federal law. -- is in compliance with federal law. on both an agreement sides that it needs to be fixed. all i'm asking for is that us, the members of this a-day, do our job. body, do our job. as a representative of

my constituents. they didn't send me here to take away the rights of people. they sent me here to represent them and make sure their government does a better job in serving them. today, mr. chairman, this resolution does the no service. >> will the gentleman yield to the chair? >> yes. >> i take no exception to the right to your opinion. i might remark that this resolution is on whether or not the lady waved her rights. mention that a later itemization of contempt would be something to consider. i would only say that she is in a consideration of waving. >> that is not conclusive.

there is nothing in dust conclusive in the legal opinion of the question of the witness's fifth amendment. andhey had testimony, responded, that is not with him and his did. they an opening statement, they refuse to answer any further, and they were excused by the sheriff. why thise should be resolution is not passed, and why we should get back to the work of what this community -- committee should really be working on. will not go to the gentlelady from wyoming. this entire committee has been put on notice of the concern that ms. lerner waived her constitutional right in

concern of self-incrimination. she gave testimony, i move the previous question. >> the previous question say i, i'll post say no. in the opinion of the chair, the eyes have it. -- ayes have it. in the beauty the chair of the eyes have it, the amendment resolution is agreed to. this committee stands adjourned. >> rollcall. a rollcall being ordered, the clerk will call the roll. >> yes. mr. turner votes aye, mr.

duncan bowtied. mr. mchenry bowtied. aye.ordan votes votes aye.-- the event folio boats aye. mr. desanto's votes aye. mr. cummings votes no. clayaloney votes no mr.

votes no. mr. lynch votes no. mr. gruber about snow. mr. connolly votes no. -- votes no. >> pardon me voting no to the attack -- the tactics of today. >> ms. duckworth votes no. votes no. mr. welsh votes no.

mr. host bird votes no. --horse for votes no. >> how was mr. mchenry recorded? >> as voting aye. >> is there anyone else who seeks recognition to vote? >> your recorded as voting aye. -- you are recorded as voting

aye. >> the clerk will report. ayes, 17 nos. >> the resolution is agreed to. the resolution finding lois lerner waived her fifth ,mendment privileges on may 22 2013, is approved, and we stands adjourned.

>> tonight at 6:30 p.m. eastern time, we follow the road to the he will be speaking .t a web -- fund-raising dinner and then we will have former jeb bush giving a talk. roberts will give us his life on the high court. there really talking about the

court's 2012 term which wrapped up this last week, and the cases to look forward to in the fall. that starts at 9:00 a.m. eastern on saturday. >> the 73rd and other regiments were recorded -- recruited out of new york. this particular regiment the 73rd was recruited in the fire halls of new york city. the firemen of new york city and entered call the army as union soldiers. there will be about 359 of them out here on july 2. there are times in the lives of the nation where the energetic

acts of courage of even a small number of men will allow the to ast global sentiments greater degree of eloquence even more than that of the greatest order. live coverage begins at 9:30 with several guests. 5:30 p.m., we will take your calls and tweets. at 8:00 p.m., the commemorative ceremony, followed with a candlelight procession. we will and the day at 9:15 p.m. with several war director peter arkle taking your calls and tweets.

>> we were looking for things that were completely pessimistic. you take away burned-out athens, federal think the greeks would've thought the would not of, recovered a large part of the byzantine empire. there's not a union general alive that could have taken atlanta at the very small cost that we took it compared to what was going on in virginia. i wish i could say that the but theygenerals, could not have done what he did. five generals that single- handedly reversed the direction of the war.

two.of tv on c-span crossed four nationals the border in the u.s., the agency does not track their exit. the exchange was part of the house oversight committee on border security held on the same day the senate passed its immigration reform bill. this hearing is two and a half hours. >> i would like to begin this hearing by stating the statement -- mission statement. >> americans have the right to know that the money washington takes from their -- them as well spent. our duty on the oversight reform committee is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility is to hold the government can ability to the tax rate because the

taxpayers have a right to know what they get from the government. we work tirelessly with citizen watchdogs to ensure the american people general reform. good morning, i think everyone for coming to come -- to this hearing. myould like to thank colleagues for joining us today. much of the current immigration reform debate has focused on border security. the conversation is not focused enough on how to secure the border in the most effective manner. throughout this hearing we will examine a variety of border threats. this hearing will also examine how to measure each of these risks and the most effective responses to the threats we confront. the department of homeland security is responsible for therolling and guarding borders of the united states. protecting oure

borders from the smuggling of people, drugs, cash, weapons. to establish operational control over the international land and the maritime borders of the united states authorizes the secretary of state of homeland security to take appropriate action to secure u.s. borders. the operations2 to achieve the precht -- protection of the borders, has cost many taxpayer dollars. there are only 129 miles of the protected.ile six percent operational control.

the lack of operational control documented contradicts statements made by the government that it is at the most secure and ever been. to makeed its policy the number of apprehensions the measure of effectiveness. however the number of apprehensions which they use as its metric mt. does not indicate whether the enteral government 's efforts to secure the border are actually achieving anything or not. in apprehensions increases does that mean that the border is more secure, or less secure? i asked the attorney general this question. attorney general holder said you cannot draw a inclusion based solely on apprehension.

i asked the secretary of homeland security who do not give me a thorough answer. it is something we need to explore. not to play gotcha, but to try to create a metric we can all live with. when that metrics change to my you cannot compare them to past performance. that is something we need to explore. since the creation of the department of homeland security, the committee's oversight efforts have focused on the effective use of taxpayer dollars at the border. there are examples of wasteful spending, or example the fbi nets which were intended to increase surveillance of the border. it is indeed a failure to members of the staff overseas -- of the house oversight committee including myself among troubled to different locations. i appreciate the men and women

we attracted there, we had a very productive trip. visited atee also detention center in new mexico. , which sounds -- stands for other than mexican, inmates accounted for 90% of the inmates. more than half the people in the dissension facility were not mexicans, they were from 16 different countries. assume thatus still the border problem is still just april of mexico, and that is just not true. there's nothing statistical to support that, and if you look at the detentions, it is a much bigger and broader problem than just people coming from mexico. it is a bigger, broader problem.

there appears to be an increasing trend of movement across the southwest border. the significant portion of oh tms come from india, china, latin america, other parts of pacificasia, and countries. judicial process for asylum requests may contain some very serious flaws. during our trip to the border we also found that the government continues to identify new and emerging threats to securing the border, including but drug cartels use of summers a bold vessel will -- submersible vessels. they recently found another tunnel. we hope not to only discuss

these threats but also to risk bond to some of these risks. the use of effective drones, strategic placement of troops, and other technology which can be successfully invalid and along the border. whether through technology or border patrol agent's, we must reallocate our resources to secure the border in a way that is strategic and ensure that we do not waste taxpayer dollars. i want to commend the sport and work of our law enforcement agencies and officers. iny do amazing work exceptional conditions. we cannot thank them enough for their good, hard, diligent work. it is tough work. today, the session should focus on the threats at our borders, and how we should respond to those challenges. am disappointed that joseph lang voice, the

--directorector for for the immigration offices has refused to testify. andecorded his attendance participation in the hearings for team games ago -- 13 days ago. topite a two week notice testify before the sub , theysion -- committee basedefused to testify .n "lack of notice notice." i want to thank the four people from the other agencies who were able to prepare and be with us today.

i find out acceptable that with 13 days notice, that is not enough time to prepare to talk to congress about a job you do everyday. i think those that are here. we duly notes the person who is not here, and find that unacceptable. the american taxpayers deserve answers for these important questions. we have left the seat open, hoping he would be here, but apparently he is not. again, thank you to the agencies were here today. i also want to thank and commend my calling trey gowdy or best for his work with the subcommittee on immigration. from a legislative standpoint is critical that we get to the border security section) we have always focused on how are we going to can secure the

border. how can we assure that the border is secure? there has been legislation passed in 2006 but dealt with supposedly securing the border and the fence. yet we still have six percent operational control. earlier this year we passed legislation that would ensure a viable entry and exit system, and yet we have none. that is a question to address today. we need to understand what is happening at the border, and we didn't -- we appreciate those who came today. does anyone have an opening statement they would like to make? seven days tove submit an opening statement. we will now recognize our first palos. panelist.

pursuant to committee rules, all of them will be sworn for the testify. do stand and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear and affirm that the cost of money you're about to give will be the -- the testimony you're are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? thank you. you may be seating. -- seated. we will give you some latitude, but again i want to thank you for being here, and we will recognize mr. fisher first.

it is indeed an honor and a privilege to be before you today to sick -- to discuss the response to current threats. as we prepare for 2014 areative operations we guided by our strategy, transnational criminal organs asians and the networks that support them continue to exploit the borders to our south. for the first time in a decade illegal-border activity is more prevalent in texas than anywhere else. it accounts for 44% of all of the arrests along the southwest border. it is noteworthy to recognize

that the chairman pointed out that 60% of these arrests are from nationals of other countries in mexico. the current activity in south texas needs to be put in proper context. even with all the elevated activity, the retention rates is born percent less than it was in 1997. we continue to ensure our operations and needs order of federal, state, local orders. order securityve alone. -- border security alone. we've taken the following actions. we directed most border classes to south texas, increasing the agent notes on the ground in

high-risk areas. we redeployed approximately 100 pieces of technology itself texas. these were equipment such as unattended ground sensors, surveillance systems, and thermal imaging systems. entered into a memorandum of understanding with the department of defense of allowing for the protection, transfer and monitoring of equipment. we sought to capitalize on the opportunity to reuse equipment that the taxpayers already paid for two assist front line agents. accordingly, we recently delivered the first installment of this woman to the field. 224 detection of monitoring systems that have been inventory , 75% ofnventoried whatever the to south texas.

today, we have dell out more than 80 target corridors. in support of this effort we continue to leverage intelligence collection to augment our own capabilities. in conclusion, my team has designed an enablement of a formidable strategy, and we continue to learn and adjust our tactics, techniques and procedures as conditions on the ground dictate. i stand by my conviction that given the operational flexibility to match capability to threat, we will reduce the attack against the nation, and continue to provide the safety and security to the citizens who deserve no less. thank you for that opportunity to testify today, i look forward to answering your questions. >> we will now at just recognize mr. murphy.

>> thank you for the opportunity to be here before you today. i appreciate the committees leadership and commitment to serving american people and look forward to discussing the progress we have made. s of entry the port and border therein as well managed. every day we carry out our mission to protect the people and economy of the united states by preventing dangerous people and goods from entering the country while expediting legitimate trade and travel. that is the lifeblood of our economy at river 94 points of entry. it differs by environment which can encompass air, land, and sea. personally owned vehicles, industrial, trucks, containers him up packages, each of these

environments and each activity presents different challenges moreast year we welcomed .han 350 million passengers 28 continue volume -- we anticipate volume to continue as we increase our coverage. it is important to note that the mass -- -- majority of this traffic complies with the rules and reggie relations -- regulations. we are working to find and stop the proverbial needles in the haystack while the haystack is moving. we continue to improve our ability to do this, and develop resources with those people who would represent the highest

risk.ate -- with cooperations with our inner agencies, we screen people and goods before loading onto planes and other vessels coming to the united states. we have redoubled our screening efforts and now check all passengers and cargo prior to boarding. we have extended our nation's orders out from the cargo environment. all our old -- inbound cargo manifests are examined before arrival at u.s. seaports. in addition to approving our ability to mitigate high-risk travel and trade, we remain focused on finding ways to

associate the growing volume of goods and people entering the united states. we've developed a series of transformation and a children's , the elevation of paper forms, and the information of more technology. this will increase security and streamlined the process. these type of programs and enhance management tools have not only enhance our capabilities, but have provided significant security benefits. for example, we have limited numbers of acceptable travel documents, which resulted in the decreased number of forged documents. transnational criminal organizations have begun to use

unique and nontraditional smuggling weapons to avoid port detection. ever vigilant efforts have continued to thwart those costly and less of -- and effective smuggling techniques. the paths that have left undetected from other countries could cause millions of dollars in environmental damage. the state of border security continues to import -- improve at our ports of andrew. we have made significant progress. a repostshing strategy -- robust strategy. we maintain effectiveness while seeing increasing demand in

volume, and we continue to seek ways to improve the chairman, vice chairman, and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. >> thank you. we will now recognize as durable than for five minutes. collects on behalf of secretary director martin, inc. you for the opportunity to appear today. ice is theknow, innificant player immigration enforcement policies. homelandnt and security investigations and the office of the principal legal advisor. we investigate the large range

of crimes that arise from moving people and goods in and out of the unit states. i lead a program that identifies, apprehends and removes alien subjects from the estates. states.nited the the years i have seen entire lifecycle of the immigration enforcement. , andserved on many boards was a special agent with the ins. over the past four years ice has focused its resources on those who fit within our priorities. recented criminals,

border crossers, and those who undermine our border controls. we have had on percent -- unprecedented successes. the is almost double criminal convictions from 2008. havey put, our reforms made community safer. detentions facilities nationwide. the southwest border can change quickly, and we have the structure to meet those needs. this could not of been achieved with all of -- without all of by others.ives ice detainees came from the cdp. our joint efforts are critical

to the nation's border protection efforts to mine i am proud to work with such callings as i sit with today. there've been major reforms the detention system. they insured the individuals are held appropriately and classified according to their risk. detainees have access to healthcare and other resources. the result ofeen reasonable immigration policy. even in times of uncertainty, we are using our resources and a smart, effective, responsible manner. we are targeting our resources where they are needed most. i give again for inviting me to testify. i'm pleased is any questions you may have. thank you.

[no audio] >> since 2004, dhs has increased resources allocated to securing the borders. for example, in fiscal year 2004, the border patrol had over 10,000 agents, in fiscal year 2011 there were 11 -- over 21,000 agents. similarly the custom agents stationed at ports of entry have increased from 17,000 to more than 20,000 in fiscal year 2011. dhs has employed tolly -- to ability infrastructure to those areas. i will focus on three key areas where we have our best efforts to secure our nation's borders. first armor highlight our work with our assessment.

inter-so review our agency coronation, and i will highlight the work on asset management for securing the border. border retail -- border patrol data shows apprehensions have declined. this can be interviewed to various factors, such as changes in the economy and resources. apprehensions across the south west quarter increased from too early to see if this indicates a change in trend. estimated known illegal entries in each southwest border sector alstom decline. declined.

the percentage of estimated known illegal entrants who were apprehended more than once and contraband seizures. acrosse decreased southwest border sectors from fiscal year 2008 and 2011. with regard to iraq and other contraband seizures, the number of seizures increased by 83% from fiscal year 2006 to 2011. since fiscal year 2000 11, dhs has used the number as an interim performance goal. this measure divides some useful information, but is not only the --

the border patrol is in the process of setting goals and measures but does not have a time frame. we recommend that the border patrol established time frames to ensure those goals and time frames are pleaded in a timely manner. it plans to establish such time frames by november 2013. with regard to my second point, dhs and other agencies have reported improvements in interagency coordination of order enforcement operation. for example, several partners as possible for securing federal lands along the borders have cited increased information sharing and communication. however, our work has identified opportunities or stronger oversight and enter -- and her agency forms. , wenology, and other assets

have a number of challenges in unexpectedly planning for these assets. our work has shown that dhs can better document the analysis, types, and allocation of assets to be deployed. performancedefined metrics. this has hindered the efforts to streamline the plan going forward. a number of recommendations to the department to address various challenges, and to enhance management of order security related programs. -- concur with our donations, and will and will let them. this concludes my prepared statement amount would would be pleased to answer any questions

that members may have. >> thank you. is it fair to say that there are no metrics to did -- determine how secure or nonsecure the border is currently? the number of apprehensions as the current goal and measure. that measure does not allow for the position of border trolled look at theannot effect of this -- and we cannot look at the effectiveness with this measurement. jimmy gage gauge who can go in and out -- made some significant improvements in sophistication and entrance. that has been the focus as part

of the efforts to work on the issue. statistics toy show how many people he the country? >> not at this time. >> my understanding is that the majority of the beast is that this country offers, thousands of people streamed into the country in fiscal year 2011. my understanding is that we approved the state apartment or .3 million of these cards. 4.3 million of these cards. these people are supposed to be in here temporarily, correct? do you know the number of those ?eople who came in

we needve the numbers, to get a better handle on it. >> you have any of the numbers of those who left? >> no we don't. >> we're letting millions of people into the country, and we have nobody -- no idea how many are going out, is that fair to say? >> yes. >> it is current law that we're supposed to have an exit program. why do we not have one? >> we are working on it sir. >> you have been there for a while. how long have you worked at that agency? >> 29 years. >> why do we not have an exit program? it is not good enough to just smile. >> i do not have a good answer for you. we know it is an issue. -- is it a funding

issue? a lack of commitment? why do we not gained when the go out of the country? issue.s a huge and it is a costly issue. would have to replicate what we have coming into the country at ports of entry at the same ports to rapidly get our arms around the issue. >> we're told that 40% percent of the people here eat -- a legally came here legally. we do not have a viable exit system, and there is no metric, no information, not even an attempt to try to gather some names, i am really concerned about this entry exit row graham -- graham. -- program. i think it is the untold story of the immigration mess that we have.

the majority, 4.3 billion, what rule? role -- you can only go 10 miles in? >> we have increased that somewhat. 10 miles, 25 miles, some parts 50 miles. do we have any records of that? >> no sir. >> there is no monitoring. we just do it on your word. do you know how many are out there? cards, do4.3 million you know how many are out there, do we only would issue one?

>> i do not have an idea of how long it is valid for. >> it is just the honor system right now. you're just supposed to come back. you not gauging a been a single person person as to whether or not they are returning. >> we are not capturing that right now. >> my time has was fired. now recognizing the demo from wyoming. >> i want to thank the gentleman and the lady for being here today. my questions are going to the fence as a mechanism to stop trans land crossings. as the fence between california themexico improved crossing of non-documented workers and illegals?

you're nodding your head. >> the third fence in particular has had an impact on the flow of people into the united states. the is completed /mexico border? about 22 miles. i'm not really sure how much of -- arizona >> do you believe that completing the fence between arizona and mexico would be

beneficial to slowing the flow of people and narcotics across the border? chris i do in some locations. >> what locations would those be. specifically along the arizona mexico border? druge places where the organizations likes to exploit they legitimate and for structures that are already in place. ask what are those infrastructures? through the borders and out of the border areas. the infrastructure that requires to do that is road systems, bus stations, and all of that legitimate infrastructure has to support the communities in those areas. >> what about wilderness areas where we do not have fences, where you have been restricted fromher u.s. agencies

using motorized vehicles on wilderness areas and the the offending parties are using vehicles making it difficult for you to apprehend them. is that automatic -- public lands in arizona which are him and most situations on a steady-state deployment are motorized vehicles. we have entered into an agreement with the department of the interior and fish and wildlife service into those areas based on intelligence if we know there is activity. we are allowed onto those areas to basically track individuals that come across. >> you have to get agreements with another federal agency to gain access to federal land on our side of the border? >> the agreement has already been set. the memorandum of understanding allows us to go onto those those lands and some of that public land is protected under the

environmental laws. we have the agreement we are allowed to go in when we are working the border. >> you can pursue someone? >> we can. >> can you protect the border, can you patrol the border? can patrol.s we a lot of detection is made from the air also. the tucson border has been an area where we have seen significant crossings. >> that is correct. >> is that the second-most prevalent area to cross? >> it is in terms of apprehensions. right now it is second to the rio grande valley in the south texas area. >> it continues to be a major source of crossings. >> yes. >> what would be your deterrent toest

illegal crossings? in that area in mexico -- mexico and arizona? >> there's a couple of things. i would not invest on one thing in particular. one is the investment in additional technology. >> we have seen some technology reports that some of the technology has failed and its failure has not necessarily in corrected. how is that going? the fbi net, what is the department's plan to improve that technology? the border radar system? >> when the fbi was being assessed, janet a. napolitano asked for an assessment about whether we should continue exploring that kind of technology. >> $1.2 billion has been spent on that?

>> that sounds about right. >> you are assessing whether that is going forward in a productive way. >> we made that assessment and our recommendation to the secretary which she agreed to was to invest more in the mobile technology and not to invest in things like sbi net which were more static. >> my time has expired. thank you. would you please provide to this committee the interagency working agreements on your ability to patrol and pursue potentially people that are here illegally on public lands that are designated will -- wilderness or wilderness study areas emma those types of things. organ pipe would be an area. is that something you can provide quick -- provide? as anill take that back

action item. >> when is the reasonable time i should get upset when you have not provided to me. you make a decision. what is the date? july 3. >> you read my mind, sir. >> thank you. terry ossie can you give me a rough number of how many border patrol agents there were when you started 26 years ago? >> there was this than 3000. >> less than 3000. the reason i ask that emma we gave -- the reason i ask that, we gave increases in funding in the 1990s and we have heard ms.

gambler say that since 2004 we have gone from 10,000 agents to 21,000, i think it was. and now the senate has passed an amendment saying that we are supposed to double that again and frankly, i know you can never satisfy any government money orappetite for land. i am really skeptical as to whether we can efficiently, effectively, spend all the money that we are throwing at this effort and increase the number of agents that much that quickly. what do you say about that? customs when you started 29 years ago? >> i do not even know what that number is. theresly as you indicate

is significant work to be done. there is the determination of the right number. that is something i think will have to be decided. >> the number coming across in large part, is that not determined by the economy so the economy in mexico and here? i read during the downturn that the numbers coming across are greatly decreased and there were more people, a lot of people who had come here illegally were going back to mexico or other countries. is that true? >> one thing that we have done to transform the way we look at the border and the way we look at the numbers we need, we created the workload staffing model. this takes 100 different data it elements and over a million calculations that takes into account the current volume of activity, apprehension, seizures, hours of operation, how many folks on board now, and it basically takes the

number and it is a very dynamic rss and it will tell you based upon that workload and the time it takes to do those different functions in the workload how many bodies that you need. the nice thing about this one is it is not a static process. it is a very dynamic process. you are indicating say you see an uptick in neck to be at a port of entry or an area. for a year or two, that model will dictate what the number should be based upon that volume, that activity, that workload. if it moves to a different area -- >> let me stop you. a lot of what you said is bureaucratic and i have a little bit of time left. the do you say about statement that because of the transition from using operational control and so forth, she said until new goals and measures are del valle -- , dhs and congress

could experience reduced oversight in dhs accountability. what do you say about that? >> i could say our level of collaboration has never been higher. my staff meets with the border patrol staff once a week. we -- as a matter of business, we detain all recent border entrants, so i think we're doing the right thing. with the resources we have, i think we're executing the mission at an all-time high. my removal is at a record high. my detention is at a record high and i think the mission that us and the border patrol working hand in hand along with c.b.p. makes sense. >> 4.3 million coming across just on one program. can anybody on the panel tell me how many people are entering this country legally each year?

does anybody have -- ms. gambler, do you know anything about that? somebody should know something surely. >> we can provide that number to you, sir. i don't know the number off the top of my head. >> what are the latest estimates as to how many are coming across illegally. surely this panel should know something like that. your latest guesses or estimates. >> our estimates right now sir, we're averaging approximately this fiscal year approximately 1,100 apprehensions. if you take a look at the rate and getting what the chairman mentioned as the denominator, trying to get that known flow, we don't have those estimates now but we are working towards getting that as well. >> well, i think that is something you should provide to

us as soon as you get it. >> agreed. >> all right. thank you very much. >> following up on that, mr. fisher, how many turned back per day? >> i would have to go back. i don't know specifically what that number is. but we do track that. >> how many gotaways? >> i can do that as well. i don't have that number at the top top of my head. it is approximately 75%. >> again, i really challenge that number, as i think the g.a.o. does. those are just the known -- those are the known gotaways. right? does not include turned backs or t.b.s.'s? >> it includes all of that. the gotaways and the turnbacks. when you look at that and add them together and divide that by the total entries that is the effectiveness rate. >> that assumes that we -- what

about the ones we're not aware of. >> right. there are two different methodologies we use. the intelligence piece, the use of the predator piece, to shrink the border and increase the aware sons we have a better sense of awareness to cover that border. >> the always dap every mr. gowdy. >> thank you. i want to welcome all of our witnesses. chairman chaffetz shared a bit of philosophy with me a couple of nights ago at dinner and i wrote it down to make sure i got it right. he said if you don't know where you are going, you probably won't know when you get there. yeah, that's what he said. ms. gambler. i am asked constantly about border security. so tell me what is an ambitious but reasonable goal with respect to border security to the extent that it is a conditioned precedent to any other part of

immigration reform? what are we looking for? >> congressman, setting a goal for border security would be the responsibility of d.h.s. >> i know, but i'm asking you if you were empress for the day, what would you do? what is a realistic but ambitious goal? >> again, that is a responsibility for the department to set that -- congress -- would be the case for any bill, g.a.o.'s role would be to re-review the implementation of any provisions or program that the executive branch might implement resulting from a bill if we were asked to do so. >> how long have you been with g.a.o.? >> since 2002. >> all right. so that is 11 years? >> yes. >> surely, you have an opinion

on what is likely to work? because you -- you probably are following the debate just like the rest of us are. before you get to any other aspect of immigration reform, they want to make sure the border is secure. that is an easy phrase to use but it is a hard phrase to implement. so what is a realistic definition of a secure border? >> what we recommended is that the department of homeland security set a goal for its border security efforts and then set metrics for assessing progress made against those -- against that goal. d.h.s. is in the process of developing those goals and measures and we have suggested they set timeframes for completing those goals and metrics so that there are mechanisms in place for assessing the goals and how they can be measured. >> why is there not currently a goal or am i just naive? >> on fiscal year 2011 d.h.s. was using operational control to measure border security. they discontinued it. >> why?

>> they told us they wanted to move toward more quantifiable metrics for border security and using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border was designed to be an interim measure. they said they were going to put those metrics in place by fiscal year 2012 but have been using the number of apprehensions as the interim measure and we recommended again that they set timeframes and milestones. >> let me ask it another way. if you had to go back to your hometown and you had to stand in front of people who were asking you whether or not the border was secure, what metrics would you use in answering their question? >> if i was asked that question, i would say that the department has not yet set goals and measures for assessing how secure the border is and so that makes it difficult to assess against criteria or a yardstick. >> difficult may be an understatement.

it makes it kind of hard for those of us who are interested in getting on to the next steps of immigration reform, if you don't get over the precedent and can prove to your constituents that you have a reasonable but ambitious border security goal, it makes the rest of this pretty tough. visa overstays. do you know how they are currently investigated? >> we issued a report in april, 2011 and have an ongoing to work. that will issue in july, this next month. >> i promise i'm going to read the report, but you already know something about the issue. currently if mr. chaffetz were here on a visa and he overstayed, how would we know? how would we investigate it? how would we decide what we were going to about it? what is currently being done? >> if a foreign national enters the u.s. and there is no corresponding departure record for that person that, record would be tested against numerous

d.h.s. databases and would be prioritized against i.c.e.'s law enforcement and public safety priorities. if the person met those priorities, their information, their record would be sent forward for investigation to i.c.e. field offices. >> you wouldn't have to wait for that person to commit some other offense or have some other enter action with government would you, surely? >> the overstay that i.c.e. is prioritizing is those who meet their public safety and national security priorities. if the person would not meet those priorities and they were likely an overstay, they would not be investigated by i.c.e. >> i was going to thank my friends for their service and also ask them about what role if any state and local law enforcement should play in assisting them but i'm out of time, so i yield back. >> the gentleman from south carolina seems to be most interested in -- based on the formula that ms. gambler just

shared the majority of visas that we give out in this country are b-1, b-2 entry-exits. mr. murphy testified they don't track any of the exits. none of them, so we have absolutely zero information about who may be overstaying, going beyond the bounds because they are variable. they are only supposed to go into certain parts of the country. it is probably the biggest gaping hole we have at our border. there is no tracking. there is no information. there is no statistics. there is no field reports. there is nothing unless that person commits a crime and i would hope that we could provide, the agency would be able to provide through may be the department of justice and others a report of how many

people committed crimes that came here on a b- 1, b-2, entry- exit visa. somehow, some way, we're going to unearth that number. now we recognize the gentleman from michigan. >> we have 11 milion people who should not be here. how do you come up with the figure? >> i keep hearing it in the media. rex i have heard it as well. i do not know the attribution. >> it could be more. >> i do not know. >> we do not. we do not know -- it is the old

saying. if the crime is committed and no one is there, how do you know the crime is committed except by evidence but we do not have evidence. a few other questions. what percentage of the border does technology cover? >> we have approximately 15,000 pieces of equipment covering about 17,000 miles. it does not cover all 17,000. that is east stone the military specs. you have to take it into consideration the geography and the topography. i do not know the percentage but we can factor that as well. >> i also heard you have cameras that do thermal imaging. when you detect someone crossing illegally, what is the response time? >> depending upon where we have whether we do it within the first mile, terrain will dictate that.

of the agents on the ground will determine which is the best way to make their approach in a safe and secure manner. >> he had to go out there and there were 26 people and they scattered. how do you send one or two order patrol agents to pick up 26 people? especially in the terrain i was in when i toured the border. is there another way? they had caught three. 23 got away. is that how we determine the number 11 million? >> i do not believe so. the earlier points -- whether there is one border patrol agent who responds determines how they are applying the strategy on the ground. the border patrol agent may not know how may people. we may not have specific

quantities. our strategy is built on being able to redeploy resources for those agents if they come across a group of 23 and they run. we would continue tracking operations and more resources would be brought to bear to continue to trek to the extent possible to make sure we apprehend everybody who comes across between the ports of entry. >> i also heard stories of hang gliders flying out of mexico. dropping off drugs in the united states and flying back. are you doing anything to stop that? referring -- you are to the ultralight. one of the things i alluded to theier, when you look at transnational criminal

organizations and networks that own and operate within the border areas, they're going to adapt their operations to increase their profit margin. one of the things we have seen is the ultralight. to adjust the radar to detect low-flying aircraft. it is not perfect. we have order patrol agents that use systems on the ground to identify those ultralights as well. >> you ever heard of the term catch and release? >> that was a phrase a few years ago and i believe it was coined perhaps maybe not the first time but used quite a bit by secretary chertoff it was meant when we were seeing increases of activity and locations, people that were going to apprehend in

between the ports of entry, we would on their own recognizance. where it is today in high risk areas if we -- is we want to maintain the policy of catching individuals that have come illegally between the ports of entry and make sure they're detained. >> a person who came here illegally, you catch them. and release them on their own -- >> the current policy was to end catch and release. in some locations over the years depending upon fluctuations and funding availability for the enforcement and removal operations, individuals that would otherwise or that would request a hearing in front of a pose any they did not risks to the public and it was no detention space allowed there was a provision within the administrative piece to release them on their own recognizance pending their administered of hearing with the judge. what we looked at is -- that

policy was adjusted depending on what resources are available. i have one more question. we go to in front of a judge and the judge would release him a correct? >> generally because i am not the expert. the border patrol agents do the work. once we made the determination we issued a warrant of arrest and a notice to appear. that was for an immigration hearing. andow many would come back reappear before the judge? do a percentage combat, do they all come back or 50%, 75%? >> i do not have the number off the top of my head. it is

probably closer to about 10%. would that be right? >> i would not want to guess. >> thank you. i yield back. >> we now recognize the ranking member for five minutes. >> inc. you for your testimony. it sounds like a relatively easy job. challenging to say the least. over the last decade the u.s. taxpayer has funded tens of billions of dollars in additional versatile, technology, and infrastructure along the southwest order. the list goes on. despite the sums of that money we know that our tells are able to bring illicit drugs into the country versus looking for the -- work still cross over.

itone disputes the fact that is guns, god, and gate spending has been affected -- effective. we take a look and see which onas produce better results. the gates. building the border fence or improving the existing fence makes sense on some locations but may not make sense and others. san of senate seat euro -- providesome say it benefits. is gambler, the gao questioning the effectiveness of the fence and that question has been raised for number of years. >> in our work we did find that

dhs had not taken steps to assess or quantify the contribution that fencing is making to border security and we recommended they conduct a cost analysis to do that. >> if congress were to do decide to do double the size of the fence or add hundreds of additional miles, how would the department determine where to build that extra fence? >> i do not know how they would determine where to build the fence but they do have analysis to determine what contribution something is making to border security efforts. that would be an important question going forward. >> i am guessing it makes sense to add fencing to some and a total waste for others. >> that would be for the department of homeland security to determine. sound like some areas

would be a good investment and others may not be a good investment at all? are you comfortable with -- the the department is putting criteria in place to identify which areas are which is -- are which? gao identified some major technology problems and found hundreds of millions of dollars were squandered. before we invest in that type of technology, can you tell us what lessons were learned? >> our body of work looking at the management of border security, border surveillance technologies has identified challenges in the management of that technology including the technology being delivered on schedule and within cost parameters that were set for the

technology. a report onssued dhs's new plan for to playing border surveillance technology to arizona. one of the key findings was that dhs had not fully documented the underlying analysis and justification used ,o support the type, quantities and locations of technologies it plans to deploy. >> you're comfortable the department is responding to your reports and recommendations? >> it is taking steps to a dress them. we do have ongoing work reviewing that new plan and our monitoring -- we are monitoring dhs's response. >> we're talking about increasing the number of agents exponentially. what steps should the border make surerol take to the increase of personnel is utilized? >> the border patrol issued its new strategic plan last year and may 2012.

part of the notation, we understand the border patrol is developing a process for assessing what resources are needed and how to deploy them. we understand the process is moving forward. they're looking to implement it 2014.4 -- 2013 and >> within the free market of the strategy we focused our efforts on being risk aced as opposed to asking for more resources and deploying them. that was a sick traffic and strategic shift in our thinking and deployment. as we move forward we recognize technology has come a long way. -- i thoughtubber at that point we were going to make a difference in border security because for the first time at night i was able to see five feet in front of me.

i thought that would change the operation by which the border patrol started in 1924. we continue to learn and adjust with the technology. as good as technology is getting, it is still no replacement for a well-trained border patrol agent. it does not matter what you have flying in the air, how many unattended ground sensors you have on the ground. -- the agentsld who are out there on patrol, there is no substitute for them. i am proud of the work they do. it is accommodation of the king at the best technology and the infrastructure and continuing to train and support the border patrol agent's is the best way and that is the way we are approaching implementation against this new strategy. >> thank you for your testimony here today. >> the chair recognizes the

gentleman from arizona. >> thank you. your testimony use of the following. we do not use this term operation control as a measure theorder security because complex nature cannot be described i a single objective measure. we cannot measure based on crime rate because even the safest amenities america -- and america has some crime. if you were claiming that one measure is not enough to measure do they tryity, why to pass off the southern border as secure? >> apprehension is still a metric that we capture and report to the department. we have learned quite a bit over the last couple of years, ms. gambler talked about some of that. apprehensionh

number does not tell you much. i would say that was a success. that was not a good metric. you need the apprehension to peel back the layers to understand how many people within that total population of arrests were there because recidivism does matter. thes important to me and organization to distinguish those individuals who are apprehended two times from those who were apprehended six or eight times. >> would you agree? >> from our standpoint as i indicated we look at it as a well-managed order. i do not think there is one single metric. there is a variety of things we look at. but we have tried to do is to look at transforming the way we do business. ringing in new technology, trying to do a better job much more efficiently. we feel that we are going to have much more success not only from the standpoint of

apprehensions or seizures and also from the standpoints of facilitating the legitimate flow of traffic and trade. >> are you aware of an experiment in which a drone looked at a court or overtime and looked at apprehension rates and made made a comparison of who crossed that border versus apprehension rates? >> there were 422 apprehensions but in actuality there were 7000 people who crossed the border. >> we have not seen that study. >> we will trust our border security to homeland security and we don't understand that? how familiar are you with the the numbers of illegal immigrants? >> in terms of the data we reported in the december 2011 report, we reported that border patrol had a number of apprehensions -- >> based on apprehensions. it shows less than 6% actually being apprehended verses what is

a known factor? >> we looked at a number of apprehensions as well. we also identified limitations with that data. >> i am pointing out that these studies are antiquated measures. >> we are in the process of setting goals and metrics, we recommend that come up with time frames to complete that effort. i am from arizona and we have some problems here. it should be a uniform policy all the way through. coming from a number of people, it is not going to be left of the homeland's security. all avenues of law enforcement, we have limited resources. it has not restored a lot of trust. >> operational control as the performance measure, we recorded miles were under operational control, that was in fiscal year >> it actually is one of the shining stars in regards to

border security. that is the proper answer. there has not been the a border crossing in that 40 or 50 miles for over six years, is that not >> the miles were under

operational control. >> is one of the shining stars in regards to border security. in that segment there has not 40 or border crossing in 50 miles in the yuma sector for over six years, is that not true? >> i am not aware of that specifically. >> when you're coming here to represent the dhs proposal, we need a success model. it has border fence, a unified application of the law, and even more important is actually prosecution. is it not true that those folks from tucson do not want to be pushed because they will get prosecuted? >> we have not specifically looked at that issue. >> i am having somebody from

homeland security entertain that you will have border security all the way through, no matter, you don't know what works, and you are still coming that we are going to and trust you with border security? trust is a series of promises kept. why should i have to trust you? >> you are with the governing accountability office. i hope that would absolve you from somebody -- the information sought from new, i think you're doing an excellent job. if the gentleman would produce the study mentioned at the beginning of your questions, could you? make that available for the committee? thank you.

>> to the chair recognizes the gentleman from new york. >> i am concerned about commerce. not only do we need to keep bad products out, but mexico is a very important trading partner with america. our third largest trading partner, and the relationship has grown tremendously in the past years. that is important to the economy of america and is also sustained through trade by some estimates of 6 million jobs in the united states.

there is economic value important to our people. they say u.s. sales to mexico are larger than all u.s. exports to the countries which are brazil, russia, india, and china. mr. murphy, is it true that part of your profession is not only to protect the border, but also help facilitate trade between our two countries and >> you are right. there was a study that shows that by adding additional personnel to help facilitate the border security aspect, but the trade facilitation aspect, it helps build and takedown, adding to the gdp and taking lost opportunity costs. we partnered with canada and mexico, we have the twenty first century border. we're working on reinspection

pilots, a partner in closely with mexico. i think that they have particularly matured. >> 700 of the fortune 1000 companies, can you give an example on how you protect against terrorists and illegal guns and really bad things

coming into our country? they also have a significant strength to stop terrorists or illegal guns. >> the detection of nuclear radiological elements. the id technology right now, 60% are trust and a traveler programs. we have a number of programs. this is the way that we can direct resources and allocate resources where they are truly needed from a trade standpoint.

fo laredo is a huge industry of trade. we have directed our resources and i mentioned about the workload staff model. this is a way that we can direct resources, allocate resources where they are need for my trade standpoint and from an enforcement standpoint. >> i have read a synopsis from princeton university, one of the think tanks. the increased border security. now because the border is becoming much tougher.

i ask anyone if elected comment on that, is there any substance to the idea that this report put forward? >> we have not evaluated that i told my staff if i could find two days where i could go someplace warm with some sand and they sent me to arizona. to tour the border fence.

it was a big eye opener. the ultralights , did you comment on that as well? patrol -- mistaken, border patrol receives money for the ultralight problem. that is an awful lot of money and yet we are not seeing any significant change. can you tell me what seems to be the problem? boastillion, you could -- you could post a border patrol to sit and look up at the sky. i keep hearing it is a problem from the boots on the ground. >> it has been defined as the emerging threat and continues to be so. one of the things to consider is ultralights take off and land pretty much anywhere.

we have and continue to experiment with ground-based radar to make sure we are able to identify ultralights and others that may be flying in that particular area. first and foremost, we enforce the laws in the united states in do so with a matter of consistency, compassion within the constitution. even if we detect an ultralight, the endgame has not been established in terms of what we can do. it will take out its cargo. i am working with the department of science and technology.

the law enforcement framework and how we can mitigate this threat. it has been a waste of taxpayer another quote, impossible to stop. we don't have the technology. intersecting narcotics and success rates are low. those are the comments from the boots on the ground. those guys in the trenches.

i have another question regarding this. it would seem to me that we have a very expensive fence. i am asking questions and i just want answers. you can't put razor wire on top because people are hopping over the fence.people are driving up and with the torch cutting through the steel and sending people in that way. they're welding a backup so the border patrol does not see it. in other cases, what else? there is no real detection for the number of tunnels.i asked about dogs. is this some problem with employing dogs with our border patrol agents? >> not that i am aware of. >> we know dogs can detect things in the sky as well as on the ground. should we employ more dogs

obverses $100 million worth of >> i would not s andst substituting canine handlers. each section of the border is some of the ultralight technology may not work in sections of el paso but it works really well and a place like l centro, california. it is identifying the geography among the tactics, techniques, and procedures of the criminal organizations, understanding how they operate so we can exploit that. there is no cookie-cutter

approach to do that. >> i would like to talk about the data issue. when thing that seems clear with the government accountability office, it is that the number of immigrants along thened markedly. -outhwest order between 2006 2011. this amounted to a drop in apprehensions. it suggests is currently infer this from the data that the number of crossings have fallen? >> the report was a lot of apprehension.the number of illegal entrants that were arrested.

the 2012 data reported by boat -- border patrol indicate that apprehensions increased from fiscal year 2011 levels. we also provide data the estimated border patrol did decrease in southwest border over that time. the meaning of apprehensions data seems to be the subject of some debate. the department continues to use this figure on an interim basis until it is able to develop an alternate approach in that poses some concern. how long has border patrol used the numbers of apprehension as its interim performance goal? >> they have been using that since fiscal year 2011. border patrol measure

flow across the border? >> when will border control use a more comprehensive data point for flows across the border? >> we start with the new metrics and fiscal year 14 which will start on october 1. >> can you talk about apprehensions' data to allocate resources? >> it does not dictate where we redeploy, that decision is based on risk. within the northern, southern, and coastal environments. we can be able to deploy and redeploy in the areas where they have operational control. >> if you were to get additional border patrol agents, what would be the biggest need? >> we have to do that in consultation with field

commanders at the border patrol agents to tell us what works and what doesn't work to put these resources in the areas of highest risk along the borders. we would make sure we put the resources in the areas of highest risk along the borders and work your way back. >> how often do you check? what is the evaluation process? >> with 21,000 border patrol agents, they are not shy to call me and let me know what works and what does not work.i appreciate their willingness to tell us and headquarters what is the best approach. >> do you have any current concerns about the apprehensive data?and how it is used? >> in terms of apprehension data, it is on the number of illegal entrants at the border patrol. we identify some limitations with the data the border patrol

collects and estimates for what are called turn back and not the limitations with that data preclude order patrol from using that data to make comparisons and performance across sectors. border patrol issued updated guidance for 2012 to provide for a more common approach to estimating turn backs and got a ways. they are implementing that guidance. >> and you feel like this will give a more complete data picture? >> we were trying, in some cases, we had to be very careful applying a very specific scientific method with accuracy and certitude to a function of operation that does not allow that. we are doing the best we can determine how many people came and and how many people did we

apprehend? no technology or system is going to accurately make that >>termination going forward. my time is up. thank you. >> and the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> i want to make a point, that we make sure that they had an opportunity to come before this committee. either he comes here or we go there. we need to have the discussion in front of the american people. one of the things i am critical about, a big fan of gao. you cited a number of studies in regards to the gentleman from illinois. i need to see that same type of

application from where we are coming from. mr. fisher made a comment that what works in yuma does not work the principlesse. are the same. enforcement, apprehension, and going before justice is not true. >> of the different geographic areas do not. >> let me ask you a question. you also want to say a secure border, do you feel that folks say that today? if we really want to start making this, it is secure going into the tucson sector. we have bigger problems, do we not?

>> in a west-east quick look at the border, that is always going to fluctuate. from what i understand, we have problems.in the tucson sector. it has shifted more to the texas side, but there are generalities we can hold true. can we put the slide appear on the screen? these signs were posted not at the border, but 80 miles from the border. they have told us that the policies are failing. the enforcement measures are so shoddy that i am saddened by the amount of illegal activity on the southern border. i am angry the federal

government is not doing its part to protect citizens. it seems that there is such a disconnect between those on the front lines and the bureaucrats. thankfully, we go directly to which is what i do. i am a science guy. to get the raw intelligence before it is scrubbed and framed in washington. i have talked to numerous agencie agents and the story thy paint is far different than the one painted by dhs representatives here today. one agent told me that the method for accounting border crossings is completely inadequate. the problem is that drug runners cover their tracks carefully going north because they don't want to be tracked. they are apprehended going south.

they might as well get a free ride home. another agent told me when he first started, one of the saying apprehensions are down. we are not catching as many people. he felt he and his colleagues were going to be scolded for not doing their job. one agent, and then that puts his live on the line each day, the border control is asinine. the people that actually do this for a living on a good day. i feel that they have one or two jobs to supply drug they also say it is a fight with the federal government.

this was the situation that can only be created by this. i would ask the you consider having another hearing at a later date. they highlight the real problems and guide us towards a real solution. it is a fascinating issue. we have primitive areas, and we have apprehensions to make the country secure. >> of the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> we have had it with officials that refused to appear before the committee. this is the chief investigative

panel of the house of representatives. what's his name? i want a meeting with your acting chair right now. willt a meeting -- we subpoena his butt in here or they will appear before us. this is the last time this is going to happen. dhsan have a particularly staffer, this is an important position, and it is important that he appears with these other witnesses. i am absolutely frosted and they will regret not appearing before the committee. i don't care who it is. i know your acting chair right now, sir.

staff, i want a meeting within the next 24 hours with the chairman and if we have to bring the other side, i am not pleased. a legitimate request given before this committee. >> emergency customs and border protection that overseas procurement, who would have the most knowledge?

>> you are looking at mobile rather than be fixed surveillance system, is that correct? one is at $54 million, the other at $100 million. are you aware of that? >> i have information from a whistle-blower, certain types of surveillance equipment that are available. they are available at over $100 million. the two principal types of surveillance equipment. >> i am not aware of that, sir. >> this is information i have, again, on the procurement that you are taking or dividing the contract. i want a report back from both of you on what is going on and what kind of equipment is being purchased.

i want a report on why you are paying twice as much for some equipment that has the same capability as others. this is something that has been brought to my attention by a whistleblower. i want it verified and documented exactly what you're doing there. getobal and tree, you can in with a global injury, -- entry card? border crossings, 3 different types of entry documents, there are four actually. the passport, right? global entry, you can get in with a global entry card?

>> there were thousands of documents out their -- >> can you get in with a global entry by itself? >> i will have to get back to you. >> what is your position? >> to the acting assistant commissioner -- >> you can't tell me if i can get in or out with a global entry card? >> you have to have the document and your face will appear on the screen when you're coming through. >> can someone entering through canada or mexico or somewhere, and with just a global entry

card? >> i will have to get back to you, sir. >> for the love of god. these are canadian -- there is another for mexico. >> sentry fast nexus -- >> we have all these cards. i had a hearing a couple weeks ago on the id cards. here,-so from dhs isn't so i can't go after him. they are responsible for overseeing some of the standards. none of them have a dual biometric capability, right? fingerprints and iris. >> yes. it's fingerprint. >> but not dual. get the transcript last week, fingerprints can be altered.

they're not secure. they're only secure -- the only secure means of identification is dual biometric. iris and fingerprint. but we don't have anything with iris. global entry, passport, sentry. >> i believe we are looking at its -- >> for a letter 12 years i've asked that it be done after 2201-- 2001. again, we don't have a person to testify. we have a document being used that can be dependable. >> i know that you have to have that card peacoat where did they send these people from? dear god. wait a second.

did you have two runs? that is my first run. i will go into my second run. did you have a waiting democrat? i will come back and tried to recover in the meantime. >> gentlelady from new mexico. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, and to the panel. i am an interesting position in that we have a small and unique border from new mexico to mexico. we are affected primarily by the border at el paso.

we don't get the same investments, the same federal investments, the border protection issues. we of public safety issues, one of the highest drug trafficking and substance abuse problems. now we have a legal pathway for folks to go back and forth. i am absolutely concerned about security issues, and given the topics of the questions today, of all the investments, watching for even more investments. which of those are the most effective?

i need to know that in terms of the cost effective aspect or protections in having them occur at the border. >> infrastructure and personnel along the border. -- a keytment has been number of reports looking at implementing infrastructure and personnel across the border. the department has been challenged to be able to identify contributions for border security. a recommend they conduct cost-effective assessment to be able to assess the tactical infrastructure that they have made a border security.

our review of the new technology on the southwest border. we recommend they identified the benefit and magic's for assessing implementation of the plan and the technology going forward. the question has a key take away. >> i am hearing that from my colleagues, while we know we need to do that, we don't have that concrete information. given the unprecedented investment, i am concerned about whether there are making difference that we need.

should our next set of fines, assuming they move forward, be contingent upon those assessments? and you can only draw down if you demonstrate it will be a cost-effective investment that also brings about the real results. >> it will be a policy called for congress. the investments made for the border security efforts. >> if we don't do that, the reality is that we make sure we have secure borders that we are using in other places. if we don't do it in a contingent effective manner, regardless of the policy decisions, we will not have an effective environment for protecting and securing the border making sure that trade takes place and we will travel back and forth across the

border, not minimize but excepted and a productive and a safe manner. based on the testimony today, i am concerned that we don't have that information readily available to us. it minimizes efforts that we make in congress. now anybody can answer. no takers? nosh i think we're working very hard to identify risks. not to beat a dead horse, but i think it is helping us identify areas that need additional resources, basically trying to take more of a business transformational type of love and our processes and how we do business.

>> the chairman recognizes the gentle lady from wyoming. >> to the previous comment by the gentle lady from new there and lies the problem. trying to get us to do comprehensive immigration reform at a time when we cannot assure our constituents, the people we work for, that the border is secure, it is a non- starter. i hear that from all aspects, from all of my constituents. i cannot tell them that we have accomplished is that one, the border.

especially those from non- states, though they have put on us. for have been telling us years to secure the border first, and we will talk about comprehensive immigration reform. there is a bill that will comprehensively reform immigration. it will not pass the house. toe for that will allow us have a robust conversation about comprehensive immigration reform. we have not secure the border. my constituents have asked me this repeatedly. is a fence the least expensive and most effective way to the border in land-to-

land border crossings? mr. fisher, is that true? >> in some locations, yes. >> do we have a fence in every location where that is true? >> anywhere that you have a fence, predominantly you put in place is because you have identified it as high risk attributable to the illegal crossings. just having defense does not guarantee border security. >> adding 700 miles of fence and 20,000 troops on our border to defend our borders. if you were me, you go home

every weekend, and they are telling you to secure the border, would you vote for the amendment? >> in similar circumstances, my wife will ask a the same question and we have an interesting discussion about that. not what would you tell your wife and your child. >> it is a very important issue. >> let me ask you. the corker amendment.

would you vote for that amendment? >> i don't think i can put myself in your position to answer that. >> you have the same conversation with your family? what do you tell them? the best with to what we have. >> i cannot answer that. i tell them we are doing the best we can with what we have. >> is our southern borders secure? >> we do not control the border. >> mr. murphy, is our southern border control? >> i think we are working to that end. >> if i go home for the weekend can i tell my constituents? what would you say? >> we are doing our best. >> for certain sections the border is secure. >> can you show us where it is not the cure? >> in some locations. >> can you advise us? can you help us make it secure? >> we are in the process.

>> when will that he completed? >> in the next few months. >> are you going to share it with us? >> it would be my intent, but it is not my call. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from illinois. >> i have another question about data. the border control collect data, and they review this data. they analyze border crosses and found that number had declined. they paid roughly the same picture. what else do you think they tell us? >> the recidivism we look at, and it found the recidivism decreased by six percent during

that time. they looked at known it illegal entrants apprehended more than once. it is not exactly the same. they are looking at numbers that have been apprehended more than once. i i want to make a comment totally understand what we call someone we expect the person to be here and to answer our questions, but it is my understanding the gentle man has offered to sit down with staff. i want to make sure we give him a little bit of credit for that.

withs offered to sit down staff. thank you. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let's go back to what is used for entry at the border. either of you gentlemen, are you familiar with the technical boards that approved the credentials for crossing the border? >> i am not, no. >> mr. murphy? >> no, sir. >> this is why it is so difficult to conduct this hearing without someone responsible who can answer these questions.

we have at least five documents i cited. the act in commissioner and the chief -- and you know mr. fisher, those documents can be used via themselves for global entry? >> i do not know that. that is not my area of expertise. >> you should know which documents can be used. i am not able to question whether or not there is any coordination in the development of those documents and what they contain, the capability they contain. how many individuals were

apprehended last year? maybe you have already told us. >> i do not have the number, but we arrested 410,000. >> you removed 410,000 back to their original point of entry whatever country they came from? >> yes, sir. >> how many are incarcerated in the united states at any time? will that be all of them? is there a population of illegals in our prisons? >> of those we removed, 225 are

convicted criminals. >> 225. >> 225000. they were convicted criminals. >> do you detain those convict did criminals? >> yes. we have four priorities. national security, recent order entrants. >> do we also pay for their legal costs? do you have any idea? are they read their rights? >> if they are convicted of a crime, they do their time in whatever a facility. we try to process them while they are still in custody so we do not incur additional costs. >> are they subject to an additional counsel, or they can get their own counsel? >> they can get their own

counsel. >> any ideas of the cost of incarcerating these individuals? >> in our custody or the custody of law enforcement? >> an estimate on the cost of incarceration. >> 34,000 beds a year, and those turn around quickly. 1.7 billion. >> a number of customs and border control people were killed in the last decade. have most of the culprits been apprehended? >> over the last few years there have been arrests of where there was

enough evidence to warrant their arrest. it was attributed to violence against order patrol agents and sometimes killing of order control agents. >> i remember working with the reagan administration, and reagan handled it by closing the borders for a while, but we still have people who have not been apprehended who have killed our agents.

>> that is true. >> that is a sad commentary. i think we need to do everything possible to target those individuals. it might be a good use of drones to take them out when you kill border patrol personnel of the united states. i yield back the remainder of my time. >> did you have questions? >> no, though if the staff could send a letter, i have asked for twice as much. they have divided the contract, and one piece of equipment cost twice as much. it is nice to divide the contract, but i do not care about that. i want to find out about the mobile surveillance equipment, the acquisition of the cost of equipment, a difference in any capability and what would justify paying twice as much for the same thing, and we will have the meeting with the chair of the subcommittee.

other than that, i appreciate the courtesy. >> you testified earlier part of the border is secure and others are not. what part of the border is insecure? >> these are areas where we generally do not have access. we have very little or nonexistent technology. it is only those areas where intelligence leads us to believe criminal organizations may be as avoiding those areas. that is what i mean that the border is more secure than others. >> what percentage? >> it is difficult to give a

percentage. >> what areas? >> all across the southwest border there are sections considered secure and sections that are less secure. inre is a five-mile stretch san diego. you may have visited on one of your recent tours. that is what we need the entire southwest border to look like. we have had all weather roads. there is a secondary fence. we have razor wire across that. there are hundreds of sensors. we have surveillance, and border patrol agents routinely deploy that. if you also look over the last 10 years, that area is the most exploited.

>> i am looking at which area is the least secure? now you are saying it is not as secure. >> that is an interesting point. it is not an either or proposition. it is the state of the border at any time. any section we say is secure is potentially being exploited. >> you said part of the border is less secure. >> that's correct. >> so at certain times all the border is secure and at certain times it is secure?

i would like to help you fix the border and make sure it is secure 100% of the time, but you are telling me part of the border is not secure. what geographical area is unsecure? >> we are talking about arizona. there is one particular area because we have less security in that area than we do in other areas. >> get a map. i would like to see a map. i am an old soldier. i want to know that i have got people to protect my perimeter. americans want to go to sleep at night knowing their perimeter is secure. i want to know what part is the weakest and what part is the strongest and what we can do to fix it.

>> understandable. >> i was just reading a blog. what does she mean by the term reverse escort? >> i can answer that. the activity has spiked. inhave seen an increase arrests. we have a congressionally mandated cap on overtime. a lot of arrests are under 18. we are only allowed to detain them 72 hours. with the surge of juvenile arrest, we are supposed to turn them over to dhhs.

we contact them and say we have a juvenile. where do we take them. we have to deliver them. they were doing so many escorts. an cost is the same for officer to go from san antonio to detroit. othere are asking the officers to do, we are having a detroit officer flight to san antonio, take them to detroit. it is the same cost. it is a way to deal with a mandate of overtime we can pay

our officers. >> they are saying immigration officers are dropping them off in sanctuaries awaiting amnesty. >> that is not accurate. my officers turn them over to health and human services. they have contracts to make sure he gets medical and food and until he gets a hearing. you would have to talk to health and human services who they contract with, but that is taken out of context. juvenileuld you fly a from texas or new mexico to detroit to await trial? >> because health and human services ran out of bed in texas.

juveniles are arrested in all 50 states. health and human services tell us, this is where we are going to take this child. here is where you bring them. >> thank you. i appreciate your clarifying. iis catch and release inc., toured the detention facility. i understand you only have so much bed space. 1500 something. >> approximately. >> if all those beds are filled and you have 30 you just caught, where do they go? >> we are actually

overburdening the budget. if we are completely full and beyond budget, as aliens come into custody, we make a determination. is there a case -- maybe he has a job in enforcement. can we put him in alternative form and make that bed available for the priority case? the priority cases are criminals, those that threaten national security. we increased the beds in texas to make sure we can't attain recent border crossers, because i think that is an important

strategy. >> i have heard border patrol agents tell me they get a message the beds are full, and they do not respond to, they do not make a big effort capturing 26. they may be only captured three or four. is that accurate? borderetain all recent entrants. we released people every day like every jail does. maybe we cannot get a travel document. maybe we cannot get a travel document to somalia. we have a supreme court decision that we can only detain someone for six months. we must release them. we make it a priority to detain those aliens, but there are

times there is an unaccompanied juvenile, and we can release them to our custody. they get there interview and find it positive, they will be on bond. we release aliens all the time on bond if they meet the bond by the judge. if we find out they are the sole caregiver for a child and that person is not in danger, he would serve better in an alternate form of detention. significanteard of increases in other than mexicans crossing our southwest order. ninehairman tweeted that romanians were apprehended crossing the southwest border

during this recent trip, and news outlets are reporting an increase in indian nationals, more than 1000 crossing into that state. what other countries are they coming from? >> a big majority now is guatemala and el salvador. we were bringing so many into custody, we got way over 37,000. i instruct them to meet and start a pilot program. usually they are in detention for 10 or 20 days before a government official from guatemala would interview them. it took 20 days, so the beds are backing up. i issued instruction to start a program with the agreement of the government. they are doing a pilot program within 24 hours.

they are issued a travel document within 24 hours. in the last two weeks we removed over 5000 to their country to these pilot row grams. that's got the bed level down. they are actually surrendering themselves at a port of entry and claiming fear. they will arrange an interview and tries to make that did termination is the fear credible. if they make that determination that he has a fear of returning to his homeland, they are eligible for release under bond or other supervisor bull

release. >> at least nine romanians, it is my understanding they went to trial and never showed back up. >> we are dealing with cis. last year we removed aliens from over 150 countries, so we see them in every country on the planet. >> walk me through this. they go before a judge? >> on mexican nationals we can return them pretty quickly. bys have to be approved officials from their country to a certain they are in fact a citizen of water guatemala. that is the process. we arrest somebody. anset them up for immigration hearing.

>> how many show up after you release them? >> it depends. they show about 80% at the hearing. what the border patrol is doing is those arrested crossing the border have expedited removal. that is a removal order in itself, so they do not have to see the judge. we get a quick interview with the government. they issue a document to remove them. if we arrest them in the interior we cannot process them.

we have to get an immigration judge. >> what percentage of otms do you have? do you have an average? >> at the time we had approximately 34,000 in custody. we had approximately 7000 or 8000. >> the rest are citizens? >> atd wear an ankle bracelet. they could be doing a bit check at the residence. forave about 80% alternative detention. nothat means 20% did appear? how many? 10,000? people talking 400,000 you process?

>> we had 475,000 last year. some are still fighting their cases. there will be an order of removal. they can go forward and repeal once again. >> you have 400 allison plus. 20% of that is 80,000 people. >> our current backlog has people that cannot be removed. 460,000 at the latest count. >> 11 million illegal in this

country. someone told me it is closer to 20 million. someone told me it was closer 30. >> that is why i think what ice is doing is smart and effective. firstgoing to be the 400,000 we encounter? i think focusing on those that threaten national security, i like to think we can decide who those 400 are going to be. let's decide who they are going to be. let's make community safety an important factor. 245000 were removed last year. that is a significant impact. the recidivism rate, how many

crimes did we prevent? half of the 400. >> 55%. eithert of the 96% were fugitives, those ordered removed and reentered. those border entrance remain a priority for us because we need to secure the border. >> a second illegal entry is a felony. >> if we catch them they can be prosecuted for a felony. >> do you agree with other law enforcement professionals who are concerned the rise in otms corresponds with the rise of smuggling coming out of mexico? >> i think a vast majority are

being smuggled by organizations operating out of mexico. >> i have one last question. did you have one? men i was at eloi they gave a daily report. it was a sheet of paper with all the countries in the world, and it had a little space. down day they would write the number held at the facility in that space. is that a daily report? >> i am familiar with that. we track where they are from through an electronic database. >> all the countries that were represented in that facility,

and knowing we do not capture 100%, but the one thing that offered me the most, -- that bothered me the most, it was the number one compared to ask dennis dan. -- to and. -- afghanistan. if we do not capture everyone, how many are from that particular country? that is a concern to me. i guess that is why i a awake at night when i think about this border. it is described as a strategy to secure borders.

>> i would describe those who seek to hurt this country. those are who we target. >> what does that mean? >> your question had to do with how we evaluate threat along the border. >> there was one person from dan. it makes sense. why is someone from afghanistan sneaking into our country? you said the border is not secure and someone wants to do us harm. it is my job to protect this country, the number one by aridity, and you are telling me

our border is not secure, and i would like to know what you think the biggest threat is. can you give me a percentage? >> i share the same responsibility as you. i took the same oath to support the constitution. the threat that keeps me up as well is those individuals that are potential terrorist seeking entry into this country. we identify what the requirements are to minimize the likelihood they are inclined get into this country. i cannot give you certain that

meant and percentages. i can give you an example. areas where we generally do not have capability. we see the vast majority of individuals seeking entry are within those areas thomas a vulnerable area is in the rio grande valley. >> one of the things we have done is push our border back. we know who is coming. we know what is coming from the cargo.

we get that entry in advance. we have radiation detection devices. we denied boarding 240 200 people in 2012. >> i want 100 are sent border security, and we do not have it. >> i have carried a badge and a gun for 29 years. i care about this country. i think the biggest threat is those who want to come to this country to do harm. a priority is investigations of a national security nature. also important is the safety of the country. i have in doing this a long time. there was a time when we would just go arrest aliens. i am enforcing immigration law. at the same time i arrest this person who is here illegally but has not committed a crime there is a child editor -- predator walking around. by deploying security communities across the country we have a virtual presence in every jail. -- and i think it is my job to

protect this country and our communities. the biggest threat is those who want to come to this country and do harm. the hsi position -- that is a priority project to work on. i think -- also important is the safety of the communities for those who want to commit crimes and commit a crime against a citizen of the country. that was a time when i was a a street agent enforcing immigration law. the same time i fore-- arrested this person who did not commit a crime, there was this child predator because wse-- this administration has done a lot and we have a virtual

presence in every jail. if they get arrested we will find out about that alien and take action and remove them in the country. i prioritizing on a national security threat or a threat to public safety, it makes sense to me. let's make that 400,000 count. 20ave been doing this for years. >> border patrol has identified threats to border security from terrorism, drug smuggling, and illegal migration. oner patrol is working developing risk assessment tools to help assess what those risks are and help the identification of resources, and that is in process.

>> i would like to thank all our guests. the committee stands adjourned. >> tonight at 6:30 eastern, wrote to the white house 2016 coverage continues as we follow kentucky senator rand paul to the university -- he will be speaking in west columbia. after that, remarks from fortified -- former florida gov. judd bush who spoke at a fund- raiser for the conservative party of new york. watch this tonight with remarks from senator ran the ball. tomorrow, chief justice john roberts talks about his life and career on the high court. we will bring you a panel discussion with contributor ted

olson and linda -- linda greenhouse. about the cases to look for in the fall. this starts on saturday at 9:00 eastern. also on c-span. historyday, american television commemorates the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg and this past wednesday, senator angus king spoke on the senate floor about this battle. thursday is the most important anniversary, july 4, 1776, but tuesday, july 2 is one the most important anniversaries. july 1, second and third are the days of the battle of gettysburg occurred, the defining event of the history of

the country and it is important that this year, the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. what i would like to do is share just a few moments about one particular aspect of that battle that does include the state of maine and the state of alabama. a man named joshua lawrence in 1862ain, who was, the professor of languages at bowdoin, maine. he decided he had a vision of america and he wanted to serve his country. regiment,a volunteer in august of 1862. up to washington and were deployed to the battle of antietam. the bloodiest day in american history. maine,tely for the 20th

they were held in reserve that day but did see action over the course of the fall and early winter at the battle of fredericksburg and then, along with two great armies, they went north into the state of pennsylvania. president, you will have to bear with my skills here with cartography, but it would be helpful if we could see what happened. draw virginia. this is a big triangle. marylandthe border of and pennsylvania. 1863, two great armies when north out of virginia. the army of robert e. lee came up the west side of the appalachians, with the army of by atomic -- potamac led

mede. lee had the desire to engage the federal army in one climactic battle which he correctly thought could end the civil war. nobody knows exactly why, on july 1 those two armies collided in a little town called gettysburg. there is a rumor that there was a shoe factory there and the southern army was going to requisition those, but for whatever reason, the two armies met in this little town of gettysburg, pennsylvania and one interesting thing was that lee's at get it --st harrisburg and going to gettysburg, and the union army was coming from the south from washington, in this direction. at the battle of gettysburg the northern army came from the south and the seven army came from the north. was arst day of battle

standoff, as they met by accident in this town. there was fighting in the streets of gettysburg and south of the town. this was a draw. on julynd of the day 1, words flashed back that this was the confrontation, and reinforcements came in from both lines of march, to meet in this little town. what happened on the second day was on the morning of the second day. the union troops, this is the town right here. culp'sded up on a hill, hill. in a long line to the south. there was an area where they buried people, seminary ridge. a number ofates --

us say that the markers poor -- hello this was a place where they train people to be preachers. generations of sixth graders but been confused by this this is where the confederate troops work.

the union general grab the nearest anchor and said we have to occupy immediately. stromllow's name was vincent. and they went to the top of this hill. joshua lawrence chamberlain had only been the krul for about a of 358e was in charge men and vincent towercam to the ,xtreme left flank of this hill which was called little round top. we had pennsylvania, new york, and maine and vincent took joshua lawrence j. berman -- chamberlain to this point. this is the extreme left flank of the entire union army. you are to hold its ground at

all hazards. that means to death. almost immediately upon getting to the top of the hill, up came the 15th alabama, one of the crack regiments in lee's army. up the hill to try to dislodge the 20th maine. if you have not been to gettysburg, if god was going to build a fortress, it would look like little round top. steep, rocky, lots of places to be behind, and indeed, chamberlain took maximum advantage of that. as the charge came, they were able to repel it. alabamahour or so, the and scheme again. nas came again. there were pushed back. they came again and were pushed back. each time they got closer and closer to the top of the hill, because of the nature of guns in the civil war, a good shooter in the civil war could get off four shots a minute.

so i want you to think of yourself, mr. president, the top of the hill with the 15th alabama coming up, and you take aim with your rifle and shoot. bang. you are now prepared to shoot a second time. that is 15 seconds. that is how long it would take to get another shot. that is why, in this situation, the charge came closer and closer. by the third and fourth charge, it became hand-to-hand combat. i should say, joshua lawrence chamberlain was not a soldier by trade, he was a professor at a little college. he spoke 10 languages but he had a deep vision for the meaning of america, and a deep

concern about the issue of slavery. when he was a student at bowdoin college in the early 1850's the young professor's wife was writing a book, and he sat in the living room of mr. presser -- of this professor and listen to her read excerpts from this book. the book turned out to probably be the most influential book ever published in america. it was called "uncle tom's cabin." in described for people america the evils of slavery. and, indeed, when abraham lincoln met harriet beecher stowe, he said i'm shaking hand that lit the fuse of the war. it had lit the fuse that led to the pressure that ultimately led to the abolition of slavery. in any case, four, five charges, each time the 15th alabama was repulsed. then they were gathering at the bottom of the hill for the final assault.

late in the day, hot afternoon, july 2, 1863. forproblem was, chamberlain, his men were out of ammunition. they had it been issued 60 cartridges at the beginning of the battle, and they had all been fired. asthen had a choice to make a leader. he had three options. one was to retreat, a perfectly honorable thing to do in a military situation, but his orders were to hold the ground at all hazards. because if he had not, if the confederates had gotten around little round top, the entire rear of the union army was exposed. his other option was to stand and fight until overwhelmed. that would not have worked well. because it would have only delayed them for a few minutes. instead, he chose an extraordinary option that was unusual, even at the time, and he uttered one word, and the

word was bayonets. there is a dispute in history whether he also said charge and what his order was, but everyone agrees he uttered the word bayonets, and his soldiers knew what that meant, and down the hill into the face of the final confederate charge came 200 crazy guys from maine. the 15th alabama for the first and only time in the civil war was so shocked by the technique that they turned around. the 200 boys from maine -- i beginningcause at the there were over 300. they had lost 100 to casualties and death. captured 400 to 500 confederates with no bullets in their guns. chamberlain tried to call on their men back. they said, hell no, general, we are on our way to richmond.

i tell the story because it is a great story of bravery. chamberlain received the medal of honor for his bravery and creativity that afternoon. i tell the story because it is a story of our country, a story of how a single person's actions and bravery can have enormous impact. historians argue about whether this was really the key turning point, was there something else, another regiment somewhere else? the argument could be made at this college professor from -- that this college professor from maine saved the united states. the defining moment for our country was that hot afternoon in pennsylvania, july 2, 1863. i believe it is one of the great stories in american history, and in fact, the story of chamberlain and little round top is being taught in army manuals today as a story of leadership, creativity, courage, perseverance, and of

devotion to god and country. mr. president, i hope all americans will think about these moments and thousands more like them as we celebrate not only the birth of our country next week, but also the rebirth of our country in the three days prior to july 4. thank you, mr. president. >> the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. live coverage begins at 9:30 p.m. eastern -- 9:30 a.m. eastern. later at 5:30, we will take your calls and tweets. -- at the clock, the 8:00, commemorative ceremony with keynote speaker doris goodwin, followed by a candlelight procession to the national cemetery. we will end the day with peter

carmichael taking your calls and tweets. one day after the senate correct -- passed their immigration bill, members of the house gang of seven discuss the prospects of passing an immigration bill in their chamber. on citizenship issues. small partisan bills that are in some cases, bazaar we have not touched how you get a 11 million people write in the law. how're you going to get those people to comply and move forward. >> you cannot deal with a broken immigration system because

whether you like it or not, there are many who are here and have been here for many years. and knowing that reality does not make it go away. mean congressman that some will have to consider legislation that includes a path to citizenship for that a lot -- 11 million? or is there something short of got that will clear the house and satisfy the senate?

>> first we need to recognize that the folks are here. i think if we do not get into some general policy areas of discussion, i think it would be very counterproductive for our future as a country to have a group of people who are here, who are here for ever, in essence permanently, and potentially even legally -- those who might want to, you know, really put their hands on their heart, pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states and everything that that symbolizes. to have a group of people here permanently who could never do that i think is counterproductive to our future. now, having said that, you have got to balance that with making sure that we do not violate something which is sacred -- the rule of law. can you reach that balance? i think we have in our discussions. it is doable. if you wonder if i am not specifically answering your question, i am not. but i think it is very important to understand what the policy ramifications are, and can we reach a good, medium point that satisfies the role of law, making sure we don't violate the rights of folks who have been

doing everything legally or will be doing things legally in the future with making sure that we don't have a group of people who are always in the shadows and who can never aspire -- those who really want to -- aspire to be part of this great country. >> speaker boehner yesterday was asked about your efforts. >> that was a portion of an event held earlier today, by bloomberg government. can see the entire event at 9:30 p.m. eastern. criminal to me that i had to authorize my financial people to write a check for $450 million to extend our contract with the russians to continue to carry our crews to the space station for 2016 and 2017 because we had not yet brought about the american capability that is coming with our commercial crew program. the president said he would call

for $21 million for commercial cruz. we are now halfway there. my job is to try to persuade congress that the plan is good. i have not been successful of that yet, but i'm working on it. we are at 525. 800 million is what we need if we are to make the 2017 date. >> more with nasa administrator and retired marine corps general charles boldin sunday night at 8:00 p.m. on c-span's q&a. >> we are live in columbia, south carolina. republican party members are gathering for a fund-raiser to hear the speaker tonight. istucky senator rand hall

mentioned fairly prominently as a 2016 presidential candidates. he will be the featured speaker this evening. other speakers will include some .f his congressional colleagues the associated press right about this evening that primary voters will not cast their ballots for more than two years, but within the state, like others, paul's name is frequently mentioned as a 2016 presidential contender. a couple of those events as well. you can find them in our video library. hisrs are eager to hear conservative message, adding will hear from the white

house hopefuls in the coming months. livell bring you the event once it gets under way. rand paul androm follow some of your sweet as well. formerwill hear from florida gov. jeb bush. while we're waiting, we're going to bring new some comments from the chairman of the immigration caucus. we will show you what we can until the event it under way.

host: we're back with congressman luis gutierrez, immigration task force chairman for the hispanic caucus, the lead voice for immigration reform for house democrats, for the democratic party. when it passed yesterday, 68-32, what did you think about the prospects in the house? guest: i think the prospects in the house are good. i think the prospects in the house are good if we continue to understand that things happen in washington, d.c., as long as there is a consistent and persistent demand outside of washington, d.c. there is an immense power for comprehensive immigration reform. it is broad, deep, powerful, and it is now going to visit the house of representatives. i think that you are not going to be able to stop the will of the american people, which was clearly voice on november sixth. they said stop evicted -- stop the bickering and fighting, stop picking winners and losers, stop scapegoat voting and criminalizing because we are going to elect the party that we want to fix immigration, and that is the party that won the election. i hope the house of representatives sees the will of the people as demonstrated on election day.

host: what gives you hope? the speaker saying it is dead on arrival. where working piecemeal alone here, but we're not going to take up the senate bill. guest: surprise -- it is washington, d.c., and they are not taking up the senate bill. i have been here 21 years, and i cannot remember the last time they did that. we're going to take your legislation. that is not the way it works. anybody that watches washington, watches the way things work here in washington, d.c. knows that the house of the process, senate has a process, that is what you have conference reports. when frank dodd got written, dodd did something, nobody said, barney frank actually crafted his own response.

even when democrats are in charge of each of the chambers, each one puts his own. host: what does it look like in the end when the health of the weather legislation and the -- when the house comes up with its legislation and the senate has there's any two sides get together? guest: i think you have a pathway to citizenship for 11 million people. the first thing you do -- he put them in a safe place. you say that you're going to protect those families. misunderstanding who the 11 million are. the 11 million, most of them have been here for more than 10 years. there are 4.5 million american citizen children whose parents are undocumented. they work and they are a part of our nation. they are part of -- they are woven into the fabric of the communities that they live in. what we want to do is say listen, we wanted you to get right with the law. you are your undocumented today, what we want to do is give you

an opportunity to register with the government. what does that mean? that means we want your fingerprints, we want to do background checks, we want to make sure you're not a criminal, we're going to make sure you never committed a crime -- a criminal offense. it is a criminal offense to be working in the united states without a citizenship. host: if you are a senator or voted for a reform law, would that make you more likely or less likely to support that official for reelection? republican said 49% less likely. guest: you know what? that is kind of what is representatives. in the senate, what occurred was republicans and democrats came

together. and as you saw, as the legislation developed, you see a democratic majority yielding yielding to wear a republican minority in order to crack the border to get the 60 in order to craft a bill to get 60 votes yesterday. in the house of representatives, unfortunately, all we are is a republican response in the judiciary. we do not have a bipartisan response in the house of representatives. when i asked them in goodlatte when are we going to begin, he says well, luis, you had a chance to work with my majority, and you do not reach a bill, so i am taking up these bills. way it works in washington, d.c. he can at any point say luis, i understand you work with paul ryan in chicago, i understand you were in san antonio. i figure you are working in good faith with republican.

can i help you? that is leadership. host: rig guarding to the gang of 7, now the gang of 8. have you put any pen to paper? guest: it is done, it has been drafted, the legislative language as there appeared a little -- is there. i still believe in a bipartisan approach and the house of representatives. we're just waiting for our republican colleagues at this point to read it and accepted. i'm so hopeful that we will be able to get one. there are dozens of republicans who want immigration reform. but i think you have got to do it -- you've got to let the house have an opportunity to voice its will.

when that legislation was proposed to take away the dreamers, young, immigrant youth who came here as children, and the president offered them deferred action, to say they are legalized, i am going to give you a work permit until the congress of the united 198 out of 201 democrats voted against it. that is a solid bedrock. we need an opportunity for republicans to join us. will they allow a vote? they say we will only allow a vote under the majority. in other words, they will only allow a majority votes, where -- a republican vote, where there is a majority of the majority. host: speaker boehner said he would like the gang of 7 to keep working, to keep meeting, you put pen to paper, it is 500

papers, which republican are reading it? guest: congressman carter, among others. i really believe that given all of the energy that is coming over from the senate, and all of that organizational capacity that is coming over from the senate from diverse groups, i mean, we are talking evangelical to catholics, right? republican pundits and democratic pundits. it is a very diverse and powerful and deep group. republican leaders and democratic elder statesman. it is really broad and deep. those voices are coming to engage the house of representatives. host: the gang of 7 anyhow, your bill is 500 pages. the bill passed in the senate, 1200 pages.

why such a big difference? what is in that bill? guest: we each have our way of going about the process. obviously, senators add a lot of things. that is a pretty accurate description of senate description. -- senate tradition. when you look at a senate bill, you find what does this have to do with anything? it has to do that the senator wanted it in there for their vote, and that is the way they built it. look, important is what issues we are addressing. friend,eard my congressman collins, say the promise of 1986 was that we would secure the border. well, no, there was no promise in 1986 that we would secure the border. none. read the bill. it was the promise that we would fix it than that illegals will not be able to come here.

what it said is that we would have employer sanction. let me tell you what happened. employer sanctions under a ronald reagan administration, followed by a george bush, the father, and administration, here's what happened when they impose it. in georgia, when they do not have anybody to do with the chickens or to pick the onions or to pick the crops, they would call the republican senator and say hey, could you call those enforcement able to get out of here? we need people to be working our field. so let's make this clear. this is different. there will not be phone calls from senators or members of congress because we will have an important feature that is not -- an enforcement procedure that it's got -- not going to let them intervene. host: let's get our viewers and call. cindy has been waiting,

independent caller, welcome. caller: every politician running for office last november campaign vigorously on jobs, so why on earth would any of these elected officials be even thinking about passing this bill, which so hugely increases the number of workers coming into our country, flooding our country. guest: actually, that is not what happened in the bill. in the bill, you legalize the 11 million that are already here. thecbo score, the score senate proposal says, that they create such economic activity that they actually reduce the deficit by $175 billion during the first 10 years, and they reduce it by another $700 billion in the subsequent 10 years. let's make clear -- read the senate proposal. listen to what people say. read the senate proposal. it says legalize. pay all your back taxes, pay taxes for the next 10 years, but do not expect a dollar from

the government. my colleague, congressman collins said, well, we have already got obamacare, now we're going to add all of the illegals. wrong, incorrect. they are specifically excluded from any subsidies under the affordable care act. not one subsidy, not one dollar, and they can't get medicare. we took care of that in 1986, but it has been reiterated for obama care. so they can pay all of their taxes, yet cannot derive single benefits for your first 10 years. host: the previous caller asked if the 11 million are here, once they become or have a legal status, can they bring their family over? guest: the number of 11 million can go up. those that are here are already going to be integrated with their families. so i imagine the caller would not want the undocumented

worker to get documented and not live with his american citizen children in his american citizen spouse. so the way the program is decided, if i am undocumented, obviously, all of my minor children under the age of 18 get to be incorporated in the program along with my wife. host: i think the caller was referring to people coming from other countries, mexico, to join their families, to join a family member who has just obtained provisional status. guest: no. the viewer should understand the way the program works. if you legalize during the first 10 years, you have no permanent status in the united states of america. you have a provisional status. it allows you to work, pay all your taxes, learn english, go to a background check, and after 10 years, you can then apply for what is called a green card. permanent residency. you must stay in permanent residency for five years, so that is 15 years.

then you can apply for american citizenship. should you achieve american citizenship 15 years on the road, you may also have somebody young enough you can still apply for, but i doubt it very much. host: sandy, abilene, texas, republican caller. caller: i am concerned. i watched the march as of 2007. you can still get them on youtube. there were literally hundreds of thousands of these young, what we call dreamers, dragging our flag through the streets, spitting on the flag, letting their children urinate on our flags, hanging our flag upside down under the mexican flag, and now all the sudden, there'll drew -- they are all dream children. they're all valedictorians. i am concerned. i am concerned that these people do not really love america. they want to take america, but