[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE BORDER: ARE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS IMPEDING SECURITY
AND HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT?
=======================================================================
JOINT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY,
HOMELAND DEFENSE AND FOREIGN OPERATIONS
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
and the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS,
FORESTS, AND PUBLICE LANDS
of the
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
APRIL 15, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-34
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Serial No. 112-24
Committee on Natural Resources
__________
Printed for the use of the Committees on Oversight and Government
Reform and Natural Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
68-220 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
DARRELL E. ISSA, California, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland,
JOHN L. MICA, Florida Ranking Minority Member
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
JIM JORDAN, Ohio Columbia
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
CONNIE MACK, Florida JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TIM WALBERG, Michigan WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
JUSTIN AMASH, Michigan JIM COOPER, Tennessee
ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
PATRICK MEEHAN, Pennsylvania BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
SCOTT DesJARLAIS, Tennessee PETER WELCH, Vermont
JOE WALSH, Illinois JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
DENNIS A. ROSS, Florida JACKIE SPEIER, California
FRANK C. GUINTA, New Hampshire
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania
Lawrence J. Brady, Staff Director
John D. Cuaderes, Deputy Staff Director
Robert Borden, General Counsel
Linda A. Good, Chief Clerk
David Rapallo, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah, Chairman
RAUL R. LABRADOR, Idaho, Vice JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts,
Chairman Ranking Minority Member
DAN BURTON, Indiana BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PETER WELCH, Vermont
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
PAUL A. GOSAR, Arizona MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
DOC HASTINGS, WA, Chairman
EDWARD J. MARKEY, MA, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Louie Gohmert, TX Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, AS
Rob Bishop, UT Frank Pallone, Jr., NJ
Doug Lamborn, CO Grace F. Napolitano, CA
Robert J. Wittman, VA Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Raul M. Grijalva, AZ
John Fleming, LA Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU
Mike Coffman, CO Jim Costa, CA
Tom McClintock, CA Dan Boren, OK
Glenn Thompson, PA Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan,
Jeff Denham, CA CNMI
Dan Benishek, MI Martin Heinrich, NM
David Rivera, FL Ben Ray Lujan, NM
Jeff Duncan, SC John P. Sarbanes, MD
Scott R. Tipton, CO Betty Sutton, OH
Paul A. Gosar, AZ Niki Tsongas, MA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR
Kristi L. Noem, SD John Garamendi, CA
Steve Southerland II, FL Colleen W. Hanabusa, HI
Bill Flores, TX Vacancy
Andy Harris, MD
Jeffrey M. Landry, LA
Charles J. ``Chuck'' Fleischmann,
TN
Jon Runyan, NJ
Bill Johnson, OH
Todd Young, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel
Jeffrey Duncan, Democrat Staff Director
David Watkins, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON NATIONAL PARKS, FORESTS AND PUBLIC LANDS
ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman
RAUL M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, AK Dale E. Kildee, MI
John J. Duncan, Jr., TN Peter A. DeFazio, OR
Doug Lamborn, CO Rush D. Holt, NJ
Paul C. Broun, GA Martin Heinrich, NM
Mike Coffman, CO John P. Sarbanes, MD
Tom McClintock, CA Betty Sutton, OH
David Rivera, FL Niki Tsongas, MA
Scott R. Tipton, CO John Garamendi, CA
Raul R. Labrador, ID Edward J. Markey, MA, ex officio
Kristi L. Noem, SD
Bill Johnson, OH
Doc Hastings, WA, ex officio
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on April 15, 2011................................... 1
Statement of:
Reyes, Hon. Silvestre, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas............................................. 8
Vitiello, Ronald, Deputy Chief, U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol; Kim Thorsen, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law
Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management, U.S.
Department of the Interior; and Jay Jensen, Deputy Under
Secretary for Natural Resources and Environment, U.S.
Department of Agriculture.................................. 18
Jensen, Jay.............................................. 36
Thorsen, Kim............................................. 29
Vitiello, Ronald......................................... 18
Wood, Gene, National Association of Former Border Patrol
Officers, founding member and former sector Chief Patrol
Agent, McAllen, TX, and San Diego, CA; George Zachary
Taylor, National Association of Former Border Patrol
Officers, founding member and retired Supervisory Border
Patrol Agent, Nogales, TX; Jim Chilton, Chilton Ranch,
Arivaca, AZ; and Anu Mittal, Director, Natural Resources
and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office,
Washington, DC............................................. 68
Chilton, Jim............................................. 130
Mittal, Anu.............................................. 138
Taylor, George Zachary................................... 83
Wood, Gene............................................... 68
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Chilton, Jim, Chilton Ranch, Arivaca, AZ, prepared statement
of......................................................... 132
Jensen, Jay, Deputy Under Secretary for Natural Resources and
Environment, U.S. Department of Agriculture, prepared
statement of............................................... 38
Mittal, Anu, Director, Natural Resources and Environment,
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC,
prepared statement of...................................... 140
Quigley, Hon. Mike, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Illinois, prepared statement of................... 173
Taylor, George Zachary, National Association of Former Border
Patrol Officers, founding member and retired Supervisory
Border Patrol Agent, Nogales, TX, prepared statement of.... 85
Thorsen, Kim, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement,
Security, and Emergency Management, U.S. Department of the
Interior, prepared statement of............................ 31
Vitiello, Ronald, Deputy Chief, U.S. Customs and Border
Patrol, prepared statement of.............................. 21
Wood, Gene, National Association of Former Border Patrol
Officers, founding member and former sector Chief Patrol
Agent, McAllen, TX, and San Diego, CA, prepared statement
of......................................................... 70
THE BORDER: ARE ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS AND REGULATIONS IMPEDING SECURITY
AND HARMING THE ENVIRONMENT?
----------
FRIDAY, APRIL 15, 2011
House of Representatives, Subcommittee on National
Security, Homeland Defense and Foreign
Operations, Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, joint with the Subcommittee
on National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands,
Committee on Natural Resources,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Rob Bishop
(chairman of the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests, and
Public Lands) presiding.
Present from the Subcommittee on National Security,
Homeland Defense and Foreign Operations: Representatives
Chaffetz, Labrador, Tierney, Lynch, and Quigley.
Present from the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests,
and Public Lands: Representatives Bishop, Labrador, and Kildee.
Also present: Representative Pearce.
Staff present: Thomas A. Alexander, senior counsel; Brien
A. Beattie, professional staff member; Molly Boyl,
parliamentarian; Kate Dunbar, staff assistant; Mitchell S.
Kominsky, counsel; Kevin Corbin, staff assistant; Carla
Hultberg, minority chief clerk; Chris Knauer, minority senior
investigator; and Lucinda Lessley, minority policy director.
Mr. Bishop. All right. We are ready to start here, and some
of our other colleagues will be joining us, and we will see how
far we can get in this process. As you all know, there is a
change in the schedule today, for truly unusual circumstances,
so we will be interrupting as time goes on for votes
repeatedly. We apologize for that. What we will do is simply go
over. It will be one vote at a time. So we run over, come back,
probably no more than a 10, 15-minute interruption as we go
with that.
So, with that, I am going to call this hearing to order. I
note the presence of a quorum, which is pretty low bar for us
here today. The Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland
Defense and Foreign Operations and the Subcommittee on National
Parks, Forests, and Public Lands are meeting today to hear
testimony on how environmental laws and regulations impede
border security operations and even harm the borderland
environment.
So, under the rules, the opening statements will be limited
to the chairmen and the ranking members, whenever they show up,
and so we can hear from our witnesses more quickly. However, I
will ask unanimous consent to include any other Members'
opening statement in the record if submitted to the clerk by
the close of business today. Hearing no objection, that will be
so ordered.
I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Texas,
Mr. Reyes, who has asked if he could make a statement in the
hearing, be allowed to be our first witness of the day if he is
here when we reach that time, otherwise when he gets here we
will interrupt you and allow that to take place. With no
objection, that is ordered. I just banged the gavel.
I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New
Mexico, Mr. Pearce, when he arrives be allowed to join us on
the dais and introduce one of the witnesses and participate in
this hearing. Once again, without objection, so ordered.
And I will make my opening statement after my colleagues
have had a chance to speak. So I will now recognize the
chairman of the Subcommittee on National Security, Homeland
Defense and Foreign Operations for his opening statement. Mr.
Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you to my colleague and friend and
chairman, Mr. Bishop.
Today, we are examining the extent to which Federal
environmental laws and regulations affect the ability of law
enforcement to patrol and secure our borders. We also examine
the extent to which restrictions placed upon border patrol
agents are actually harming the environment.
Since December 2006, the drug cartel-related violence in
Mexico has continued to escalate in both frequency and
intensity. In Mexico, almost 3,000 people were killed in 2007.
That number increased to almost 7,000 in the year 2008, more
than 9,500 people killed in 2009, and by 2010 that number is
now over 15,000.
According to reports, most of these crimes occurred in or
within a short distance of the U.S. border towns, and Americans
have also suffered. Three U.S. law enforcement officers have
been injured or lost their lives in recent months. On February
15, 2011, two U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents,
Zapata and Avila were both shot in the line of duty. Mr. Zapata
later died from his injuries. In December 2010, U.S. Border
Patrol agent Brian Terry was fatally shot near Tucson, AZ,
while attempting to prevent criminal activity along the border.
Now, at this point, I was going to show you some of the
brutal photos. Having reviewed those photos, they are so
graphic and so disturbing I worry about sharing them in this
format here.
This deep and continuing increase of violence just across
our southwest border raises serious concerns for the public and
Members on both sides of the aisle. The Department of Homeland
Security is responsible for securing the U.S. border. In
response to illegal activity at the southwest border, including
illegal activities occurring on Federal land, the Department of
Homeland Security has in the last few years increased the
amount of agents and resources directed toward preventing human
smuggling, drug trafficking, kidnapping, and illegal
immigration. Despite the increase of Federal resources Richard
Stana, Director of Homeland Security issues at the GAO, the
Government Accountability Office, has identified gaping holes
in our border security strategy. Just recently Mr. Stana
testified that there are only 129 miles of the roughly 1,954
mile long southwest border where the border patrol can
actually, ``deter or detect and apprehend illegal entries.'' So
let me repeat, only 129 of the nearly 2,000 miles are
adequately secure.
This is unacceptable and the Federal Government should be
ashamed. With the Federal Government spending billions of
dollars on flawed border security strategy, we must find a
better solution that is comprehensive, intelligent, and cost
effective. Because of the Department of Homeland Security's
inability to secure much of the border, our national security
depends on Border Patrol's access to Federal lands.
In 2006, the Department of Homeland Security, Department of
Interior, and the Department of Agriculture all entered into a
memorandum of understanding. The purpose of this MOU was to
guide and facilitate Border Patrol activities on Federal lands.
It also sought to ensure that concerns about protecting the
environment would be addressed.
The MOU emphasized the need for cooperation and timely
responses by Federal land managers to requests by the Border
Patrol. According to the MOU, the parties agreed to cooperate
and do so, ``in an expedited manner.'' However, a recent GAO
report authored by Ms. Mittal indicated that, ``cooperation has
not always occurred,'' between Department of Homeland Security,
Interior and the USDA. They will be testifying today all on the
same panel.
Border Patrol agents in charge of 16 of the 26 stations
have told the GAO that, ``when they attempt to obtain a permit
or permission to access portions of Federal lands, delays and
restrictions have resulted from complying with land management
laws.''
I fully support the utmost protection of our environment
and multiple uses of public lands, but at the same time we must
listen to the Border Patrol agents who put their lives on the
line every day. Some agents have asserted that delays resulting
from environmental laws have, according to Ms. Mittal's report,
``lessened agents' ability to detect undocumented aliens.''
Again, this is totally unacceptable.
An unsecured border is a national security threat. The
sooner this administration realizes this fact and acts
accordingly, the safer we will all be.
I look forward to hearing from our panel of witnesses. I
appreciate all of you, the time, effort. Many of you have
travelled from great distances. We appreciate you being here
today. I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Representative Grijalva, who is the
ranking member on my subcommittee I see on the floor. So I know
he is here with us in spirit, and as soon as he arrives, he
will be recognized to give any opening statement if he would
wish to do that.
We do have the ranking member from Government Ops, whatever
your title is now, here. I appreciate Mr. Tierney for joining
us and I will recognize him for as much time as he wishes to
make an opening statement.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank all of our
witnesses that will be testifying today.
The question posed by today's hearing is whether
environmental laws prevent the Border Patrol from safely
securing our border. The unanimous answer in written testimony
from the Border Patrol, the Department of the Interior, the
Department of Agriculture, and the Government Accountability
Office appears to be no.
As Chief Vitiello made clear in his testimony, border
security and environmental stewardship are not mutually
exclusive. Let's not make an attempt to create a false choice
where none exists. Of course, the Wilderness Act and other
environmental laws place some restrictions on the Border
Patrol's operations in sensitive areas, but according to the
bulk of testimony that we will receive today, those
restrictions impose a relatively low burden that has been
successfully managed through interagency cooperation.
Mr. Chairman, this isn't to say that there are not serious
incursions on our border. We know, for example, that drug
smugglers and human traffickers continue to use Federal lands
to perpetrate their illegal activities. Nonetheless, while some
of these lands are used to commit illicit activity, many are
also home to precious environmental resources, cultural
heritage sites, and endangered species.
The message from today's hearing is that the Border Patrol
believes that it can effectively achieves its border security
mission and be a responsible steward of the environment at the
same time. The Department of the Interior and the Department of
Agriculture agree, and the Government Accountability Office,
which has studied this issue extensively, concurs.
This committee is no stranger to the challenges posed by
securing the southern border and the ongoing violence in
Mexico. In the last Congress, for example, the committee held
several hearings examining the security threats posed by drug
cartels in Mexico and Federal strategies to confront those
challenges. Tragically, over 30,000 citizens of Mexico have
been killed there in the last 4 years in wanton drug violence.
There are many real challenges that undermine our mission
to secure our borders, but almost by all accounts today
environmental restrictions are not one of them.
Mr. Chairman, I look forward to working with you to
identify and tackle the very real challenges that do confront
our border security. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. I thank the gentleman for his opening
statements. I am prepared to give mine at this particular time.
Look, I am glad that we are all here on this particular
process and especially that we will be joined by a couple of
people. Representative Grijalva, who will be here soon,
Representative Giffords, who we pray for a speedy recovery to
soon join us, and Representative Pearce, who has joined us on
the dais represent the areas that are most impacted, and I
appreciate their significance and their problems as they try to
tell their constituents why they are being inundated with a
problem that basically has solutions that we could find here in
Washington if we wished.
The issue is illegal entrance into this country. I think
the bottom line has to be that it is unacceptable, even one is
unacceptable, but what is happening today is unacceptable.
Homeland Security, the Forest Service, and Department of
Interior all have the responsibility in here, and the bottom
line is what you are doing isn't working. The status quo is
unacceptable. If things are getting better--and the GAO report
said in some areas it is getting better--that is positive, but
it is not good enough, and it is not just people coming across
the border searching for a better life.
What is a concern for us is that the people who are coming
across the border are the drug cartels who are destroying the
lives of our kids with illegal drugs. There are prostitution
rings. There are human traffickers. There are people who are
being assaulted and raped and murdered on American land, and
that is unacceptable. And what is worse, American citizens
living in this area are being threatened and being killed, and
that is simply unacceptable.
If I can have map 2 up there which shows all the regions
that have been coming here from the last bit of data. Now, some
of those regions are doing very well. I think the number of
people who have been apprehended in Maine, I think the number
is 56, which shows that Canadians from Nova Scotia are not
coming here to take our hockey jobs. But in each of the last 2
years for which we have numbers, it is about a half million
people have been apprehended. That is the ones we caught, not
the ones who came in. And if you look at the numbers, a quarter
of a million of all those went through the Tucson sector by
itself. Fifty-one percent of those who are coming into this
country are coming in through that one sector, and no wonder
you can understand why Arizona reacted the way it did and
passed legislation in their State legislature because that is
almost a thousand people a day being apprehended through their
sector alone, and Tucson isn't all of Arizona. You have Yuma in
there at the same time.
So the question has to be why is that the access of choice
for those coming in here? Can I have map 1. This is the
borderland by definition and borderland is a hundred miles
above the border. Everything red on that map is owned by the
Federal Government. In places where we are having success,
there is not a whole lot of red. In the places where the
problem exists it is red. The GAO report said 97 percent of all
the apprehensions are now coming on Federal lands.
When we built the fence, 36 laws were waived in order to
build the fence. One makes the assumption that those 36 may
indeed have a reason in the problem that Border Patrol has in
securing the borders right now. Department of Interior, I am
sorry, but your response so far has been No. 8, which is to set
up a sign telling Americans not to go on American property.
Now, the outrage at these signs for secure was major, and you
pulled them down which is right, but the attitude has not
changed. A sovereign country has to control its sovereign
lands, and we are not doing that and that is simply
unacceptable. It is still unsafe for Americans to go into
America, and that is simply unacceptable.
A representative from Homeland Security will come in here
and basically tell us that things are fine, we are getting
along, we are improving. I just want you to know I don't buy
it. I don't buy it because the logical assumption of that
testimony means Border Patrol is incompetent to do their job,
and I don't believe that for 1 second. I believe the Border
Patrol is competent to do the job, but there are frustrations
with the Department of Interior and the Forest Service, and if
I can have No. 4, I believe, that prohibits them.
These are the old barriers we used to have along the
border. They have been removed as we have gotten better
barriers, and now one land manager, under the direction of the
Department of Interior, used these borders not to secure the
border but to stop the Border Patrol from entering into areas
he did not wish them to enter. That is unacceptable.
The Border Patrol can do their job if they are allowed to
do their job. Even Senator Bingaman, who is not a hawk on the
border, introduced a wilderness bill for New Mexico and
recognized in his bill that there should be a 5-mile strip
along the border in which the Border Patrol have total access.
He got the right idea. He just had the number wrong. Five miles
doesn't cut it.
The GAO report that came to us, a lot of people have taken
one sentence out of context, which said that 22 of the 26
stations said things are fine, unaffected by land management
practices. However, if you read the entire report and went down
to page 32, you would see that what they said is, in other
words, no portions of these stations' jurisdiction has had
their border security status, such as controlled, managed, or
monitored, downgraded as a result of land management laws. To
me, that is not the same thing, especially if you look at the
rest of the report and see how 17 out of 26 of the stations
said they did have monitoring delays and portions of their
programs were delayed; 14 out of 17 did say they could not get
waivers from land managers in a timely manner. The majority did
say cooperation has not always occurred. The data is not
accurate, as it says some land managers monitor areas in a
routine basis, some document on an ad hoc basis, still others
collect no data at all.
The EIS statement can take over 75 days to accomplish.
Three out of seven said the wilderness restrictions cause a
problem for them. Five out of seven said the Endangered Species
Act causes a problem for them. There was one area in Arizona it
took 4 months to get permission to move a mobile surveillance
system, and the reason for it, according to the manager down
there, he has limited staff with numerous other priorities.
This was not important to him.
In a place in Arizona it took 6 months to get permission to
improve roads that the Border Patrol needed on Bureau of Land
Management land to conduct patrols and surveillance equipment;
8 months in another area to allow improvements for truck
transportation to move an underground sensor that didn't take
place.
I find it interesting that in some places it simply never
happened. The Border agent in charge told us that maintenance
needed for five roads and two surveillance system sites within
the station of operation, but they did not receive permission
at all. So without these maintained roads the agents could not
conduct routine patrols or reach the sites for mobile service
systems even in an area of high illegal traffic.
In another area where there are few roads, the agent said
one additional road on an east-west corridor close to the
border would be effective to combat the 8,000 miles of trails
that undocumented workers have produced in this particular
system.
In another area of the National Forest, they actually
approved for helicopter landings, because of its remoteness,
and that is great, but unfortunately everything was delayed
until 2011. Contrasting two previous examples when Border
Patrol requested additional access in another national park
wilderness area, the management land manager determined that
additional Border Patrol access would not improve the
protection of the resources. So what happened is they put those
surveillance on land that is owned by the State of Arizona, not
by the Federal Government, and it still created a 3-mile hole
in the surveillance for undocumented workers. The land manager
requested the Border Patrol to find a different location for
the tower because of Wilderness Act restrictions and he
explained that the Border Patrol did not demonstrate to him
that the proposed tower was critical. He made the final
decision, not the experts on the Border Patrol area.
And I am sorry, the witnesses will tell you the memo of
understanding is working; no, it is not. I am glad that you are
becoming chummier with the memo of understanding, but the memo
of understanding is not the same thing as border security. The
memo of understanding is not a solution. It is a process and
the process that the numbers show you on the first slide is
simply not working.
The results of that memo are unacceptable. The memo has
failed. It was designed to fail, and it prohibits the Border
Patrol from simply, in fact, actually doing their job. What the
memo does is confer what people on the ground have contended
and what Washington has denied. What we have to do is regain
control of our lands from the drug cartels. National security
has to be our No. 1 issue. To take the phrase from Bill
Clinton, it's national security, stupid.
If the fence needed 36 waivers to be done, Border Patrol
needs those same kind of situations. Border Patrol should not
be stopped or inhibited in anything they try to do. The
environment is being trashed by illegal entry. It is not
national security that is threatening our environment. It is
the lack of national security that is threatening our
environment.
The Department of Interior must have better priorities so
that human life takes a higher priority over what they are
looking right now with the blinders they have. Environmental
laws and border security are in conflict.
You are going to hear a lot of spin today especially from
the next panel of witnesses. One may hope, if I can phrase once
again from Man for All Seasons, that when your head quits
spinning it will be facing toward the front. What is happening
right now is not acceptable and it has to change.
All right. I appreciate your patience in that. Once again
when Mr. Grijalva arrives, we will have his opening statement.
I want to thank you. We have previously recognized Mr. Reyes,
who will be here. We approved your presence here. We noted that
you would be the first speaker for us. Your timing is
impeccable. You came at just the right time to give your
statement, and we appreciate the service and the history that
you bring to it as one of those Border Patrol workers that did
such a great job in an area where you were allowed to do a
great job.
You are recognized, Mr. Reyes.
STATEMENT OF HON. SILVESTRE REYES, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS
Mr. Reyes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Chairman
as well, and Ranking Member Tierney, and I know Ranking Member
Grijalva is probably on his way. I just saw him speaking on the
floor. But thank you for giving me an opportunity to be here to
lend my comments to the very important work that your two
respective committees are doing.
I guess one of the real first points I want to make and
underscore is oftentimes we that both represent border
districts and those that are elected to leadership positions in
the border area get frustrated because decisions made here,
particularly at the Federal level, often impact the communities
and the relationship between communities and the Customs and
Border Protection and other law enforcement agencies that have
very important work to do to secure the Nation.
So I want to tell you how much I appreciate the opportunity
not just to be here this morning, but I actually was part of a
field hearing that you did in Brownsville, TX, where the
community got a chance both to testify and also to observe a
hearing in process.
Just last week the Committee on Homeland Security on the
Senate side, Senator Lieberman's committee, asked my county
judge to come up and give testimony. So she was up here and in
fact made a number of points that I want to reinforce here this
morning.
First of all, I represent the safest city in the United
States of over 500,000 people or more. It is interesting to
note that five of our border cities, to include the two largest
ones, El Paso and San Diego, and McAllen, Laredo and Tucson are
in fact on the top 10 list of safest cities in the country. The
reason I mention that is because oftentimes the rhetoric does
not match what we are experiencing, those of us that live on
the border. The border is not a lawless region. The border is
not an area that is out of control. I can't say enough about
the work that Border Patrol is doing. I can't say enough about
the cooperation that exists to make sure that border
communities are secure, feel secure, and our job is to make
sure that the facts come out.
So when we talk about the border region I would strongly
recommend that you do a series of hearings, in particular maybe
in those cities that are among the safest cities in the
country.
I speak from a perspective of having spent 26\1/2\ years
working the border, working my way up from an agent, working 5
years in the Del Rio area, Del Rio sector, and then being chief
in two other areas, South Texas and El Paso, where I was born
and raised. So I always wanted to make sure as a the only
Member of Congress with that background that I get an
opportunity to at least provide what I feel is very important,
and that is accurate information about what is going on, and I
don't expect people to take my word for it. I welcome and in
fact, we have had a number of hearings, both in El Paso and
other areas that have I joined both this committee and other
committees that have that responsibility to take testimony but,
most importantly, to actually go out there and see the work
that is being done by our Border Patrol agents, see the work
that is being done in concert with other agencies, both
Federal, State, and local, which is very important, the
cooperation that exists.
I wanted to give one example of how that cooperation is
important by citing a recent issue that existed in my community
and that was there is one last section of fencing that needs to
take place right near our downtown area in El Paso. In that
area is also the water source that is literally 12 minutes away
from the water treatment plant that when it was initially
proposed to fence that area would have put that water source
south of the fencing. So thanks to the cooperation of the
Customs and Border Protection, consulting with the community,
we came up with a compromise that we are going to close off
that canal so that people that are intending on maybe taking
some kind of a terrorist act against the United States don't
have access to that water system. So we will close it off, the
Border Patrol will get their fence, and the fence will also
protect some infrastructure that the city was concerned about
that is critical in controlling the water runoff during storms.
Those are the kinds of cooperative and consultation efforts
that make sense in our communities, and I guess today, I would
ask that the decisions that are recommended from this committee
be done with that spirit in mind, that we oftentimes want to
make decisions, for instance, putting up a very expensive fence
in areas that really don't need it, in areas where we can
monitor it electronically, where agents have sufficient time to
respond once those intrusions are known. They are the experts.
I retired from the Border Patrol over 15 years ago, but I still
am very much interested, keep in contact, and proud to say that
they are not just my former colleagues but my friends and we
need to do everything we can to support them, both because it
is America's first line of defense but, most importantly,
because the Border Patrol works on the theory that it is always
better to consult with the local community because they are
part of that community so that both priorities are reached,
both the enforcement priority and the community priority as I
just spoke about with the example I gave you.
The last point I want to make is that when I retired we had
a little over 5,000 agents in the whole Border Patrol. We have
done a very good job of increasing the size of the Border
Patrol. Today, there is over 20,000 agents. There is one area
that I am concerned about that we haven't focused on and I hope
we get a chance to do that, and that is at the ports of entry.
Today, we are seeing alarming statistics of the amounts of
narcotics that are being intercepted at those ports of entry,
and across the Nation those ports of entry are carrying on a
normal average about a 31 to 38 percent vacancy ratio in their
ranks. That means many different things, including the fact
that it creates a vulnerable environment for our country, but
it also means long waiting lines for people wanting to cross
the border and obviously it also means that based on the
statistics we are seeing that more narcotics are coming through
those ports of entry because that work force is overwhelmed. So
I hope we get a chance to have hearings on increasing the size
of officers at those ports of entry.
I know that when you, if you ask Border Patrol here this
morning, they can tell you the same thing and verify the fact
that it doesn't make sense to have control in between the ports
of entry and not at those ports of entry that account for
millions of entries every single day from Mexico into the
United States and also from Canada into the United States.
So with that, thank you for giving me an opportunity to
testify before you this morning and I would be happy to answer
any questions you might have.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Reyes. We are going to be
respectful of your time, but does anyone have questions for the
gentleman from Texas?
Representative Chaffetz, go ahead.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thanks for being here, and I know you care as
much about this issue as anybody. From your perspective, Border
Patrol agents are putting their lives on the line, they are
going into inhospitable areas, people that they don't know,
that they are trying to apprehend. Concern is the rural areas,
particularly we have some environmental laws that prohibit the
use of vehicles and other types of things. Can you really look
somebody in the eye and say you know if you do this on foot,
you are going to be equally as secure and safe and as effective
as you would if you were in a vehicle? That is my concern is
that, you know, and part of the testimony that we are about to
hear in the written testimony that came before us, Kim Thorsen
from Interior said, ``on any Federal lands at any time you may
patrol on foot or on horseback.'' I can't imagine looking some
Border Patrol agent in the eye and saying you know, sir, sorry
you can't use the vehicle here, all the communication tools,
safety and security and speed that you can get, you guys go out
on foot. Is that really what we should be telling our Border
Patrol agents?
Mr. Reyes. Well, not so much foot, but I will tell you my
experience has always been Border Patrol is a hardy bunch. They
love patrolling on horseback. And there are a number of reasons
for that, not only does it provide quick access in very rough
terrain, but it also allows them to have a higher perspective
of whatever is ahead of them and they can ride up on groups of
people much faster and much safer. If you rely on----
Mr. Chaffetz. Than a vehicle?
Mr. Reyes. Than a vehicle. Well, remember what we are
talking about are the areas that you just mentioned are very
rough terrain, very uneven terrain. Yes, we have things like--
--
Mr. Chaffetz. Some of it is flat as can be, right? I mean,
it is not all mountainous.
Mr. Reyes. No, no, it is not, but I guess from my
perspective, from my experience, it just makes sense to give
the tools to the Border Patrol that they need and in some of
these areas what they want are the ability to patrol on
horseback.
Mr. Chaffetz. I guess the core question there is who should
make that decision? Shouldn't that be the decision of the
Border Patrol to say this is how we are going to secure our
folks?
Mr. Reyes. Well, the law says that the Border Patrol has
the right of access anywhere, unrestricted anywhere within 25
miles of an international border. They have that authority but
the chiefs locally----
Mr. Chaffetz. I wish that was true. My understanding is
that is not true. My understanding is that is on private
property but not on public lands. The issue here is, for
instance, the Organ Pipe National Forest is one of the big
issues. They can't do that.
Mr. Reyes. And I know the area----
Mr. Chaffetz. They have to go get permission from somebody
who doesn't have the best interests of the Border Patrol in
mind, that doesn't have to deal with the fact they are going to
ask somebody to go risk their lives out on this public
property.
Mr. Reyes. I have been there. I have seen that area. I have
talked to the chiefs that have been in charge of those areas.
They don't have a problem of access, at least the ones that
I have talked to, because they do patrol that area effectively.
They have the same concerns that Chairman Bishop
articulated, and that is, from an environmental perspective,
the water jugs, the plastic bags, and all of that stuff that
undocumented people leave are an issue for them.
But access and the ability to patrol--and I am not speaking
for them; they will be testifying.
Mr. Chaffetz. Right.
Mr. Reyes. But I am telling you, both from my experience
and from talking to the chiefs in those areas, they don't--at
least they have not told me that they are denied access to that
area.
Mr. Chaffetz. I want to conclude within my scope of time. I
guess the point I am trying to drive home is, the Border Patrol
should be making those types of decisions, whether or not they
use a horse or foot or vehicle. And that is my driving point.
Would you disagree or agree with that point?
Mr. Reyes. I would not disagree, although----
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Reyes [continuing]. Don't discount the fact that the
chiefs that are in charge of those areas have the best interest
of officer safety in mind, first and foremost, but they also--
you know, one of the things that I have learned through my
experience is, no one is more attuned--and I go back to saying
the Border Patrol is a hardy bunch. No one is more attuned to
the surroundings, to respecting nature, and those kinds of
things. That is why I mentioned to you, one of the biggest
complaints that I have heard is about the refuse that is left
behind by undocumented people.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Tierney, do you have questions for your
colleague?
Mr. Tierney. Yes, I do. Thank you.
Mr. Reyes, thank you for joining us here this morning. And
I do respect the fact that you have, I think, more experience,
certainly, than any Member of Congress at your job on the
Border Patrol, but you have also, since been a Member, been
very focused on this area and continue because of your
district, obviously, to be in touch with people on that. Which
strikes me as--we are sort of trying to impose on you here some
of the questions, you know, an outsider's view, that you have
the experience but we still want to tell you what works.
Mr. Reyes. Right.
Mr. Tierney. And what I am hearing from you is that,
basically, when there is an environmental law or regulation
that might touch up on a conflict with a security issue, that
it has been your experience that the agencies involved have
been able to work it out pretty reasonably.
Mr. Reyes. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. OK. My understanding, also, is the memorandum
of understanding between different agencies is that, when there
is an area of exigency, whether it be hot pursuit or some other
security issue, the Border Patrol actually does have the
ability to use motorized vehicles. Is that right?
Mr. Reyes. That is correct. That I know of, nowhere on the
border under emergency situations is the Border Patrol
precluded from doing whatever it needs to do.
Mr. Tierney. All right. And there was a question here a
moment ago about, you know, who makes the decision. Well, we
have laws in this country, and I would suspect that those
prevail. Am I right?
Mr. Reyes. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. And you find the agencies generally try to
implement those laws?
Mr. Reyes. True.
Mr. Tierney. And then the memorandum of understanding is a
way to try to reconcile any conflicts that might appear within
those laws?
Mr. Reyes. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. And your experience has been that the agencies
have been able to effectively, under that memorandum of
agreement and through other cooperative means, resolve any
issues or problems, for the most part, that come up under that?
Mr. Reyes. That has been my experience, yes.
Mr. Tierney. OK.
And I am just reading on that: ``The Border Patrol may
access lands by motorized vehicle or otherwise in exigent or
emergency situations.'' And that seems to cover any ground--
when it comes up to a final decision, the Border Patrol decides
it is an exigency or an emergency and they need to have use of
a vehicle and they go. Has that been your experience?
Mr. Reyes. Yes, it has. And, you know, you have to remember
that there are times when perhaps you have an airplane crash,
you have some other kind of emergency, an agent is shot; the
Border Patrol chiefs are not going to allow anything to
interfere with being able to get in there and do whatever needs
to be done to both secure the area and, most importantly, take
care of whatever officer is injured.
Mr. Tierney. Well, it appears, at least from this
perspective, that our laws don't interfere with that either,
that they are set up----
Mr. Reyes. They do not.
Mr. Tierney [continuing]. The laws and the agreements under
them, to allow that to happen?
Mr. Reyes. Absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. So has it been your experience that there are
other factors involved in sometimes causing difficulty for
Border Patrol agents or others to get control over a particular
area? Topography or, you know, the geography of an area, are
they sometimes more of an impediment for the agency?
Mr. Reyes. Well, sure. And that is why--again, the chief in
the sector knows that area best. He is in constant
communication with both the agent in charge of whatever area is
in the station that you are describing. And decisions are made
both in terms of being able to secure the area and how they
would respond and with what they would respond.
I mean, that is the chief's responsibility, to make sure
that, in the case of a national emergency or an emergency
affecting officer safety or the safety of maybe a rancher or
maybe an undocumented person whose life is in jeopardy, they
will make whatever decision needs to be made and have that
access without any problem.
Mr. Tierney. So how many years, Mr. Reyes, were you a
member of the Border Patrol?
Mr. Reyes. Twenty-six-and-a-half.
Mr. Tierney. So, 26\1/2\ years as a Border Patrol agent and
chief, 15 years in Congress representing an area that is very
involved in that, and your conversations with the various
agencies, representatives, and employees along there. How many
instances are you aware of where an environmental law or one of
the other laws that we are discussing this morning was an
insurmountable impediment to the Border Patrol doing its work?
Mr. Reyes. I can't think of any.
In fact, I will tell you, Border Patrol agents work very
closely in Texas with what we know as ``tick riders.'' And
their job and their responsibility is to make sure that cattle
does not come over from Mexico because of the kinds of diseases
they would have. So Border Patrol works very closely--I worked
with them when I was an agent.
We work very closely with the Parks and Wildlife people; on
occasion, DPS, the Department of Public Safety; and park
rangers in general in the areas that they have a presence. So
when you are wearing a badge and you have that responsibility,
you want to make sure, to the extent possible, that you have
both knowledge of who is there and an understanding that they
are going to come to your assistance and you are going to go to
their assistance, because of both the environment and the
hostility of the area or, perhaps, either a drug smuggler or
alien smuggler or others that might not distinguish and not
know the difference between a Border Patrol agent, a park
ranger, a tick rider, and others.
Mr. Tierney. Well, thank you for coming this morning and
sharing your extensive experience from a range of perspectives.
Mr. Reyes. Thanks.
Mr. Bishop. My good friend from Michigan, do you have any
questions of Mr. Reyes?
Mr. Kildee. Just a statement.
I am from Michigan, and we border on Canada. So we have to
sometimes look at our northern border, also. And, generally,
those who do try to get into Michigan either come in by plane
from Europe--the one person they caught trying to bring a plane
into Detroit--but by water. And I have been impressed by the
cooperation between the Border Patrol and the Forest Service
and our Coast Guard. There are three very important--and I
think we have to encourage that cooperation.
And sometimes laws have to catch up with changed
circumstances. And if there is need for change in laws,
hearings like this might help that. I am not sure there is a
need if there is already good cooperation.
But I do appreciate your service to your district, your
State, this country, and to this Congress. Thank you very much.
Mr. Reyes. And I would just add, the Royal Canadian Mounted
Police, Border Patrol has an outstanding working relation and
history with them, as well, because we--at least it has been
the history that most of the resources have been on the
southern border with Mexico because that is where the pressure
is. So we have less officers, and they depend on relationships
with local law enforcement like the RCMP up there.
Mr. Kildee. Well, one good Border Patrol person, Diana
Dean, helped apprehend Ahmed Ressam, who was up to no good at
all. She, with her training and her perception, was able to
stop that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Dale. I appreciate it very much.
The chairman, who is an ex officio member of this
committee, is here. I will recognize him, and then I will
recognize Representative Pearce from New Mexico.
Mr. Issa. I will be quick.
Have you been sworn in? Because I have a lot of questions
for you.
Mr. Reyes. I think every time you testify before Congress,
the assumption is we are sworn in.
Mr. Bishop. We have already sworn at him, but we haven't--
--
Mr. Issa. Yeah, there you go.
Congressman, thank you for being here, and thank you so
much for bringing us an inside view from an outside agency.
So that is the only reason I showed up here, was--I said,
wait a second here, not only is this my committee room, this is
one of my best friends in Congress and somebody I rely on for
the kind of advice you just gave.
So thank you. That is all I wanted to say.
Mr. Reyes. Well, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. Because, as I
have said publicly on occasion, many times, while we may differ
in our politics, I think we all want to do what is best for our
national security and the protection. And how we get there
really is, I think, the important part, for many different
reasons. These guys are the experts.
I thank God that I have that background because I really
enjoyed my 26\1/2\ years in the Border Patrol. I don't think
there is a finer law enforcement group in the world than the
Border Patrol. But, as you can expect, I am probably a little
biased. But they do great work.
Mr. Issa. Part of what we know about you is you used to be
somebody.
Mr. Reyes. Yes. Thank you.
Mr. Issa. Thank you.
Mr. Reyes. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Issa. Thank you, Chairman.
Mr. Reyes. And thank you for being here this morning.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You must be something special. He has never said anything
that nice to me. Thanks a lot.
Mr. Issa. In time, in time.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah, yeah.
Representative Pearce.
Mr. Reyes. Well, remember, he was a member of my committee
when I was chairman of the Intelligence Committee. We worked on
many different issues. You know, one of the----
Mr. Bishop. So you are telling me you have photos or
something?
Mr. Reyes. No, not that I am aware of. But we did work on
some really tough stuff that will never--that people will never
know publicly. But, again, it is about the national security of
our country.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity to be here on this committee.
And I thank my neighbor for his decades of service both in
the Border Patrol and here in Congress.
More a comment than a question. I am hearing what you are
saying, that El Paso is the safest city in the United States,
less than 15 miles--I mean, El Paso bumps up against one of the
towns in my district.
Mr. Reyes. Right.
Mr. Pearce. And 15 miles from downtown El Paso, they
literally bar their windows and doors, and they don't feel like
they are in the safest place in the world. In fact, just about
2 weeks ago, in Anthony, they declared their streets to be
completely unsafe. And what can be done about it? And so, that
is such a contrast from the safest city to just 15 miles away.
Wasn't there a major highway that was shut down in El Paso
last year because of gunfire? Was that the year before?
Mr. Reyes. No. And just a comment about--Anthony is not on
the border. And----
Mr. Pearce. Sunland Park is on the border.
Mr. Reyes. Right.
Mr. Pearce. But I was in Anthony. Sunland Park is the same.
They feel--they express tremendous concern for their safety.
Mr. Reyes. Well, if you--we have to separate criminal
activity by non-illegal-aliens that are coming through the
area. And Anthony's streets were declared unsafe because of
gang activity, the waring gangs there, which occurs throughout
anywhere in this country.
But the Border Highway, which literally runs right along
the Rio Grande River, is the road that you were referring to.
And, yes, there was a gun fight that occurred in Juarez, which
may be the most violent city. Certainly, it is the most violent
city in the Americas, but may be one of the most violent cities
in the world because of the friction among the cartels. But
there were bullets. The concern by the police department was
that a stray bullet might hit a passing car there. It is just a
consequence of the location of that highway.
Mr. Pearce. Sure.
Mr. Reyes. By the way, that----
Mr. Pearce. If I could reclaim my time----
Mr. Reyes. Go ahead.
Mr. Pearce [continuing]. Mr. Chairman, I would point out
that the gang signs, whatever the gang signs are from Mexico,
Central America, have appeared on barns in the 2nd District of
New Mexico, and it alarms people.
Then we have the rancher that was killed. His ranch butted
up against those ranches of ours.
In the 26\1/2\ years that you served, what wilderness areas
did you actually--were in your jurisdiction right under your
command? Which wilderness areas did you--the formal designation
of wilderness.
Mr. Reyes. Well, as an agent, I worked the--what is known
as the Amistad Lake area.
Mr. Pearce. Is that wilderness? Is that designated
wilderness?
Mr. Reyes. Sections are. In fact, some of the--because of
the excavations of some of the caves there, with hieroglyphics
and all of that, they have been put under the jurisdiction of,
I believe, the Department of the Interior.
It is an area--Amistad Lake, as you know, like Falcon Lake,
is right on the border. Half of it is in Mexico, and the other
half is in the United States. And we had the responsibility for
the U.S. side.
Mr. Pearce. OK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I could reclaim
my time, I am about to run out of here. But I would just
observe that Mr. Bingaman submitted a bill last year and the
year before to make wilderness on the area. And, in contrast to
your assertion that we had 25 miles access in every wilderness
area on any place from the border, he actually had to, as a
compromise, designate that we could get wheeled vehicles into a
5-mile stretch. And that was a compromise. Initially, it was
not.
And wilderness--the Gila Wilderness--a long time ago, an
airplane crashed from my hometown in the Gila. They had to
backpack the bodies out. In other words, wilderness is a very
restricted designation. We have had testimony that if we
created the wilderness along the Rio Grande, that they would
not be able to actually get bulldozers in to replace the
earthen dams that washed out in the flood about 3 years ago,
and then we would be subject to flooding for the rest of time.
So wilderness area--I have the Gila Wilderness in my
district. I went to the Organ Pipe National Monument, and I saw
the signs. And we had the formal briefing that half of that was
completely off limits to American tourists because of the
illegal activity across the border. And if our agents were able
to access that, it doesn't seem like that it would be off
limits to American tourists because it was so dangerous. Many
places in New Mexico, only a barbed-wire fence is there on the
border.
But, again, I yield back my time.
Mr. Reyes. Mr. Chairman, if I can respond?
Mr. Bishop. I will give you 15 seconds.
Mr. Reyes. OK.
The International Boundary and Water Commission has the
authority to do the kind of work that--irrespective of
wilderness designations, that Mr. Pearce was talking about, in
terms of levees and dams and all of that. I think if you check
that out, it will be clear who has the jurisdiction.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Reyes, I just want to give the benediction
to your presentation here today by thanking you for being here.
The written statement that you gave, I actually agreed with
point after point of it.
Our cities are improving. The Border Patrol is doing a
great job there. In fact, one of the GAO report studies simply
said the Border Patrol has put, in their words, put a strategy
on high priority on border enforcement in urban and populated
areas. It does work. Border Patrol can do their job when they
are allowed to. But it has had the process of diverting large
concentrations of illegal traffic to the Federal lands and
other remote areas where you are talking.
I agree with you, as well, that the agents should be able
to respond as best they can. I agree, also, there are some
areas that are so rugged, fencing is not a legitimate option
for it, but, indeed, access by the Border Patrol is.
And sometimes they do use horses better. Although Secretary
Napolitano did say it may be inadvisable for officer safety to
await for the arrival of a horse for the purposes to apprehend
somebody. That sometimes is difficult. And, also, we will
remember that all of those horses are fed wheat feed pellets,
because you can't have perfect kind of horses.
I also agree with you on three other points: that local
consultation should be the best basis of making those kinds of
decisions. I agree with what you said on the exigent or
emergency circumstances. Although I will tell you that the MOU
does have a definition of what those are, and they have not
always been maintained by the land managers. There have been
times land managers have told the Border Patrol different than
what the MOU was supposed to. And that will come out in our
testimony later.
And the last one is, I definitely agree with the good idea
you had on beefing up our port of entries. Actually, you said
we should have more officers--I think you said we should have
bigger staff there at the port of entry, which means size. So
Mr. Chaffetz told me that what he is talking about are portly
officers at the port of entries, in which case I took offense
at that because he talking right about me.
So, Mr. Reyes, I appreciate your being here. Thank you for
your testimony. Thank you for being a part of this. And we
thank you for that, and we will let you go back and do some
real work now.
Mr. Reyes. Thank you so much. And I look forward to working
with you and your respective committees on these very important
issues for our country. Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Great.
We now have the next panel that will be joining us. But I
understand the practice of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee is for the witness to be sworn in. So I would like
Representative Chaffetz--all right.
The next panel will come up very, very slowly, so the
panel--as it gets set up for you. So if you want to come up
slowly. Don't stand up yet; that is too fast.
It is going to be a couple of seconds before we can get
them situated up here.
We will have, though, Ron Vitiello--and you can correct the
pronunciation of that; I probably messed up everything--who is
the deputy chief of the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol; Kim
Thorsen, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Law Enforcement,
Security, the Emergency Management from the Department of
Interior; Jay Jensen, Deputy Under Secretary for Natural
Resources and Environment, Department of Agriculture.
I didn't mess up you two's because they are just good old
Danish names, and I can handle that.
But in 1 second, we would ask you--and I think I am going
to turn the chair over to Representative Chaffetz to take care
of this portion.
Mr. Chaffetz [presiding]. It is the practice of the
Oversight and Government Reform Committee that all witnesses
would be sworn in. So, those three witnesses, as well as the
backup witnesses, to rise and raise your right hands, please.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. You may be seated.
And let the record reflect that all participants answered
in the affirmative.
Thank you.
Mr. Bishop [presiding]. Thank you.
All right. It is our hope at this time that, before the
next vote occurs, that we can have the testimony of the
individuals who are there.
Do you care which order you go? Then let's take you from
left to right, and we will start with Homeland Security, go to
Interior, and then finish up with the Agriculture Department.
And, once again, thank you for being here. As you should
know--you have been here long enough to know this stuff--
everything is--your written testimony is in the record.
Anything else you want to add, we can put into the record, as
well.
The timer is in front of you. When the yellow light comes
on, you have 1 minute left. We will try and close it as close
to that red light as is possible.
Please.
STATEMENTS OF RONALD VITIELLO, DEPUTY CHIEF, U.S. CUSTOMS AND
BORDER PATROL; KIM THORSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY FOR LAW
ENFORCEMENT, SECURITY, AND EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; AND JAY JENSEN, DEPUTY UNDER
SECRETARY FOR NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
STATEMENT OF RONALD VITIELLO
Mr. Vitiello. Chairman Bishop, Chairman Chaffetz, ranking
members, and distinguished members of the subcommittee, it is
my privilege and honor to appear before you today to discuss
U.S. Customs and Border Protection's efforts concerning illegal
activity on Federal lands.
I am Ronald Vitiello, the deputy chief of the U.S. Border
Patrol. I began my career in law enforcement in 1985 as a
Border Patrol agent in Laredo, TX. Throughout my career, I have
held numerous positions within the organization, both on the
southern and northern borders.
I would like to be clear that the border is a different
place today than it was when I began my career. I have
personally witnessed the evolution of the border over the past
26 years both in terms of additional resources applied against
the threat as well as the change in the adversary's ability to
exploit border vulnerabilities. Last year, the Border Patrol
apprehended approximately 463,000 illegal aliens, as compared
to 10 years ago when we made 1.6 million arrests, a more than
70 percent reduction.
Although we have seen positive indicators of a more secure
border, our work continues and will not end as long as those
who seek to enter this country illegally. The Border Patrol's
national strategy was implemented in 2004 and called for
achieving control of the borders with the proper mix of
personnel, tactical infrastructure, and technology. We sought
to gain, maintain, and expand control at the border. With the
assistance of Congress, we have seen an unprecedented influx of
resources, and we are currently expanding our security efforts.
In law enforcement, we operate within the confines of the
rule of law and regulations. Would our efforts be easier
without these legal frameworks? Yes, it would. However, we find
a way to reasonably and sensibly solve problems within the
parameters of law. Does the Border Patrol face challenges with
respect to operating around protected lands when they are in
our enforcement zones? Yes. But, again, we have been able to
establish practical solutions to allow for mission success.
In 2006, the Secretaries of the Departments of Homeland
Security, Interior, and Agriculture signed a memorandum of
understanding committing the signatories to ongoing operations
on protected lands. It is understood that the Border Patrol
cannot routinely patrol protected land in vehicles.
Nonetheless, we do have access either on foot, horseback, and
without restriction under exigent circumstances.
Essentially, the MOU formalized an informal cooperation
that has existed for years. Our field commanders, the chiefs,
and the patrol agent in charge are tasked to consider the
multiple environments they oversee in order to establish their
requirements for where resources are required and how to best
supply them.
Each tract of land along the border has to be assessed
individually. As our commanders lay out the requirements, we
work through the environmental regulations in order to abide by
the law, albeit without sacrificing the Nation's security. Some
of this activity can be time-consuming, but, in the end, we
have in place the necessary tactical infrastructure,
technology, or resources.
Additionally, we look at the border. Each area has to be
taken individually, as no two stretches are the same. The
activity levels and terrain vary widely from San Diego to
Brownsville on the southern border.
Through our security efforts, the Border Patrol intends to
have a minimal impact on the environment. Agents are on the
line every day, day-in and day-out, interacting with the
communities in which they live. There are many varying opinions
from the border communities, public interest groups, and the
media alike, yet our mission is to enforce the laws duly
enacted by Congress.
The Border Patrol recognizes that we need many partners in
our Nation's security efforts. We have learned that it will
take a whole-of-government approach within law enforcement,
within each of our duties, responsibilities, and authorities at
all levels--Federal, State, local, and tribal. We have strived
to move beyond mere collaboration and work toward operational
integration with our Federal, State, local, and tribal and our
international partners, moving forward in realizing the
strength of joint planning and implementation in a targeted and
focused manner.
Our path forward and our security efforts applied will be
risk-based. Accordingly, we will increasingly depend on
information and intelligence to describe the intent and
capability of our adversaries, thus defining the threat while
continuously assessing our vulnerabilities. In doing so, we
must be more mobile, agile, and flexible.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I do look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Vitiello follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.008
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Ms. Thorsen.
STATEMENT OF KIM THORSEN
Ms. Thorsen. Thank you, Chairmen Chaffetz and Bishop and
members of the subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear before you today to discuss the important issues in
border security and the Department of the Interior's role in
the administration's collaborative efforts to address illegal
cross-border activity on Federal lands.
I am Kim Thorsen, and I am the Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Law Enforcement, Security, and Emergency Management at
Interior. I have been a law enforcement professional for 25
years with both Interior and the U.S. Forest Service, and I
have been involved in border issues for the last 8 years.
I am joined here today by Jeanne Van Lancker, the acting
director of the Office of Law Enforcement and Security for the
Bureau of Land Management; Jim Hall, the chief of law
enforcement for the National Wildlife Refuge System of the Fish
and Wildlife Service; and Lane Baker, the chief of law
enforcement security and emergency services for the National
Parks Service.
If I may, I would like to submit our full statement for the
record and summarize my testimony.
We appreciate the attention that your subcommittees have
given to the issue of securing our borders. The Department of
Homeland Security, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection
and Border Patrol, has been given the mandate to secure our
international borders and deter illegal border-related
activity.
At Interior, we have the responsibility of administering
uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive lands along
the borders. We recognize the significant ecological and
cultural values of these lands, and we strive to maintain their
character and fulfill our mission to protect and preserve these
assets on behalf of the American people.
We also recognize that these two objectives--securing our
borders and conserving our Federal lands--are not mutually
exclusive. We are not faced with a choice between the two;
instead, we can and should do both.
We at Interior are proud of the strong working relationship
based on cooperation and a mutual commitment to accomplishing
our important agency missions among all of our partner
agencies. Federal agencies with law enforcement presence on
Federal lands along the borders include the Border Patrol;
Interior's agencies, including the Bureau of Land Management,
National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and, in
certain circumstances, the Bureau of Indian Affairs; and the
Department of Agriculture's Forest Service.
Our agencies have developed a cohesive, cooperative
approach to border security. In March 2006, Interior, DHS, and
Agriculture entered into a memorandum of understanding
providing the departments with goals, principles, and guidance
related to securing the borders, addressing emergencies
involving human safety and minimizing the environmental damage
arising from illegal cross-border activities on Federal lands.
We believe the guidelines contained in the MOU have been
effective in providing both Interior and Border Patrol with the
necessary framework to strike the appropriate balance for
patrol and infrastructure access to Interior lands by Border
Patrol, while continuing to maintain an emphasis on protection
of Federal trust resources.
Since entering into this MOU, the three departments have
continually and successfully worked together to carry out the
tenets outlined in the MOU at both the headquarters and the
field levels. At Interior, we have established a department-
wide coordination structure to facilitate the regular
coordination and collaboration between Border Patrol and
Interior agency representatives. Additionally, Interior,
Agriculture, and DHS have founded an interagency environmental
and cultural stewardship training task force to build on
existing environmental and cultural training for Border Patrol
agents whose patrol activities include Federal lands.
Collaboration is also taking place with the Border Patrol
in the field. The Border Patrol, in cooperation with Interior
and Agriculture, established a public lands liaison agent
position for each of its 20 sectors. Interior land managers
communicate and collaborate on issues of mutual interest or
concern with those agents on a regular basis. In addition,
Border Patrol agents frequently conduct joint patrols with
Interior law enforcement personnel on Interior lands.
This close coordination provides staff with training and
orientation on each agency's mission, while enhancing Homeland
Security activities and resource-related investigations. These
few examples are just a sampling of the ongoing collaborative
dialog and strong relationship that Interior agencies and
personnel have developed with our colleagues in the Border
Patrol.
The deployment of Border Patrol personnel, equipment, and
infrastructure along the southwest border has led to
significant improvements in border security. We are very
pleased with these improvements because of the enhanced
security to our Nation and also because these efforts lead to
overall healthier conditions on Interior lands along the
border.
During this deployment of additional border security
resources, we have worked closely and well with the Border
Patrol to avoid or mitigate impacts of these operations on
Federal lands.
In closing, I would like to recognize the collective
efforts that Interior, DHS, and Agriculture have taken to meet
the intent of the 2006 interagency MOU and the shared
commitment by our departments to accomplishing the missions of
our agencies.
Chairmen Chaffetz and Bishop, this concludes my statement.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or other
members of the subcommittees may have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Thorsen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.013
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Jensen.
STATEMENT OF JAY JENSEN
Mr. Jensen. Thank you. Chairman Bishop, Chairman Chaffetz,
Ranking Member Tierney, members of the subcommittees, thank you
for the opportunity to appear before you today to provide the
Department's views on border security on National Forest System
lands.
You have my written testimony for the record, but I would
like to take this time to emphasize some key points.
First, the Department and the Forest Service take very
seriously the need to secure our Nation's border. We fully
support, as it is in our common interest, that we address
illegal U.S. border crossings, the smuggling of illicit
contraband and people across the border, the crimes committed
against those being smuggled, and other unlawful activities.
Through all of this, it is important to recognize and
empathize with the plight of those undocumented foreign
nationals who are seeking a better life. Yet, there are impacts
to national forests on both the northern and southern borders,
particularly so on portions of the Coronado National Forest,
where we are seeing issues related to excessive trash, human-
caused fire, and the safety of the recreating public. We are
undertaking successful measures to mitigate these impacts.
Second, I want to emphasize the close working relationship
we have with the Border Patrol and our sister agencies in the
Department of the Interior. As our testimony indicates, we
participate in numerous joint patrol exercises, have assigned a
full-time U.S. Forest Service liaison to the Border Patrol,
communicate in real-time on the ground with each other, and
work expeditiously to allow the Border Patrol the access they
need while protecting the environment.
In fact, just a few weeks ago, the Forest Service chief,
Tom Tidwell, was in southern Arizona meeting with Chief Hill of
the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol. They toured the border
by helicopter to see and learn firsthand the challenges we face
together.
There is much to do, but we are seeing success. And to re-
enforce, the Government Accountability Office has even
acknowledged the close cooperation between our agencies.
Third, we are convinced that a well-protected border means
well-protected public lands. The more we can assist the Border
Patrol with stopping illegal traffic, the less impact there
will be on the national forests. To date, we are unaware of any
requests made by the Border Patrol where we have not been able
to accommodate their needs in an expeditious manner and still
protect the environment.
Last, we want to thank the subcommittees for their
attention to this important issue. We want to work closely with
you and understand your concerns. Our experience to date tells
us that we can accomplish our missions of securing the border
and protecting the environment, recognizing that these are not
mutually exclusive objectives. We will continue to make
interagency progress with the Border Patrol and our sister
agencies in the Department of the Interior in the
accomplishment of our missions.
This concludes my verbal testimony. Thank you. And I look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jensen follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.020
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate all of you being here.
Let me ask the first round of questions.
For all of you, looking at the memo of understanding, it
appears that a big part of the entire agreement hinges on
access granted in the course of exigent or emergency
circumstances.
Ms. Thorsen, you are from DOI; let me deal with you. What
is an exigent circumstance?
Ms. Thorsen. Mr. Chairman, as outlined in the MOU, what we
tried to do is ensure that the Border Patrol agent and then in
their judgment determined what an exigent circumstance was,
whether is was in pursuit of aliens----
Mr. Bishop. Is there a definition in the MOU?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. And what is that definition?
Ms. Thorsen. ``Exercising exigent emergency authorities to
access lands, including authority to conduct motorized off-road
pursuit of suspected CVVs at any time, including in areas
designated or recommended as wilderness or in wilderness study
areas, when, in their professional judgment, based on
articulated facts, there is a specific exigent emergency
involving human life, health, safety of persons within the
area, or posing a threat to national security.''
Mr. Bishop. OK, that is the key element. So human life,
health, safety of persons within an area, or posing a threat to
national security.
Are you aware that when my staff questioned one of your
park superintendents and even the director of the National
Parks Service told us separately that an exigent circumstance
is life or death only? Now, is that what the MOU says?
Ms. Thorsen. No.
Mr. Bishop. OK. So this incorrect definition is not just
the opinion of the Park Service. Unfortunately, the Fish and
Wildlife Service director sent two letters to the Border Patrol
telling them, in his opinion, that an emergency is defined as
life-threatening circumstances, and, otherwise, Border Patrol
has to continue to access the refuge on foot or on horseback,
and also gave them a warning that if they violated his version
of that MOU, within 6 months he would close all access down.
Are you aware of that?
Ms. Thorsen. No, I am not aware of those particular----
Mr. Bishop. What are you going to do about it?
Ms. Thorsen. Well, what we will do is ensure--and we are
continually doing this with our partners, our agencies on the
ground and with the Border Patrol--to ensure that the MOU is
enforced as written.
Mr. Bishop. It is nice. So you are now aware that the
ground personnel in DOI are not operating under the same
definition. You got it?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Well, you were right when saying that
protection of land and protection of the border should not be
mutually exclusive, that you should be able to do both.
Unfortunately, you are not.
Border Patrol agents in the field have explained to our
staff that they believe the MOU could work but, unfortunately,
it does not because the land agencies do not follow it.
Mr. Vitiello, have you heard complaints from the field land
managers that they are not following the MOU?
Mr. Vitiello. I think that the MOU does give them the
framework to do that. I think in any relationship there are
differing sides and interpretations.
Mr. Bishop. So how would you tell your Border Patrol if,
for example, one of the land managers under DOI told them the
MOU was no longer in effect because there was a new
administration?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, we have, you know, regular people on
the ground that are designed to programmatically work these
issues and then operationally understand amongst themselves how
we are going to interpret--not how to interpret the MOU, but
that the framework exists to solve any of the problems as they
are raised.
Mr. Bishop. So what would you tell that land manager when
he said that?
Mr. Vitiello. I would refer him to the public lands liaison
officer. You know, I could call over to Kim's office, and we
could talk about what, you know, the perceptions or actual
restrictions were or should or should not be.
Mr. Bishop. So if, especially in the GAO report, you showed
multiple examples of where this MOU has broken down, Ms.
Jensen, how will the MOU function if your employees don't
believe they have to or are obligated to follow it? Or, I am
sorry, Ms. Thorsen.
Ms. Thorsen. As Mr. Vitiello said, our responsibility in my
office, as well as our folks in the field, is to ensure the
appropriate implementation of the MOU. And so we--and, in fact,
the MOU describes a mechanism that, if things aren't working
out at the local level, that that is to be moved up to the
regional and then, ultimately, the headquarters level.
So we have mechanisms in place to ensure that it is being
implemented as outlined in the framework in the MOU. So it is
our responsibility to followup on those instances and ensure
that is, in fact, happening.
Mr. Bishop. That doesn't work. And I appreciate it, but it
doesn't work. It is not working. The reports are telling us,
the anecdotal evidence, and, actually, the cumulative evidence
is saying, that system flat-out is not working.
Mr. Jensen, the fires you refer to in your testimony, how
many of those are intentionally set?
Mr. Jensen. Intentionally set? We don't track the numbers
that actually we know that they are intentionally set. We track
numbers of fires by human-caused and through lightning.
Mr. Bishop. Why don't you track arson? Are the Forest
Service employees discouraged from reporting arson?
Mr. Jensen. Not at all.
Mr. Bishop. Then why don't you track it?
Mr. Jensen. We can dig into the numbers, as we conduct
investigations on specific fires, to find the cause of those
fires. And, in that sense, we can get to the answer, to the
bottom of what caused those fires.
Mr. Bishop. But you don't do that now. That becomes
amazing, that it doesn't do it.
You also said you were not aware of any kind of problems
with where your agency has been impeding the Border Patrol.
Check the GAO report. You will see it very much. I quoted from
it here.
My time is over. Mr. Tierney.
There will be another round here.
Mr. Tierney. So I guess--I am trying to listen carefully
here to this. And it seems to me that there is some allegations
here--not so much that the MOU, memorandum of agreement or
understanding, doesn't allow for things to work properly, but
there seem to be incidents reported where it may not have been
implemented or worked effectively.
Is that what you witnesses are hearing, as well? Or correct
me if I am not hearing properly.
Mr. Vitiello. I think that is accurate.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Thorsen.
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, sir. That is my----
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Jensen, is that what you are hearing?
Mr. Jensen. I would agree.
Mr. Tierney. OK. So are we getting ample training to the
people in the field in all three departments so that they would
have an appreciation for the memorandum of understanding in the
chain of how they would cooperate and work with others?
Mr. Vitiello. There is an ongoing, systematic way for folks
to be exposed to it. We have it programmatically set up at each
of the locations. And so that is a constant kind of process,
because we do have turnover in the field, relationships change.
And so there is a constant, you know, revolution of people who
learn and then need to know and then move on; the next group
gets the same kind of thing.
So it is like any other relationship. There are ebbs and
flows in the level of contact and its effectiveness.
Mr. Tierney. Is there a high percentage of people that are
between trainings or haven't been trained yet as they take on
responsibilities?
Mr. Vitiello. I would have to get you specific numbers, but
it is our intent at each of the levels to have folks who are
subject-matter experts in the MOU and then have the
responsibility for the liaison and the operational contact.
Mr. Tierney. Are any of you aware of any particular
incidents or incidents where the Border Patrol agents have been
absolutely impeded from carrying out their responsibilities by
interference through the enforcement of some of these
environmental and wilderness laws?
Mr. Vitiello. I am not aware of any specifically, but I
will tell you that, with 20,000 agents in the field, there are
bound to be within these relationships differences of opinion
and issues that get raised through the sector-level commands,
the station level, certainly, and then up to the headquarters.
We have had instances where we have talked about these things
at every level, looking to solve whatever the issue is.
Mr. Tierney. OK.
Ms. Thorsen.
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, I would actually agree with Mr.
Vitiello's statement. There are instances where folks on the
ground need to work through things. But our continual talking
to them, meeting with some of our collaborative organizations
that we have, the borderland management task forces and so
forth, and our constant effort to ensure that any issues that
aren't getting resolved at the very local level are bumped up
through that mechanism, and, as I said earlier, all the way to
headquarters.
We are very involved in my office, personally, to ensure
that anytime we hear there is maybe some impediment or there is
a difference of opinion on the ground, that we figure that out
and we make it happen so the Border Patrol can successfully
carry out their mission.
Mr. Tierney. Do you have disciplinary proceedings for those
recalcitrant individuals that may be giving instructions and
misinterpretations of the MOU?
Ms. Thorsen. The folks on the ground are bureau employees,
and those bureaus do have performance plans and disciplinary
and sort of a whole performance program.
Mr. Tierney. Do they use them?
Ms. Thorsen. It is not my--I can't speak to that, actually,
since I don't work in those bureaus.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I mean, that is part of the problem with
bureaucracies, right? I mean, we are here talking about one
problem and you are giving us an answer and you can't answer
for the other part.
But will it be reasonable to assume that those incidents
that may be reported by the Government Accountability Office or
those incidents that Mr. Bishop or others here may point out as
anecdotes or individual circumstances will be reviewed and
action taken if it is warranted?
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, I would agree with that.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Vitiello, do you agree that your agency
will do that, as well?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely.
Mr. Tierney. All right.
Is any one of you of a mind that there is a mutually
exclusive application of the environmental wilderness laws and
our security?
Mr. Vitiello. That they are not exclusive, I agree.
Mr. Tierney. You agree they are not exclusive.
Ms. Thorsen.
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, I agree.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Jensen.
Mr. Jensen. Absolutely not. We are actually seeing examples
where we are actually seeing success. And I think, just this
year, we embarked upon a joint operation called Operation
Trident that is occurring all throughout this year that is
proving and demonstrating how we can work together and achieve
both those goals.
Mr. Tierney. Well, particularly with respect to fires, I
would assume that it is in your interest and in the forestry to
make sure that the border is protected and people aren't coming
in and being a part of the human cause of fires, correct?
Mr. Jensen. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Tierney. OK.
And, Mr. Vitiello, I will just end with you. Are you, as a
representative of the Border Patrol, here to lodge a complaint
of any sort about the way that the environmental laws or
conservation laws or wilderness laws or anything else are
impeding the ability of you and your men and women to protect
this country and protect our national security?
Mr. Vitiello. No complaints. I agree that the framework
allows us to solve this problem in a practical way. As Ms.
Thorsen said, it is best to do that at the field with the folks
that are responsible for implementation directly.
Mr. Tierney. And you will do that?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you.
Yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Are you all familiar with the border security
GAO report, February 15, 2011? This is the one, ``Preliminary
Observations on Border Control Measures from the Southwest
Border.'' We keep referring to the GAO report. Are you familiar
with it?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. All three of you, yes? Yes?
Mr. Jensen. Yes.
Ms. Thorsen. Yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. All right.
Mr. Vitiello--I hope I am pronouncing your name right--you
write in your written testimony, ``Border Patrol's enforcement
efforts on Federal lands can pose unique challenges.'' What are
the unique challenges?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, I think the challenges are that they
are--like a lot of the enforcement work that is done both for
the Border Patrol and in all law enforcement, there is a legal
framework which we operate in.
Mr. Chaffetz. That is different, that is different because
it is----
Mr. Vitiello. On protected land, yes, it is.
Mr. Chaffetz. And the access, your ability to patrol, is
different than it is, say, on private land or different types
of public land that aren't designated as wilderness, correct?
Mr. Vitiello. Right. So, depending on the environment.
Mr. Chaffetz. It is different.
Mr. Vitiello. It is different.
Mr. Chaffetz. Absolutely. OK.
Seventeen of the 26 Border Patrol stations interviewed by
the GAO indicated, ``When they attempted to obtain a permit or
permission to access portions of Federal lands, delays in
restrictions have resulted from complying with land management
laws.''
Would you agree with that or disagree with that?
Mr. Vitiello. It is in the report, so I have no dispute
about the fact----
Mr. Chaffetz. But you also testify that there is no
problem, everything is getting along rosy. And yet I go back
and read this GAO report, and you have only secured 129 miles
of a 2,000-mile border.
You can't come before the American people and this country
and say that everything is rosy and fine. People are dying,
they are getting killed because we have those big, gaping holes
in our security, and they are going into some of the most
inhospitable pieces of land and they are dying. They are being
dehydrated. They are going through these cactus-ridden areas,
and they are dying. And we are putting Border Patrol out there
and saying, ``Oh, just go on foot, just go on horse, because we
would much rather protect this little cactus and this little
roadrunner.''
That is what I have a concern about. So for you to testify
routinely that everything is fine, it is not different, I am
not aware of any instance--and then read that we are having
permit and permission troubles is troubling.
Let me go on. According to the GAO, 14 of the 17 agents in
charge--agents in charge, people that you should be personally
familiar with--of the Border Patrol stations indicated delays
by Federal land managers who reported that they have, ``been
unable to obtain a permit or permission to access certain areas
in a timely manner because of how long it takes for land
managers to comply with environmental laws.''
So how have these delays, based on this report, lessened
the agents' ability to detect undocumented aliens in some
areas?
Mr. Vitiello. The report is a snapshot in time. The
framework that is within the MOU allows those agents in charge
to make those requests. And when those requests are judged by
the public lands liaison or the borderlands task force to be
reasonable, then we sort through that and make it happen.
To suggest that it is perfect, that is not why I am here.
It is a relationship that----
Mr. Chaffetz. The reason you are here is because it is not
perfect.
Let me move on. As indicated by the GAO in at least one
instance, Border Patrol requested permission to move a mobile
surveillance system to a certain area. However, by the time the
permission was granted 4 months after the initial request,
illegal traffic had shifted to another area. As a result,
Border Patrol, ``was unable to move the surveillance system to
the locale it desired. And during the 4-month delay, agents
were limited in their ability to detect undocumented aliens
within a 7-mile range that could have been covered by the
system.''
True or false? Is that statement true or false?
Mr. Vitiello. It is true.
Mr. Chaffetz. So how can you testify that everything is
fine and that you are working in such a great relationship? You
have a surveillance system that I would think that would make
your Border Patrol agents and the United States of America
safer, and these people over here are giving you a 4-month
delay.
How come you are not here with the same type of outrage
that I have? How come you are here just saying, ``Oh, you know,
we work together. Everybody just gets along.'' We got people
dying. How do you respond to that? Because you have testified,
and we have listened to what you said, that, oh, everything is
fine.
Mr. Vitiello. The framework allows for us to move through
these issues and this problem. Is it perfect, no? If you want
to----
Mr. Chaffetz. But in this instance, the report that came
out, it is a 4-month delay.
Ms. Thorsen, how do you respond to this? Mr. Jensen, jump
in here. Four-month delay, why does that happen?
Mr. Jensen. I am looking at--I am asking my folks here to
find examples on the National Forest System land here. And we
are working as quickly as possible to work through the requests
that come through. And we have examples in front of us now: the
Zone 20 project, where we are actually moving to build roads on
restricted lands, where we are seeing success.
It does not happen immediately in every single case, but we
are actually--we are making tremendous progress in working
together to address these concerns as they arise.
Mr. Chaffetz. My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
All of us feel on this issue certainly as strongly as Mr.
Chaffetz, but I think, you know, some of us express ourselves
differently. And I have been here 34 years, and I always find
it a great opportunity when you have people from the field who
know this issue very well to keep the level of trying to learn
at a high level. So I really appreciate your helping to
enlighten us. We are not always going to agree, but I think
that we have this opportunity to learn from you.
Let me ask you this question. I will address it to Ms.
Thorsen, but any of you may answer. If there is an incident or
a pattern of ignoring the MOU that we have been talking about,
what is your reaction or response to that? And should there be
something stronger than an MOU? Should there be something in
law?
Ms. Thorsen. Thank you, Congressman.
Our actions, if there was a consistent pattern of ignoring
the MOU, as I stated earlier, we have a mechanism in place to
bring that to our attention at headquarters. And in numerous
instances, I personally get involved, and other members of my
staff, talking to Mr. Vitiello or Chief Fisher with the Border
Patrol to come together to figure out what is going on. And
then we also talk to our bureau representatives, bureau
directors and/or their regional directors, who have direct
control over those local units, and come together to discuss
what the issues are and to resolve those issues.
So we do it very--we do it very high-level. For any
incident on the border that gets to our attention that we know
about, we will take action such as that to ensure that it gets
resolved on the ground. We hope most of those are resolved
locally, but they are not all, as we have heard earlier. They
do get to our attention.
Mr. Kildee. Anyone else have any comment?
Well, I would encourage you to, you know, keep it at a high
level or even raise the level of importance. Because when
agreements are made, very often they aren't easy to arrive at
but they are done for a reason.
So I would encourage you to keep it at the high level. I
think it is very important. I would not want to stop a chase
because someone didn't want to follow a memorandum of
understanding which makes very good sense and is so important
for, very often, our national security.
So I would keep it at the high level; if necessary, raise
it to a higher level.
Thank you very much.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Thorsen, are you familiar with the operating memorandum
of understanding between the Las Cruces BOM and the Border
Patrol?
Ms. Thorsen. Not particularly, sir.
Mr. Pearce. Well, in it, it states very clearly that a
mobile command--the mobile communications site there in the Big
Hatchet Peak will be moved as soon as possible if the area is
designated as wilderness. So it is there now, but if it is
wilderness it can't be there.
Doesn't that sound like a little bit of an impediment? Why
wouldn't the people have decided to put it somewhere else to
start with if that were a better place? Doesn't that sound like
a little bit of an impediment?
Ms. Thorsen. In that instance--that is an example--I
understand that the repeater is on Big Hatchet Mountain. And
if, in fact, legislation were passed, we would need to work to
ensure that it could stay there. It is an opportune location.
Mr. Pearce. No, I mean, it calls for it to be moved if it
is designated wilderness. That says that conservation is
trumping protection.
Mr. Vitiello, you declare that wilderness and security are
not mutually exclusive. And I know it is not exactly wilderness
area, but the Organ Pipe National Monument that I visited in
2006 as chairman of the Parks Subcommittee and they declared it
to be inhospitable for American travelers, about half of it, is
it still that way?
Mr. Vitiello. No, we----
Mr. Pearce. It is wide open? It is completely open to
American tourists with no warnings?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, I don't know the status of the
visitation for folks----
Mr. Pearce. Staff tells me it is still very alarming and
that the warnings are still given to American tourists that you
shouldn't be in this area.
Mr. Vitiello. Yeah.
Mr. Pearce. If the two are not mutually exclusive, why have
you not--why doesn't that area fit into your 129 miles of
secure border?
Mr. Vitiello. The definition that gets us to the 129 miles
is probably a lot longer conversation. But that----
Mr. Pearce. Well, just----
Mr. Vitiello [continuing]. Tactical measure for agents in
the field is designed for----
Mr. Pearce. I want to know why Organ Pipe has not been
cleaned up. Why haven't you stopped the traffic that is
polluting the area but also making it dangerous?
Mr. Vitiello. We have made good progress at Organ Pipe and
throughout the sector to----
Mr. Pearce. You would send the Boy Scout troop down there
that has your kids in it without your presence? I don't think
so, sir. I am sorry, I was there. I saw the stuff. I don't
believe you would.
Mr. Vitiello. We have made excellent progress since 2006,
Congressman.
Mr. Pearce. I hear that. I also know that just last year or
the year before that the rancher was killed right down in that
area, and that was in retribution for him turning in the drug
smugglers.
Mr. Jensen, we visited in the Sequoia in that same 2006
time period, and they actually showed us places where booby
traps, sawed-off shotguns, the growing massive areas of drugs
in the forest itself. Is that cleaned up?
Mr. Jensen. I would have to go back and look at that
specific area to know the status there. I do not know.
Mr. Pearce. Do you have any other forest where--but you are
familiar with the circumstances that I refer to?
Mr. Jensen. The circumstances----
Mr. Pearce. Do you have any other forests that have that
many incursions of illegal activity in it so that people are
warned, ``Don't backpack in this area; you could get your head
blown off with a sawed-off shotgun that has a tripwire on it?''
Mr. Jensen. We don't quite talk about it that way, but we
do make sure----
Mr. Pearce. Were the pictures that were given to me by the
Forest Service incorrect?
Mr. Jensen. I would have to see these those photos to know
for sure.
Mr. Pearce. Yeah. Yeah. So you wouldn't talk about it, but
the pictures may have been correct. They were given to me in an
official capacity, in an official briefing. So you wouldn't
think it is incorrect that, if you hit a tripwire and it blows
your head off with a sawed-off shotgun that is protecting a
marijuana field----
Mr. Jensen. No, what I wanted to say was we, want to make
sure that visitors that come to the national forests are aware
of the risks that are out there, as in any time you head into
the back country. I couldn't speak to the specific situation--
--
Mr. Pearce. Do you have any other forests where that sort
of danger exists?
Mr. Jensen. We are dealing with some similar issues down in
the Coronado National Forest. And we make sure that the
visitors to those areas are aware of the situation.
Mr. Pearce. So Sequoia is one of two in a very, very
dangerous category. And you don't know if it has been cleared
up? That is alarming, my friend.
Mr. Jensen. I would like to followup with you to understand
a little more of the concerns you have.
Mr. Pearce. I mean, still it is alarming that you are in
the position you are in and don't know if we have eliminated
those. That is what concerns me about the testimony of all
three of you here today, that you are saying that there is no
problem with wilderness. There is no problem with environment
rules, and yet you can't explain some of the most dangerous
areas that exist right in my back door.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
It is my intention to turn now to Mr. Lynch.
And what we will try and do is get through this round of
questioning. We have still a good 5 or 6 minutes, and a whole
lot of people haven't yet voted. We will then suspend for a few
minutes, go vote, then come back here probably around a 10-
minute break, if that is OK. Representative Lynch.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And I want to thank the witnesses for trying to help the
committee with its work. I do want to--I think the part of the
frustration exhibited by Mr. Chaffetz was well founded, I
think. And it is really a result of a GAO report. And I think
this was this is an October 2010 GAO report on the Southwest
border. And Gene Dodaro was acting then, and I have enormous
respect for him. I have worked with him on a lot of different
issues.
But this report invites Mr. Chaffetz' frustration. It says
basically that everything is fine. At least that is what the
political appointees and the higher level folks are saying,
everything is fine, we are working together. But then when you
do talk to the agents in charge on the ground there, they are
saying, 17 of the 26 stations, you know, reported that there
were limitations put on their ability to patrol those areas,
specifically the patrol agents in charge; 14 of 17 stations
reported that they have been unable to obtain a permit or
permission to access certain areas in a timely manner because
of how long it takes to work with land management folks.
And then earlier, Ms. Thorsen, you conceded that the folks
on the ground, based on the chairman's questioning, were
applying a different standard for border agents to get into
certain areas. That is of great concern. And I think by this
inconsistency in what we want to happen down there and what is
happening is going to invite legislation here, because the MOU
is not being followed. And it is against the backdrop of a very
serious situation.
I have a report here that says we had 600 more civilian
homicides in one border town, Ciudad Juarez, in 2010 than we
had in all of Afghanistan. And Afghanistan is 30 million
people. Ciudad Juarez is 1 million, 1.3 million. And we had 600
more homicides, and it is right on our border. I will tell you,
I would be more angry than Mr. Chaffetz has been this morning
if I thought that the safety of the people that I represented
was being ignored.
So you got to get your act together here. We expect you to
protect the border, and we don't think that that is happening.
Now, you say that you can do this, that you can get together on
this and make sure the environmental concerns are addressed and
still conduct robust security on the border. You need to do it.
You need to do it. This is a--you know this is a problem. You
know I think I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan about 22
times. I think I should be spending more time in Mexico from
reading these reports.
And this is right on our border, and we can't afford to be
slack anymore. So I am hoping that either you address it with a
tighter description of what is permissible for the border
security folks, or you just come to Congress and say, we can't
resolve this, and why don't you do it on our behalf?
But you know this can't continue, this cannot continue. You
know the folks that live in those border towns on the Mexican
side deserve better, and so do the U.S. citizens in that area,
and we got to get serious about this.
And so, you know, I think, Ms. Thorsen, if you have folks
on the ground who are applying a different standard that
restricts Border Patrol folks from going into some of those
wilderness areas in a timely fashion to protect the American
people, then you need to have some consequences here. And I
didn't hear a real clear answer on that when the chairman asked
you whether you--actually, I think it was the ranking member
asked you, are folks being disciplined when they stop border
security folks from going in there and doing their job? And I
didn't hear a yes. I heard, well, we have you know guidelines
that allow us to do that, but I didn't hear of anybody being
fired for blocking access to certain areas on the part of the
security folks.
Mr. Vitiello, I know you give a rather rosy picture, but
the facts don't bear that out, sir, I am sorry to say. So we
got to, we have to be better at this. And you know, like I said
before, I will close my remarks, but you are inviting, you
know, Congress to go in there and decide what the rules are
going to be. And 435 people are going to make that decision in
the House and 100 in the Senate. It may not come out the way
you think it will. It may not be a better solution than an MOU,
a cooperative MOU between the two agencies, is what I am
saying.
So I just ask you to, as Mr. Kildee has suggested, you got
to work together better and start living up to the terms of the
MOU and making sure that our Customs and Border Patrol folks
have access to that area. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Lynch.
Let me explain the process. Just for a point of information
for Mr. Pearce's question, 68 percent of Organ Pipe is still
off limit to Americans, and 95 percent of it is wilderness.
We have a vote that is taking place right now, a second 5
minute vote, and then a third vote that is 15 minutes. Although
I am going to ask Members to come back here, to vote on that
last one very quickly and then come back here. So I am still
estimating about a 10-minute break that we will have to take
right now and do voting.
I apologize for this. This is an abnormal day. Under our
new schedule, the morning should have been reserved for this,
so I am sorry about that. I hate to walk out on you. We are
going to try and get this through as quickly as possible, but
we will have to take that break right now. So thank you and we
will be back shortly.
[Recess.]
Mr. Bishop. All right. We are going to try and step up
here. Obviously, some of our Members are en route, and we will
work that through as the time comes on, because I think there
is going to be another vote coming up here quickly. We would
like to get this panel and let you get on your way afterwards.
So let me do a couple of questions from my end as well. I
want to set the stage in the right frame for the first time,
because I think some of our conversation a bit earlier was
somewhat disingenuine. When we were talking about the MOU not
being able to be worked and the people weren't understanding,
we are not talking about folks on the ground or some pions out
there; we are talking about high level individuals. We are
talking about the person in charge of the National Park that
should know what those definitions of exigent circumstances are
and should not have a tizzy fit when the Border Patrol comes to
an end and then he gets upset because when they decided to
leave that dead end, they made a circle route instead of the
three-point Y turn that he insisted that they make in his
particular park.
We are talking about the National Park director who did not
know the definition. We are talking about the director of the
Utah--the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. He was the one that
sent the letter to Border Patrol and did not put the definition
and threatened them with closure if they did not by his
definition of the MOU.
The MOU is not working because people on the field don't
understand it; it is people here in Washington that aren't
getting it. The MOU may actually be working for the Department
of Interior, but it is not helping national security. And that
is the key issue to do with it.
Now, I want to go for a few minutes with the Ajo project
that was done in Organ Pipe National Monument. We already said
that is 95 percent wilderness. This was dealing with 30 mile
section of the border that was there.
Once again, Ms. Thorsen, the result of the negotiations
with--what was the result of the negotiations with Border
Patrol over this Ajo project?
Ms. Thorsen. At this point in time, Chairman, the Ajo
project includes four towers that are situated on Organ Pipe
Cactus and operating now and actually been very successful in
their operation in supporting the Border Patrol security
mission and actually our folks as well.
Mr. Bishop. And what did Homeland Security have to do to
get that permission?
Ms. Thorsen. Well, my understanding, they met with the
folks on the ground, the superintendent and his staff, to find
the appropriate locations for those towers.
Mr. Bishop. And what did they have to pay for that? Like I
am running out of time here, I am sorry. They paid millions of
dollars in mitigation fees for those towers. Were those towers
eventually moved from where the Border Patrol wanted them? It
should be a yes/no answer.
Ms. Thorsen. My understanding is that some were moved.
Mr. Bishop. Yeah, OK.
Ms. Thorsen. Some were not. And in the end----
Mr. Bishop. So what we are talking----
Ms. Thorsen. If I may finish, Mr. Chairman. In the end the
Border Patrol did agree and we all came to the conclusion on
where those towers could be situated and still allow them to
succeed in their border security mission.
Mr. Bishop. But it was moved over 3 miles and we had a
coverage blackout in areas of heavy alien ingress into this
particular country because they were moved, and still Border
Patrol had to pay millions of dollars to the Department of
Interior to get that. When you demand money of Border Patrol
for these mitigation fees, does the mitigation have to be
specifically directed to the entity in which it is being
mitigated, or can you use that anywhere?
Ms. Thorsen. The purpose of mitigation funds, for instance,
in this situation, any activity----
Mr. Bishop. No answer the question. Does it have to be to
the area where mitigation occurs, or can you use it anywhere?
Ms. Thorsen. The funding has to be used in relation to the
mitigation for that purpose, for the activity that took place
for the tower.
Mr. Bishop. All right. Good. Then tell me why, in January
2009, you and the Border Patrol once again entered into an
agreement dealing with the fencing in the Rio Grande Valley
sector. You got $50 million from the Department of Interior,
and $22 of that money went to buy more land in Texas for impact
of ocelots, who supposedly were impacted because of the
construction noise and lighting while that fence was being
built.
Now, Ms. Thorsen, do you know when the last time any know
ocelot was found in the lower Rio Grande natural wildlife
refuge before this fence was constructed in 2009?
Ms. Thorsen. I do not know that, sir.
Mr. Bishop. Good. I will give you the answer. It wasn't in
this century. So if there is not existing ocelot population
within 20 miles of the project, how come you have to have an
ocelot impactment from noise and lighting that couldn't
possibly have reached them?
Ms. Thorsen. The Fish and Wildlife Service's and our
Department of the Interior's mission is to conserve our
resources, including the wildlife habitat.
Mr. Bishop. I only got 30 seconds. Give me a specific
answer to the question. If there are no ocelots down there why
did you bill the resource from them with this type of money
that has nothing to do with the project.
Ms. Thorsen. It does have to do with the project, sir. The
mitigation funding for the fence and the $50 million that you
address, Secretary Chertoff and Kempthorne agreed that the
expenditure of that funding was appropriate for those
mitigation measures.
Mr. Bishop. There are no ocelots down there.
Ms. Thorsen. The wildlife habitat in those locations down
there, the purpose of that is to maintain habitat for the
ocelot. Whether or not we have seen one recently, it still
habitat for the ocelot.
Mr. Bishop. Recently? In the last 20 years, you haven't
seen one, and yet you put half of the money from this extortion
down there for that particular project. Later I am going to ask
you about $5 million that was supposed to be for jaguar
prevention, but half of that went to Mexico instead. We got a
lot more questions about how you are using this mitigation fund
and where these moneys are going, and I have run out of time so
I am going to have to yield to the ranking member, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Well, again, I want to thank you for being
here. I mean, I get it. I get what the issues are here. I
assume by this time all of you get it as well. And I don't want
to keep beating a dead horse, but I--you know, I guess the
point is that I think there have been some situations where
people have thought that it has been affected to some degree by
the memorandum of agreement by the laws that exist or whatever,
but you believe there is a way to work it out with the
memorandum of agreement and by working together cooperatively
on that.
I was taken aback by Mr. Chaffetz' remark that people are
dying, people are dying. Can you give me any instances of a
person who has died as a result of a wildlife regulation or
environmental regulation?
Mr. Vitiello. No.
Mr. Tierney. Ms. Thorsen, can you?
Ms. Thorsen. No.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Jensen, can you?
Mr. Jensen. No, I am not aware.
Mr. Tierney. Certainly, if there were, I assume you would
be with heightened urgency to resolve this in some fashion, am
I right?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, sir.
Ms. Thorsen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. I mean, I think it is disturbing to all of us
that, you know, if there is a notion that there is some
inability of the Border Patrol to get to an area they need to
get to protect our national security, I think we would all be
hopping up and down. But I am going to give you an opportunity.
Again, I am not hearing that from you. Where there might be an
isolated incidence of something being delayed, you are telling
me, as far as you know, that in any particular anecdote or
incident, there has not been one that has resulted in danger or
death or anything of that nature and that, you know, we
probably need some processes to expedite resolution of some of
these issues, and that is something you are all charged with.
Does that sound reasonable?
Mr. Vitiello. Agreed. The framework exists to solve these
problems in an expeditious way. Now, we can all recognize that
within any relationship, you are going to have different
expectations, but the MOU is designed to set those expectations
uniformly.
Mr. Tierney. So what is a bigger problem. Is the remoteness
of these areas, the ruggedness of the terrain, is that a bigger
problem than trying to work on differences over, you know, any
conflict with national security and some of these environmental
or wildlife regulations, or is it about the same, or is it not
a problem at all?
Mr. Vitiello. Well, there are various challenges that
agents have while patrolling the border, terrain among them,
this particular issue among them, the frameworks about their
authority and how they exercise it. There are concerns about
private land as well within the immediate border. So that is
the role of the patrol agent, to sort through those things.
That is the role of leadership, to give them the vision and the
plans to make that work and be effective as they possibly can
within those frameworks. There are limits on all the
authorities and the activity of Federal agencies, and we are
not excluded from that.
Mr. Tierney. There was one incident report that was
mentioned here earlier about a request to put up some
technology or review cite us for that. It got delayed 4 months
before it was implemented. Is that a particular situation that
any of you have been made aware of?
Mr. Vitiello. I know of the issue in preparation for the
hearing.
Mr. Tierney. Can you tell me a little bit about it?
Mr. Vitiello. As I understand it, briefly, there was a
mobile scope truck that we wanted to move from one area to the
other. Eventually, that got sorted through, and we moved it.
Mr. Tierney. And was there a 4-month delay.
Mr. Vitiello. As I understand it, yes.
Mr. Tierney. And what consequences were likely to have
occurred because of that delay?
Mr. Vitiello. I am not aware of specific things. So in the
context of the operation, people wanted to move that equipment
and that capability from one location to the other. And so
under the terms, we need to sort through that. Under the terms
of the MOU, those are the conversations that we are supposed to
have.
Mr. Tierney. You would agree that 4 months seems
extraordinary for a time to resolve such an issue.
Mr. Vitiello. I don't know the specifics in that regard,
but it seems reasonable that 4 months is something that we
ought to be thinking about.
Mr. Tierney. I mean, it strikes me as being extraordinary,
and that is something we all ought to be thinking about on
that.
Mr. Vitiello. Agreed.
Mr. Tierney. So we can trust that is being worked on, that
that kind of delay is----
Mr. Vitiello. In this case, as I understand it, but the
piece of equipment after that time period did get moved.
Mr. Tierney. Much more quickly.
Mr. Vitiello. Right.
Mr. Jensen. Congressman, I may not be able to speak to the
specific circumstances of that one example, but I think it is
important that we have had reference to the GAO report numerous
times today. And if I could, I would like to read two sentences
from the report.
Mr. Tierney. Sure. What page are you on?
Mr. Jensen. This is on the summary page, right off the
front, the highlights. We have heard this now numerous times
from various members: Patrol agents in charge for 14 of the 17
stations reported that they have been unable to obtain a permit
or permission to access certain areas in a timely manner
because of how long it takes for land manners to conduct
required environmental and historic property assessments. That
is in the GAO report. You need to read all the way through. And
I hope that our witnesses on the second panel----
Mr. Tierney. Well, give us a synopsis of what the rest of
it would give us if you read through.
Mr. Jensen. The other sentence is, despite the access
delays and restrictions--and this is what really counts--22 of
the 26 agents in charge report that the overall security status
of their jurisdiction is not affected by land management laws.
Mr. Tierney. So we have to work on the other four.
Mr. Jensen. Yes. We do have areas we need to work. The MOU
helps with that, and we are working to address those.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you for clarifying that, and I yield
back my balance.
Mr. Bishop. Representative Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
Mr. Bishop. Do you have the report there that you just
read?
Mr. Jensen. I have the cover page here.
Mr. Bishop. The cover page doesn't deal with that. Because
on top of that, it tells how 17 to 26, 14 to 26, and I went
through eight pages of documented evidence where the delays
were causing problems. That data you said, 22 out of 26, you
actually go to page 32 in the report and find out what it says,
is that the agents in charge of those particular areas told us
their ability to maintain operational control in this area of
responsibility have been unaffected by land management laws. In
other words, no portion of their station's jurisdiction have
had their border security status downgraded as a result of land
management laws. That is not the same thing.
And yet if you will go through that report, page after
page, example after example, is an experience in which there
had been delays for Border Patrol, and it is directly because
of the land managers on the ground there from your department
and your department. Ms. Thorsen, is there ever, ever an
opportunity when you do this MOU debate, MOU workout, where the
Border Patrol does not have to ask your department for
something? Is there ever where you actually go and have to ask
them, or is Border Patrol always having to come to you and you
get to make the decision on whether it is allowed or not?
Ms. Thorsen. No, the purpose of the MOU, and particularly
the exigent circumstances situation, they make that decision.
That is why we drafted the framework for those----
Mr. Bishop. No. To whom do they have to go for permission.
Ms. Thorsen. The permission lies in the MOU. It is in their
judgment, the Border Patrol agent's judgment, to execute
operation--exigent circumstance or emergency pursuit in--when
they feel the need.
Mr. Bishop. Then go back to the report and read what
happens there, because that request has to be approved by the
land manager, and if the land manager doesn't, then all hell is
there to pay. This MOU does not work because it is an unfair
MOU, which means Border Patrol has to come to you and beg for
permission. And time after time after time, you are not
granting that permission, and you are not doing it in a timely
fashion. And when you do do it, then you ask for unmitigated
amounts of money which Congress has no control. We do not know
how much money you are getting from Border Patrol. We don't
know where you're spending it. And the one time we tried to get
an appropriations act, you actually gave us a list of what you
are getting and where you are spending it, and it was removed
in a conference committee report. There are so many problems
that are down there, it makes one's head spin, especially with
the rhetoric that we are getting here today. I yield back to
the chairman.
Mr. Chaffetz. Reclaiming my time.
Mr. Vitiello, my understanding, according to GAO, they
classify about 129 miles, or 15 percent, were classified--of
the border--were classified as, ``controlled'' and that the
remaining 85 percent were classified as managed. Can you
explain the difference from your understanding of the two?
Mr. Vitiello. It has to do with the revision of the
national strategy in 2004. We defined what we believed was
operational control for the context of building resources along
the border. So specific to the plans that were made in sectors
and in station level planning, what we decided was operational
control meant that you had the ability to detect, identify,
classify, respond and resolve to intrusions at the immediate
border. It as a very tactical definition designed for the local
people to understand what they believe the capabilities and
resources were.
Mr. Chaffetz. So what is managed.
Mr. Vitiello. The difference between managed and control is
the amount of timing from our resolution to--from the
incursion. So control at the immediate border would happen in
realtime at the immediate border and managed would be some
portion less than that, or it would take longer to get to that.
Mr. Chaffetz. And you have talked about how over the course
of your career, you have gone from just a few thousand agents
to roughly 20,000 agents.
Mr. Vitiello. We are currently just over 20,000; that is
correct.
Mr. Chaffetz. Just over 20,000. Yet I look here at this
map, and I look at the Tucson region, as compared to say either
Yuma or El Paso or Del Rio or whatever you want; why is it that
51 percent of the problem seems to be in the Tucson region? Why
is that?
Mr. Vitiello. We believe it is because of our success in
other areas. We have managed--when I came on the Border
Patrol----
Mr. Chaffetz. I am trying to figure out why you are having
little to no success in Tucson.
Mr. Vitiello. We are having great success in Tucson.
Mr. Chaffetz. How can you say that?
Mr. Vitiello. Listen, I have watched us build resources in
Tucson.
Mr. Chaffetz. You are the head of this agency and you----
Mr. Vitiello. Sir, I was in Tucson in the year 2000 when we
were catching 1\1/2\ million people across the Southwest
border, and over 600,000 of those people were coming in through
the Tucson sector. Last year alone, we are at 51 percent; this
year we are 44 percent. Now, is that wild success? Is that, you
know----
Mr. Chaffetz. You just said it was great success.
Mr. Vitiello. We have done a lot of work this year, last
year, the year before and since 2000, when it was completely
out of control there. We are maintaining what we have--the
gains we have made in Tucson and are proceeding to give that
area resources like they have never seen before. CBP has over
6,000 employees in the State of Arizona. We alone have, in the
Tucson sector alone, nearly 4,000, and we are moving toward a
number over 4,000. There is more technology out there than
there has ever been. We spoke about the Ajo towers and the
Tucson----
Mr. Chaffetz. My time has expired. I think you are----
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Vitiello, you mentioned earlier in your testimony that
in carrying out various responsibilities, that you consult with
the tribes. How is that working out? Is that running as you
would want it to run?
Mr. Vitiello. Sure. So we have--within the public lands
liaison apparatus, we have people who are designed to do
liaison work. The leadership also pays attention to the
relationships that exist for the Indian nations that are at the
immediate border.
Mr. Kildee. I am very happy to hear that. Sometimes
agencies tend to forget that. We know that Article I, Section 8
of the Constitution says that Congress shall have the power to
regulate commerce with foreign nations, the several States and
Indian tribes. So that is the constitutional basis for that.
And I am always, with any group, whenever you are called
upon to work with the Indian tribes--it all works well in
Michigan. We have 12 tribes in Michigan, and it works well
there, and you find it is working well in your area also, or
your area is very broad.
Mr. Vitiello. Similarly, you know, relationships are--you
need constant maintenance, and so things ebb and flow. But we
understand the import of our responsibilities there, and
leadership in the field takes those responsibilities seriously.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you for that. Thank you very much.
Mr. Vitiello. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Representative Pearce.
Mr. Pearce. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Jensen, how many miles of roads are in the border zone
of the Coronado Forest?
Mr. Jensen. I would have to get back to you on the specific
number of miles of roads.
Mr. Pearce. You wouldn't happen to know that, would you,
Mr. Vitiello?
Mr. Vitiello. I do not.
Mr. Pearce. You all don't do patrols out there.
Mr. Vitiello. Coronado is part of the area Tucson sector
covers, yes.
Mr. Pearce. Do you have anybody in the audience that might
know that?
Mr. Jensen. We will have to get back to you, sir.
Mr. Pearce. Mr. Vitiello, you just stated in response to a
question that the framework exists to solve the problem with
respect to getting into areas with limited access by Federal
law, that would be wilderness and such areas as that. Did I
hear you correctly?
Mr. Vitiello. That is correct.
Mr. Pearce. And then did I hear you correctly that in cases
of danger and death, that you would have a heightened sense of
emergency?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes.
Mr. Pearce. Can you explain why 68 percent of Organ Pipe is
still--people are advised not to go in there, American citizens
are advised not to go in there? Doesn't it qualify as an area
if you tell people don't go in there, that they might not come
out alive, wouldn't that be danger or death? Wouldn't that move
at sort of the top of the list of your heightened sense?
Mr. Vitiello. Zone by zone, area by area, we are concerned
with our responsibilities within the area of the immediate
border. And so Organ Pipe is a challenge because of its status.
It is also a challenge because of the activity that is there.
But we are making--we have made plans. We are making
investments to put that situation in hand.
Mr. Pearce. It has been that way for--when did they first
start putting that off limits to people?
Mr. Vitiello. I don't know that specifically, but I am
going to guess it is somewhere around the 2000 timeframe when
it was a lot busier than it is now.
Mr. Pearce. So you have had 10 or so years, 11 or whatever.
Ms. Thorsen, I am interested, again we are talking about
how easy it is to work with wilderness, and it doesn't affect
us in the least. I mean, that is sort of the testimony. Can you
explain the reasoning behind not allowing a surveillance tower
in the Organ Pipe Wilderness, and it was forced to be placed
outside the wilderness in a place that couldn't see as much of
the border and as well? Wouldn't that be an effect? Or is that
just sort of come into the close but not qualify category?
Ms. Thorsen. Under the provisions of the Wilderness Act,
one of the challenges we have had is placement of permanent
structure, which would be a tower. In negotiations and
discussions that we have had with the Border Patrol and the
park, they moved those towers in locations within the boundary
of the wilderness but that are not designated, that chunk of
land is not designated specifically wilderness. So they are
actually generally in the same vicinity; they are just are not
sitting on what is designated as wilderness.
Mr. Pearce. And so, in this case, are you trying to tell me
that the alternate site had as good visibility as the site that
was in the wilderness? Because we have exactly the opposite
testimony. And if that is the case, if you choose a case with
less surveillance capacity, then I still along, with my
colleagues, don't understand how you can sit here with a
straight face and say that it doesn't affect, that everything
is OK, that framework exists.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Thorsen. If I may respond, Congressman.
Mr. Pearce. That is up to the chairman.
Ms. Thorsen. If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, to the
Congressman's point.
Mr. Bishop. Go ahead.
Ms. Thorsen. In working with the Border Patrol, the Border
Patrol, and I am going to speak some for Mr. Vitiello here,
there if the tower does not give them the totality of what they
want to see, what they will do is implement additional measures
to fill that gap.
For instance, in their new approach, SBInet has gone away,
the integrated tower--integrated fixed tower approach, they
will supplement those areas with mobile surveillance units or
RVSS sites or other types of technology to fill those gaps, so
they will not go uncovered between technology and resources.
Mr. Pearce. I will pass your assurances along to the
constituents of mine that live along the border who are scared
to death every day, who witnessed or who know the family who
was killed and whose family itself lives in our district, I
will give them your reassurances. Thank you.
Mr. Bishop. Are there other questions people have for
another round?
Raul, did you have a question you wanted to ask?
Mr. Labrador. I yield my time for Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
Mr. Vitiello, I want to clarify. Are you aware of anybody
who has been killed along this border region that we are
talking about here?
Mr. Vitiello. Which----
Mr. Chaffetz. I mean, I talked specifically about the
problems that we are having in Arizona, and Mr. Tierney's
questions about people are dying. Are they not dying?
Mr. Vitiello. There have been deaths along the border, and
there have been that directly impact the Border Patrol, yes.
Mr. Tierney. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chaffetz. Yes, please.
Mr. Tierney. Just so we understand, my question was, was
there people dying in direct correlation to the lack of
enforcement of an environmental or one of these other laws that
we are discussing today, not whether people are dying. So let's
be genuine about this.
Mr. Vitiello. Correct. In the context of that question,
this specific issue has not caused deaths that I am aware of.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chaffetz. So you are not aware of anybody dying that is
coming north, trying to go through the areas, going through the
Organ Pipe National, you are not aware of anybody who has died
doing that?
Mr. Vitiello. Look, there are deaths along the immediate
border for people who dehydrate or get----
Mr. Chaffetz. And coming north, correct.
Mr. Vitiello. That is right.
Mr. Chaffetz. I mean, I don't know how you define the
immediate border, but the legal definition is 100 miles. So you
are telling me that you are not aware of anybody.
Mr. Vitiello. That has died as a result of our lack of
ability to move in mechanized vehicles on protected lands, no,
I am not aware of that.
Mr. Chaffetz. We will go through this in greater detail.
Anyway, let's go to Mr. Jensen here. Your written testimony
states that the Forest Service has dedicated 13 officers to the
border zone of the Coronado Forest; 10 of them are accompanied
by canine units. What is the Forest Service total commitment to
the border zone across the Southwest border? Are those officers
armed, and what capacity do they have to stop illegal activity
and defend themselves against criminals with high-powered
weapons?
Mr. Jensen. I will stand to be corrected, but I understand
there is on the range of perhaps 50 agents in the Southwestern
region of the Forest Service.
Mr. Chaffetz. Are they armed?
Mr. Jensen. To my understanding, yes, they are.
Mr. Chaffetz. And are they able to apprehend somebody?
Mr. Jensen. Yes, they are.
Mr. Chaffetz. How often does that happen?
Mr. Jensen. I would have to get back to you on the
specifics of how often that happens, but they are in constant
contact and undertake joint operations with the Border Patrol
in apprehension activities, so I would imagine that it would be
a fairly routine duty.
Mr. Chaffetz. Your written testimony states that the Forest
Service and the Border Patrol, ``rely on each other's strengths
to work toward the common goals and mutual interests for the
public and the National Forests,'' basically to protect the
endangered and sensitive species. According to the Coronado
National Forest Web site, this includes the Mexican gray wolf,
cactus, the pygmy owl, the desert pupfish and the Pima
pineapple cactus. Are we to believe that the Forest Service and
the Border Patrol are balancing our national security with the
Pima pineapple cactus and the desert pupfish?
Mr. Jensen. It is not that sort of tradeoff, sir. We look
at the existing laws in the books that require us to protect
those threatened and endangered species.
Mr. Chaffetz. But as Mr. Bishop pointed out, why is it
deferred to--in the balance of the MOU, why is it that you are
given deference, that they can't do what they think is best to
secure the United States of America and secure their officers.
They have to come get permission. That is the problem. That is
why we are here today.
Mr. Jensen. As Ms. Thorsen has testified, it is our
experience in the Forest Service that the Border Patrol has all
full authority to pursue suspects in all cases and
circumstances around the border.
Mr. Chaffetz. In all circumstances, that is your
understanding of the MOU, in all circumstances.
Mr. Jensen. We have not run into any trouble on Forest
Service lands in this regard.
Mr. Chaffetz. They have full and unfettered access to use
motorized vehicles.
Mr. Jensen. In the exigent and emergency circumstances.
Mr. Chaffetz. OK. So that is different than full and
unfettered access, which you have just said.
Mr. Jensen. Allow me to clarify then. In the case that is
outlined within the MOU, the Border Patrol has the ability to
pursue suspects, be it on foot, be it on horseback or be it on
vehicle, when the terrain and the circumstances dictate, and it
is their decision and control when they do that.
Mr. Chaffetz. I have a--Mr. Chair, I--and to the ranking
member, everybody here, I have a serious problem where we are
prioritizing desert pupfish above national security. I just
personally believe that we really ought to be protecting the
United States of America and protecting those officers who are
putting their lives on the line every single day.
Mr. Tierney. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chaffetz. When we have delays the way we have, I just
find it unconscionable.
Mr. Tierney. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Chaffetz. Sure.
Mr. Tierney. I think the delay issue we all have an issue
with, and that is one of the things I left you, but I want to
try and nail something down here, the three of you.
When we have laws, the environmental law or the wilderness
law, things of those nature, the laws are in effect, but you
have memorandums of agreement as to how you will strike a
balance when there is a competing interest, am I right on that?
Mr. Vitiello. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. And one of the competing interests would be a
national security issue when somebody from the Border Patrol
thought that it was an exigent circumstance or an emergency
that they get into the area, correct?
Mr. Vitiello. Correct.
Mr. Tierney. And in those instances, where they think the
national security is at risk or there is an emergency or an
exigent situation, it is the Border Patrol agent and no one
else who uses their professional judgment and determines
whether or not they will go in there by mechanized vehicle or
any other way, is that correct?
Mr. Vitiello. That is correct.
Mr. Tierney. So they are not setting up some pupfish or
whatever it is up against something else; their determination,
their professional judgment is, does national security require
that we go in there by whatever means necessary and when they
make that decision, it overrides Interior, it overrides
Forestry, it overrides everybody else, am I correct?
Mr. Vitiello. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Chaffetz. I would say to my friend from Massachusetts:
A, exigent circumstances has not been clearly defined; it has
not been clearly delineated. No. 2, routinely the Border Patrol
is not able to do what it is able to do in other areas in terms
of locating towers, operating with vehicles.
You know, I wasn't going to do this, but I think I am going
to do this. If you have a sensitive heart, I am telling you,
this is the most graphic thing I have ever seen. If you are a
young child, don't watch this. I am going to show you four
slides that are happening right near our border; this is on the
Mexican side of the border. And this is what I am concerned
about, what we are putting our men and women down there and
saying go protect us, but we are not going to give you the
resources because we are worried about the pupfish, so, you
know, you go on horseback, you go just walk it. Go ahead, just
show the first slide and just roll through these. We are going
to do this swiftly. Don't look if you are sensitive to any sort
of graphic image, OK. This is the kind of thing that we are
sending our agents to deal with on a daily basis.
Mr. Tierney. Mr. Chairman, a point of clarification. Is
there a contention that our Border Patrol people and Interior
people and others are responsible for the Mexican side of the
border where these films are from?
Mr. Chaffetz. Let's keep going. They are dealing with this
threat coming through the United States of America. They are
having to deal with this by the hundreds--you can turn them
off. Please, turn them off.
They are having to deal with this by the hundreds of
thousands. I in good conscience cannot be a participant in the
U.S. Congress and not give every tool and resource to the
Border Patrol to secure that border. I don't give a crap about
the pupfish. I do care about America, and I do care about those
Border Patrol agents. And when you tell them they have to go on
horseback when they much rather be in a vehicle, that is
fundamentally wrong. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. OK. Do you want another minute in fairness?
Mr. Tierney. No, no. I mean, look, I think we have made the
point a hundred times here that the Border Patrol people are in
whatever vehicle they think they need to be in at the
appropriate time, and I think we can leave it at that.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I appreciate that, the answers you gave him. Make sure they
are enforced in some way. And you can be happy the pupfish has
a 52-acre buffer zone that has been paid for by border
security. So we wish that--we appreciate the witnesses for your
testimony. Members of both committees have--if they have
additional questions for the witnesses are asked to submit
those, and we will ask for you to respond for them in writing.
We are now ready for the next panel of witnesses. And do
you need some time to reconfigure the table here? For the next
panel of witnesses, we are also going to have to--they will
need to be sworn in. But I would like, and especially while Mr.
Pearce is here, to welcome up to the panel George Zachary
Taylor, who is a retired Border Patrol officer and a founding
member of the National Association of Former Border Patrol
Officers. We will invite Gene Wood, who is also a retired
Border Patrol officer and founding member of the National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers. Mr. Wood will be
introduced by our colleague Mr. Pearce, if you would like to
take a few minutes to do it justice.
Mr. Pearce. Chairman Chaffetz and Chairman Bishop, members
of the subcommittee, thanks for allowing me to be here on the
dais with you today. I would like to take this opportunity to
introduce my friend and constituent Gene Wood, Las Cruces, NM.
Gene spent 30 years in the Border Patrol and served as sector
chief in McAllen, TX, and San Diego, CA. I look forward to his
testimony and to the testimony of the other witnesses here.
But thanks again, and welcome him from New Mexico, sir.
Thanks.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I also want to recognize Jim
Chilton, who is a fifth generation cattleman, whose land
stewardship practices have won him awards. His family ranch is
55 miles southwest of Tucson and includes 4 miles of border.
As well as Ms. Mittal--is the first name Anu?
Mr. Mittal. Yes.
Mr. Bishop. That is the first name I have right today.
Thank you.
Anu Mittal, who is the director of Natural Resources and
Environment for the Government Accountability Office. And I
understand you are the author of the GAO report that we have
been referencing throughout this case.
Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. It is the custom of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee to swear in all witnesses. If you
would please rise and raise your right hands.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Chaffetz. Let the record reflect they answered all in
the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. We thank you all for being here.
As mentioned to the earlier panel the practice--I just said
that. As mentioned to the earlier panel, all of your written
testimony will appear in the hearing record. You will have 5
minutes to summarize it. The lights in front of you will I hope
give you a countdown. If the yellow light comes on, that means
you have a minute left. The red light means we will ask you to
finish your testimony as you can. Now, I will also tell you
that we are going to have another series of votes sometime
soon. What I would like to do is try to get as far along as we
can so we don't have to hold you. I hope none of you have
afternoon plane flights going out of here because it ain't
gonna happen.
So if we could, Mr. Wood, we will just go left to right
again. If you will be the first one to give your testimony, we
would appreciate hearing from you.
STATEMENTS OF GENE WOOD, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER
PATROL OFFICERS, FOUNDING MEMBER AND FORMER SECTOR CHIEF PATROL
AGENT, MCALLEN, TX, AND SAN DIEGO, CA; GEORGE ZACHARY TAYLOR,
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FORMER BORDER PATROL OFFICERS, FOUNDING
MEMBER AND RETIRED SUPERVISORY BORDER PATROL AGENT, NOGALES,
TX; JIM CHILTON, CHILTON RANCH, ARIVACA, AZ; AND ANU MITTAL,
DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, U.S. GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC
STATEMENT OF GENE WOOD
Mr. Wood. Thank you very much, Chairman Chaffetz and
Bishop, and thank you to Mr. Pearce for his gracious----
Mr. Bishop. Sir, if that thing moves, can it move any
closer to you so we can hear you a little bit better? It is
hard to hear.
Mr. Wood. Is that better?
Mr. Bishop. That is much better.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. Wood. My name is Gene Wood. As a retired member of the
U.S. Border Patrol and founding member of the National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers, it is a real
honor for me to talk today on the merits of the proposed
legislation.
I do not represent the Border Patrol in today's
proceedings. Instead, my testimony will rely largely on
personal knowledge and the expertise of hundreds of former
agents who are members of our organization. Their many years of
collective experience I believe will enhance my ability to
present to you informative, accurate information and
conclusions.
The Border Patrol was established in 1924, and for nearly
87 years, the supervisors and their agents have successfully
developed techniques and strategies to prevent the illegal
entry of aliens into our country. One of the most effective of
these techniques is deterrence. It has proven to be a desirable
strategy because it does not involve the dangers involved in
physical arrests. It does not involve costs always incurred in
the detention and removal of aliens.
Today I would like to address part of my testimony to
enforcement efforts in the Tucson sector of the Border Patrol.
I have chosen that sector because I served there before I was
chief as the deputy chief. It is one of the largest sectors on
our southern border. It has 261 miles of common border with
Mexico. Additionally, the sector area of responsibility
contains large areas with various restrictive land
designations. Since 2004, leadership of that sector has changed
frequently with successive assignments of some of the most
distinguished and experienced chiefs in the Border Patrol. With
the support of Congress, the agency work force has increased,
and we have even experimented with the assignment of National
Guard troops. Technology has been improved.
I believe, gentlemen, as does the National Association of
Former Border Patrol Officers, that the difficulties
encountered by the Border Patrol to gain operational control
are not the result of poor management or lack of resources, it
is simply an issue of denied access.
Unfortunately, our country's willingness to accept these
unwise restrictions has been aggravated in recent years by the
unrelenting pressure of drug cartels and other international
criminal enterprises. That brings us to one of the most
difficult questions facing present Border Patrol supervisors
and agents. How do we protect our national security
successfully in these highly restricted areas? The time-proven
and effective technique gained through years of experience are
severely limited or at times completely eliminated because of
these self-imposed restrictions. Expensive technologies cannot
be efficiently implemented, and manpower assets become more
difficult to utilize.
For these reasons, the leadership of the National
Association of Former Border Patrol Officers enthusiastically
endorses the decisive remedies proposed by Congressman Bishop.
This includes the 100-mile limits and waiver of all the
restrictions listed in that proposed legislation. We believe
that if enacted, it will have a high probability of success,
and it is an absolute necessary first step to achieve our goal,
our national goal of operational control.
We also believe that the approval of this proposed
legislation will help convince the American public that
Congress is now seriously seeking remedies to improve national
security and the public safety of our citizens. There is
another reason it makes perfect sense to do this. My time is
up.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wood follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.033
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
You do have your written report as well, and there will be
questions for you at the same time. And I still think we are
going on the floor, so we have more time here.
Mr. Taylor, if you would like to go, you are recognized for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE ZACHARY TAYLOR
Mr. Taylor. Thank you, sir.
Chairman Bishop, Chairman Chaffetz, members of the
committee, thank you for allowing the National Association of
Former Border Patrol Officers to address this distinguished
assembly. I am here to speak for passage of Mr. Bishop's
legislation, H.R. 1505, the National Security and Federal Lands
Protection Act.
This bill is brilliant in its simplicity. Why? Because the
primary purpose of border security is to ensure national
security and promote public safety for all Americans, including
Border Patrol agents on the border. Each of you represent
constituents, towns and communities that have been adversely
affected by illegal immigration and drug smuggling. No
community in the United States is safe from these transnational
criminals and criminal organizations.
As long as the external borders of the United States remain
open to them, they will continue to come. The level of violence
these groups are capable of and routinely employ is
incomprehensible to any civilized person. Border Patrol agents
in Arizona spend a significant amount of time patrolling public
lands because much of the land along the Arizona border is
public land.
These agents report that the Department of Homeland
Security and Bureau of Customs and Border Protection are
intentionally misrepresenting the situation along the southern
border, especially concerning the relative safety of the border
area and the number of aliens detected that get away.
Therefore, I am here today to tell you what rank and file
Border Patrol officers are unwilling to tell you, even if
subpoenaed and placed under oath, for fear of reprisal from
their employer. The agents in the field are saying that the
Nogales, AZ, urban border area has become a more dangerous
place to work and that the Federal public lands surrounding
Nogales have evolved into a lawless area routinely prowled by
heavily armed drug and alien smugglers from Mexico.
Additionally, agents do not have unencumbered access on all
public lands to patrol the border. The concept is simple. If
you cannot access the border, you cannot patrol the border, and
therefore, you cannot secure the border. Limited access areas,
including wilderness and refuge areas, present a greater
likelihood that agents will encounter armed criminals who will
not hesitate to fire upon them and that the probability that if
anyone is seriously injured they will surely die before that
injured person can be safely transported or evacuated because
of access issues.
There is also the fact that they are reluctant to patrol
these areas effectively because they may find themselves the
subject of a dispute between their agency and the agency
controlling the land they seek to patrol. So the agent on the
ground, the very idea that a plant or some obscure animal is
more important than their life is an unsettling reality that
further discourages them in their efforts to secure the border.
You need to protect our Border Patrol agents. An existing
palpable concern is the perceived lack of interest on the part
of the Department of Homeland Security to aggressively pursue
criminals that kill or do--attempt to kill or do kill Border
Patrol agents. To sweep these issues under the carpet is
reprehensible.
Here I have a copy of the Arizona hunting and trapping
regulation showing, and I quote from the--Homeland Security
issues along the international border may affect the quality of
a person's hunt. The delineated area goes from the California
border to the New Mexico border and includes all land south of
interstate highways 8 and 10 and north as far as Arizona City,
that line passing to the near west of Tucson. We have briefers'
reports of agents following tracks of an all-terrain vehicle
that cross the border illegally near Lukeville, AZ. They
followed the trail across public lands north into Maricopa
County, which is Phoenix, and apprehended a load of marijuana
on an all-terrain vehicle driven by 15-year-old illegal alien
with a rifle. Department of Interior employees have erected
vehicle barriers 70 to 80 miles north of the Mexican border in
the Table Top Wilderness to prevent smuggling vehicles from
driving further north.
I can go on for hours with individual examples of why this
legislation is necessary. However, my 5 minutes is nearly up.
We urge you to support Mr. Bishop's bill, H.R. 1505, to protect
Federal lands and our Border Patrol agents by signing on as a
co-sponsor as soon as possible to give the Border Patrol agent
on the ground the unencumbered access to Federal public lands
within 100 miles of the border they must have to secure the
border and provide them the reassurance that the U.S. Congress
is behind them in that effort.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Taylor follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.078
Mr. Bishop. Thank you very much.
Mr. Chilton, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF JIM CHILTON
Mr. Chilton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am a rancher, and ranchers shoot straight. And it was
really upsetting to sit here and listen to the bureaucratic
double-talk by the Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife--the BLM
and the Border Patrol.
I live on the border. Four miles of my ranch is the
international border. The border is not signed or marked and
consists of a five-strand barbed-wire fence, similar to the
ones one sees along highways. There is no wall, and you would
never know it was the international border by viewing it. But
the cartels know.
We strongly believe that the Border Patrol must control the
border at the border, not 10, 20, or 100 miles inside America.
We have heard that--and it was a few years ago--that the Border
Patrol found several backpacks near our ranch which contained
Yemeni passports. We wonder whether the owners of the backpacks
were tourists or terrorists.
We must protect the national security above all else.
National security must not be trumped by environmental laws or
Federal land managers. It would seem impossible to win World
War II if the military had been forced to comply with current
laws, such as the National Environmental Policy Act, the
Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, and other acts
enacted by Congress after World War II. The construction of
thousands of military bases and airfields and port facilities
inside the United States during the war would have been delayed
for years.
Wouldn't it make sense to control the border at the border
by completing the border fence? There is no border fence from
Nogales to Sasabe of about 50, 60 miles. And wouldn't it make
sense to have functioning 21st-century communications near the
border, installing cameras and sensors and using drones and
helicopters and satellites and other proven technologies
developed by the military?
The Border Patrol needs to be able to construct roads,
helicopter pads, and place forward operation bases at very
close or next to the border and be free of impediments caused
by environmental laws and Federal land managers. Land managers
must not be allowed to interfere with the access of the
essential use of land to protect we, the citizens.
Recently, environmental mitigation diversions resulted in
$50 million of Border Patrol funds being transferred to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for alleged environmental
damage. The real environmental damage is being caused by drug
and people traffickers, whose impact is enormously more harmful
to the border than the Border Patrol.
We are told by the Border Patrol that approximately 20
percent of the undocumented border crossers have criminal
records. Criminals who engage in human and drug transportation
find it convenient to use wildlife refuges and wilderness areas
as easy corridors to hide and travel. My fellow rancher, Rob
Krentz, was murdered, with the killer escaping back to Mexico
through the San Bernardino National Refuge. Emphatically we
oppose the designation of any and all new wilderness areas,
wildlands, or refuges within 100 miles of the southern border.
Such designations are virtual gifts to Mexican cartels.
It is outrageous that hundreds of Mexican cartel scouts,
with the best binoculars, night vision, and encrypted satellite
phones, have been found to occupy the tops of mountains near
our ranch and near our house and dozens of miles inside the
border. As a consequence, the foreign cartel scouts know where
the Border Patrol is located at all times and can then
carefully guide AK-47-gun-packing druggers and people smugglers
through the mountains and valleys without being spotted by the
Border Patrol.
We have been burglarized twice. Ranchers in the border area
cannot leave their houses unguarded for a few hours, since
their homes are likely to be broken into if someone is not
there. We live with weapons near our bed. Our doors have
weapons next to them. We have weapons in our vehicles, and we
attach weapons in our scabbards on our saddles.
The Border Patrol must control the border at the border so
that citizens' civil rights, property rights, and human rights
are protected. Ranchers along the border cannot have peace of
mind until the border is, in fact, secured.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Chilton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.084
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Just so you know, there is a vote that is going on right
now, and what we have told Members is to go quickly vote and
then come back. So we are not walking out of this. There will
be people coming back here again.
Ms. Mittal.
STATEMENT OF ANU MITTAL
Ms. Mittal. Chairman Chaffetz and members of the
committees, I am very pleased to be here to participate in your
joint hearing on environmental laws and Border Patrol
operations.
As you know, 40 percent of the southwest border is Federal
land, managed by the Departments of the Interior and
Agriculture. Even though these lands are characterized by
remote and rugged terrain, they have not deterred illegal
border crossers, whose activities have damaged the environment
by creating thousands of miles of illegal trails, dumping tons
of trash, and causing wildfires to escape on these lands.
Border Patrol and land agency officials both recognize that
stopping illegal traffic as close to the border as possible is
essential not only to protect national security but also to
protect the natural and cultural resources on Federal lands.
Last fall, GAO issued two reports on Border Patrol
operations on Federal lands along the southwest border. My
testimony today will summarize the key findings of both of
these reports. These reports were prepared collaboratively by
staff in GAO's Homeland Security and Justice team and GAO's
Natural Resources and Environment team.
Accompanying to me today is Rich Stana, the director who
leads GAO's work on border security issues.
First, we found that Border Patrol must comply with various
land management laws such as NEPA, ESA, and the Wilderness Act
when conducting operations on Federal lands. Under these laws,
Border Patrol, like other Federal agencies, must obtain
permission from the land agencies before agents can undertake
activities such as maintaining roads and installing
surveillance equipment on Federal lands.
To help implement these laws, Border Patrol and the land
agencies have developed several interagency agreements. We
heard today about the 2006 MOU. And these have led to numerous
instances of enhanced cooperation and better access for Border
Patrol on some Federal lands.
However, we also found instances where, despite these
interagency agreements, land management laws had impacted
Border Patrol's access to Federal lands. For example, 14 of the
26 stations, as was earlier mentioned, responsible for
patrolling Federal lands along the southwest border told us
that they sometimes face delays because of the length of time
it takes land managers to complete NEPA requirements before a
permit can be issued.
We found that some of these delays could have been reduced
if Border Patrol had used its own resources to perform required
NEPA environmental assessments, and other delays could have
been reduced if the agencies had conducted programmatic
environmental impact statements for the region, as allowed
under the act. We recommended that the agencies take these
steps to avoid such delays in the future.
In addition, five stations told us that, because of the ESA
and the presence of endangered species, they had to change the
timing or location of their ground and air patrols. However,
they also told us that these changes had not affected their
ability to detect or apprehend illegal aliens on Federal lands.
Second, we found that while land management laws had caused
delays and restrictions, they had not impacted the operational
control status for 22 of the 26 Border Patrol stations along
the southwest border. Instead, we found that 18 of these
stations reported that the remoteness and ruggedness of the
terrain and dense vegetation had affected their level of
operational control on Federal lands more than access delays or
restrictions caused by the land management laws.
According to these stations, the key to obtaining
operational control on Federal lands on the southwest border is
to have a sufficient number of agents, have access to
additional technology, and have additional tactical
infrastructure. They did not identify changing the
environmental laws as a key requirement.
Four stations along the southwest border did tell us that
their ability to achieve or maintain operational control for
Federal lands under their jurisdiction had been affected by
land management laws. However, only two of these stations had
requested additional resources to facilitate increased or
timelier access to regain operational control. In both of these
cases, their requests were denied by senior Border Patrol
officials because of other higher agency priorities.
Finally, 7 years ago, we were very critical of the lack of
information sharing and communication that existed between the
Border Patrol and the land agencies. In 2010, however, we found
that the agencies had made significant progress in some areas
as a result of the implementation of various interagency
agreements, but we also found that they could still take
additional steps to ensure that coordination of threat
information occurs in a timely manner and that agencies have
compatible radio communications. The agencies are currently
taking actions to implement our recommendations.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would
be happy to respond to any questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Mittal follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.108
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I appreciate all of you for giving your statements. They
will be there for the record. And if I forget at the end, if
Members have additional statements that are written, we may ask
you to respond to those at the same time in a timely fashion.
Ms. Mittal, let me go through a couple of questions, then,
if I could, before the rest of my colleagues. As I understood
you as you were talking here, a very nice, very balanced report
you gave us here, but you did find a correlation between
environmental laws and delays of the Border Patrol's ability to
get permission and permits from some land managers.
Ms. Mittal. What we found is that the implementation of the
environmental laws had resulted in delays and restrictions.
Mr. Bishop. This is a question that--you never ask
questions if I don't know what the answer is. But I asked it of
one of the other panelists, and I wanted to give you the
question as well.
In all of these issues that you went through, did you ever
find a chance, when the request was made, that it was Border
Patrol always asking the Interior or Ag for permission; it was
never the other way around?
Ms. Mittal. You asked that question earlier, and one of the
things that we noticed is that Border Patrol has a lot of
flexibility under these acts to actually undertake a number of
these environmental assessments themselves, and they have not
been doing that.
Mr. Bishop. As long as they are allowed to do that. And I
appreciate that very, very much. Thank you.
Let me ask a couple other questions for the other three
witnesses: Mr. Wood, Mr. Chilton, and Mr. Taylor. In your
opinion, from your experience on the ground--and, actually, I
wish the other panel was here to listen to some of your
testimony, as well--are environmental laws, such as the
Endangered Species, Wilderness Acts, compatible with border
security? Do you have examples of the problem that you have
seen with those?
Any of you?
Mr. Chilton, go ahead. Why don't you just go down that row.
Mr. Chilton. The answer is, no, national security should
not be trumped by environmental laws or rules and regulations
of the different departments like Interior, Forest Service, and
Fish and Wildlife.
There is a refuge in Arizona called the San Pedro National
Conservation Area. It starts at the international border where
the San Pedro River enters the United States. There is a wall
that comes each way and stops, and there is a 1,500-foot gap.
The refuge is 2 miles wide, and the conservation area is 50
miles long. The Border Patrol has no access into that area
except at the border, and that is limited access. It is a path
for druggers, illegals, and perhaps terrorists to walk 50 miles
into the United States.
And how does the Border Patrol try to patrol it? They
patrol the perimeter. So if you have 50 miles one way and 50
miles the other way and 2 miles on the end, that is 102 more
miles of fence that the Border Patrol has to patrol. And they
are not allowed into it. The roads, since it has become a
national conservation area, have deteriorated so you can't
drive. And the refuge--or the conservation district manager
will not let the Border Patrol or anyone grade the roads and
have access in there.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Wood and Mr. Chilton, let me change that question
slightly for you. You are former Border Patrol agents. Do you
see anything fundamentally strange that the Border Patrol has
unlimited access on private property but does not have
unlimited access on public property to do their jobs?
Mr. Wood.
Mr. Wood. Thank you for the question.
It has not gone unnoticed to us that the memorandum of
understanding that we have discussed earlier, it is nine pages
of single-spaced typing. It is complicated to read. But the
point I am making here is, in contrast to that MOU, the Federal
statute now in effect allows Border Patrol unrestricted entry
within a distance of 25 miles from any external boundary and to
have access to private lands, but not dwellings, for the
purpose of patrolling the border to prevent illegal entry of
aliens into the United States.
That statement is contained in only four sentences in
paragraph (a)(3) of Section 287 of the Immigration and
Nationality Act.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
My time has expired here, although I just want--I read one
of the footnotes that you put in there that I thought was
interesting. In the 1990 Arizona Desert Act that created one of
these wildlife refuges, it was specifically in there the
language that any kind of wilderness designation or
environmental designation would not be allowed to interfere
with the concept of national security.
I found that a unique concept there. Maybe when we have
some other time, I can come back and ask you to respond to that
one.
Mr. Chaffetz.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you.
The Border Patrol agent that was here represented that he
thought what was happening in the Tucson region was great
success. How would you react to that, Mr. Chilton?
Mr. Chilton. The Border Patrol still is not at the border.
The Border Patrol is doing what they can, I respect what they
are trying to do, but the border is not secure. They can't get
down to the border. They try to patrol 5, 10, 15 miles inside
the border and allow us to live in a no man's land.
There has been some diminishment in traffic across, but
when I talk to the Border Patrol people in Nogales, they say
the traffic is moving further west into the Indian nation and
into the Organ Pipe area.
And we don't see the people moving across our ranch. At one
time, there was 30,000 or 40,000 people coming through a year.
We don't see those people anymore because there are scouts on
top of the mountains who are guiding the cartels and the people
smugglers through our ranch and other ranches. And the Border
Patrol is known--they know where the Border Patrol is at all
times. And the Border Patrol doesn't see them, and they move
right through the country, clear on to Pinal County and to
Phoenix.
Mr. Chaffetz. How dangerous is it there?
Mr. Chilton. Well, when we are riding horseback, I pack two
guns, a rifle and a pistol. And if I see people coming along
with an AK-47 and a whole bunch of people with backpacks with
drugs in them, I go the other way--fast. If I have to, I will
fall off my horse and go to shooting.
It is dangerous. It is dangerous, and we should not have to
live under those conditions. The border should be controlled at
the border.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Taylor, can you talk to me a little bit
about the morale that you are seeing there? And how do these
agents deal with the differences between what they can do in
the other areas and what they can do in wilderness-type
designation areas?
Mr. Taylor. Well, we found out that in not only just the
wilderness designations but the public land that adjoins the
wilderness--and I am talking specifically about the Pajarita
Wilderness--one of the first actions I had when I went there as
a supervisor, at that time, you may or may not be aware, we had
Federal troops supporting the Border Patrol. We had a combat
alert team from the Marine Corps base working in conjunction
with us. And a firefight ensued--this was back in 1989, I
believe--between the Marines and the packers. And the land
managers were not concerned about the fact that we had a
firefight; they were concerned about the fire that ensued in
the wilderness area. And so we had to quit going in there.
Mr. Chaffetz. And how big a space and area was that?
Mr. Taylor. That particular area--there is a protected area
within the protected area, and that is where they were. And the
reason the Marines were there is because that is where the
smugglers chose to come through the border. And that internal,
inside of the wilderness is relatively small; I think it is 150
acres.
Mr. Chaffetz. Ms. Mittal, a question for you. This
definition between controlled and managed, did you feel like
that there was a unified vision and understanding of those two
definitions and what was truly controlled and what wasn't
controlled?
Ms. Mittal. We used the Border Patrol's definition of
operational control. So that when we were talking to their
agents, patrol agents in charge, we were using definitions that
their agency had developed and that they should have been fully
understanding of. So that is why we used the definition of
operational control that was defined by the Border Patrol.
Mr. Chaffetz. Very good.
My time has expired. I yield back.
Mr. Bishop. Mr. Kildee, do you have questions for these
witnesses?
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank all of the witnesses for your
testimony.
I would like to ask Ms. Mittal, did the GAO find that any
environmental laws need to be repealed or dramatically altered
in order for the Border Patrol to effectively perform its
mission?
Ms. Mittal. During our audit, what we found is that it was
the implementation of the environmental laws that was causing
the delays and restrictions that the Border Patrol agents had
identified.
Nobody recommended that there was a particular law or a
particular provision of the law that needed to be changed. What
we noted was that the MOU that was implemented by the three
agencies was not effective in implementing the environmental
laws.
Mr. Kildee. So Congress, then, in its position, should
have, perhaps, more hearings on how we can better have the
enforcement of these laws, then.
Ms. Mittal. In our review of the four laws that were
repeatedly cited by Border Patrol, what we found is that the
environmental laws provide a lot of flexibility as well as a
lot of options, and that the Border Patrol has not exercised
all of the flexibilities and all of the options that are
provided to it under these environmental laws.
So it is very easy to go back and blame the land management
agencies when you have not yet taken the actions that the laws
provide you as the action agency. So I think the reason we did
not make any suggestions or recommendations about changing the
environmental laws was because there are flexibilities and
options available to Border Patrol that it has not yet
exhausted in trying to comply with the environmental laws.
Mr. Kildee. OK. Based on your interviews, then, how
significant a problem are public land access issues to the
Border Patrol sector chiefs that you interviewed? What is their
feeling on----
Ms. Mittal. There were 17 Border Patrol agents in charge,
out of the 26 that we surveyed, that told us that they had
experienced access delays. However, not in every case did that
cause a problem in their ability to fulfill their function. For
example, there were five that had to change their patrols as a
result of endangered species. But all of those Border Patrol
agents told us that that had not impacted their ability to
apprehend and detect illegal aliens on Federal land.
So there was a mixed bag. In some places, the delays had
caused an impact on their operations; in other places, it had
not.
Mr. Kildee. Thank you very much. I know Congress wants to
and all of us at this table want to make sure we have the
proper balance in writing our laws, and all your testimony
today has been helpful.
And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
I have some more questions. We will do another round here,
if possible.
Mr. Taylor, can I ask you--we have talked a lot about
whether Border Patrol can go in under the exigent or emergency
circumstances. Can you just tell me what is the difference
between patrolling and going in for exigent or emergency
circumstances?
Mr. Taylor. Patrolling is something that is done routinely,
daily. It involves two things: deterring people from crossing
the border and detecting them once they have. Those are the two
basic principles of patrolling the border.
If you do not have access to the border, you can't patrol
it, so you have to back off. The further you have to back off,
the more territory you are ceding to the enemy.
Mr. Bishop. Well, so, then, can I followup on that? Can you
explain the obstacles the Border Patrol faces if they are
blocked from building new roads or maintaining existing roads?
And, you know, is it just good enough to have a single road
running through it?
Mr. Taylor. No.
Let me qualify my background. I have been a field agent in
the Border Patrol 26 years. The last 14 were in Arizona, so I
worked that area.
When you have a situation where you cannot get in there and
pull somebody out that gets in trouble, you are best off not to
send them in there. So what happens is, the area doesn't get
patrolled at all.
Mr. Bishop. I see. Thank you.
Mr. Wood, can you explain the Big Hatchet repeater MOU,
what it is and why it is a concern?
Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. Thank you.
The Big Hatchet is the name of a mountain peak located in
southern New Mexico. It is the sole source for communication.
Historically, there was a repeater up there; the land managers
found out about it, and the Border Patrol was required to take
it down. Since then, it has been put back up but with
restrictions that make it very, very difficult to manage.
As an example, the Border Patrol will be required to take
that down if that area is designated wilderness. The caveat to
that is, they will not be able to take it down, except through
certain months of the year, because of the lambing season for
some endangered species there.
It is the highest peak in the area. It is going to be
subject to damage by lightning and other natural effects. If
that repeater goes down from lightning and it is during the
period where Border Patrol cannot access it for those
limitations, then that entire area is going to be without
communication and the Border Patrol agents assigned in there
are going to be in drastic danger.
I, as a former chief, would probably pull the agents out of
there if that happens. It is just not worthwhile to take that
kind of chances against one of our agents.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Taylor, last December, Agent Terry was murdered on the
national forest land. How should that tragedy influence this
discussion?
Mr. Taylor. I mentioned earlier, Mr. Chairman, that those
areas that border wilderness--and, in this particular case, the
Pajarita Wilderness borders the Coronado National Forest on the
south--the ingress into the United States of the bandits that
were involved in that apparently came through the Pajarita up
through the Coronado, stayed in the Tumacacori Highlands, and
at the intersection of the Tumacacori Mountains and the
Atascosa Mountains is where the gunfight happened, where the
agent was killed.
And, apparently, the agent tried to follow the people that
did the shooting back into Mexico, and they went through the
Pajarita Wilderness, which the agents have no access to. As a
matter of fact, there is not even a fence there in many places.
It has been down on the ground so long that the vegetation has
covered it.
Mr. Bishop. Is this the map that we were talking about? Is
this the area?
Mr. Taylor. Yeah. Yes, sir.
Mr. Bishop. So can you explain what we are looking at with
that map?
Mr. Taylor. OK. If you will look in the lower-right-hand
corner, where that arrow is, that is where the Nogales Border
Patrol station is. The next arrow to the left is coming up
through the Pajarita more or less on the east side, and then
the arrow on the left is the main corridor. They are coming
from the west.
And what they are going through, where you see that box, is
what I call the kill zone. This is where the bandits--now,
there are two groups of bandits. There are people that are
trying to protect their drugs and aliens, and the other side is
trying to rip them off from those people. And both groups,
apparently, are armed.
Once they get past the kill zone, you will look at the
arrow in the upper-right-hand corner, that is where the Border
Patrol checkpoint is. And the arrows to the left follow the
highlands and take the aliens and these drug smugglers beyond
the Border Patrol checkpoint.
And the purpose of the box in there is to show that almost
all of that kill zone is located on public land. And it is in
the Coronado National Forest, and pretty much in the northwest
quadrant is where Agent Terry was killed. And in the northeast
quadrant, in a 4-day period, within the last 10 days, we found
three bodies. We don't have a ruling yet on what caused the
deaths.
Also, in the upper-left-hand corner, in December 2009, is
where Agent Russo was shot. And we believe it was the same
group of bandits that shot both agents.
So, if I can expand that just slightly, if you will think
about Nogales as a horseshoe, it is covered on the west by
public land, it is covered on the east by public land, and it
is all mountains. And the reason the alien smugglers use that
is because when they have the high ground, they have the
tactical advantage. They can see the Border Patrol coming, and
the Border Patrol has to go to them. And the only way they can
do that is on foot. Horses won't work in that area, because in
some of those places, to traverse them, you have to go on your
hands and knees, it is that steep.
I hope that answers your questions.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you. In more detail than I have.
Mr. Kildee, I am over here. I have a couple more questions.
Did you have anything else further or are you----
Mr. Kildee. No.
Mr. Bishop. OK.
Mr. Chaffetz.
Then let me just ask two more questions of you all, and
then we will give you--we will let you go, actually. Let me do
the first one, for either Mr. Wood or Mr. Taylor.
In a letter of the Fish and Wildlife Service to DHS
regarding the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge, an endangered
species concern, the Fish and Wildlife Service asked the Border
Patrol to stop doing road-dragging operations to cut signs near
the refuge.
Can you just explain to us what sign cutting is and why it
is an important tool? And what are the implications if the
Border Patrol cannot do this, or cannot use this tool?
Mr. Wood. Yes, sir. As I alluded to earlier in my
testimony, sign cutting is one of the most preferred and
effective techniques that the Border Patrol has developed over
the years.
Sign cutting effectively requires that a road be parallel
to the border, if that is the area that you want to protect.
They call it a drag road because they are frequently smoothed
over by one method or another. So that evidence of illegal
entry is easily identified by the agents that are working that
area.
Now, one of the critical things of that is you have to have
access. You can't effectively do sign cutting or drag roads
away from the border. You have lost the funnel, then, where
these entries occur. And they spread out over large, large
distances.
So if we are not able to use that technique, we are losing
a very, very valuable tool that we have developed over years.
And I can tell the committee, the Border Patrol agents now and
previously were some of the best sign cutters in the country. I
always have to mention that. It is an old technique, but it has
been very effective for our agency.
Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
Mr. Chilton, I will give you the last chance to comment on
a question I had.
In 2007, this subcommittee received a letter from one of
your good friends, the Krentz family. And the Krentz family--
the purpose of that letter was to oppose a new wilderness
designation. In the letter, Mrs. Krentz stated, ``The Border
Patrol should not be excluded, nor should national security of
the United States be sacrificed in order to create a wilderness
area. We are in fear for our lives and that of our families and
friends.''
I think you mentioned what happened to Rob Krentz within a
year of that particular letter coming in. And I would ask you--
this isn't a question. We know what happened down there. This
is a sad situation, should never have been the place. And I
realize that Mrs. Krentz was also hit by another accident. A
very difficult situation.
Would you just extend our appreciation to that family and
our concern? And I think one of the reasons why we are pushing
forward with these concepts is because of the Krentz family and
what they suffered down there. And if you would do that, I
would be appreciative.
Mr. Chilton. I will. And she helped me prepare my
testimony. And she is really, really angry that wilderness
areas are still being proposed. She is angry that her husband's
killer has not been found. And she believes that national
security demands securing the border at the border.
And I will be very happy to call her this afternoon and
talk with her. Thank you, Mr. Bishop.
Mr. Bishop. I appreciate all that.
Mr. Tierney, you get the chance to ask the last question.
Mr. Tierney. That is highly unlikely, but we will see how
it goes. I see my friend, Mr. Chaffetz, over there. I seldom
get the last word with him. Thank you.
Ms. Mittal, I just want to ask a couple questions. I had to
step out for a while, and I apologize for that. But I want to
reiterate a little bit what I understand your reports to be.
And, Mr. Stana, behind you, I thank you for your work.
From what I understand, there is no direct correlation
between the environmental laws and the wilderness laws that
can't be resolved by the departments working together and
overcoming any conflict between national security and the
intended protection of those laws. Is that correct?
Ms. Mittal. What we found is that the MOU was designed to
take care of those conflicts and make sure that the agencies
work well together. In some areas, the MOU is doing a really
good job. In other areas, it is not as effective.
Mr. Tierney. OK. Now, did your study look at all into those
areas that weren't effective as to what was the cause of that
lack of total effectiveness?
Ms. Mittal. What we heard repeatedly was that the land
management agencies do not have the resources to always
expedite Border Patrol's requests. But the Border Patrol does
have flexibilities under the existing laws to undertake a
number of the environmental assessments itself. It can conduct
programmatic environmental impact statements for the region. It
can establish categorical exclusions for its activities. And
none of that has been done yet.
Mr. Tierney. OK. So we need to focus in on making sure that
they use all of their resources properly in that area. We need
to look at increasing the resources where they are lacking. And
I suspect that we probably need to do some better training. Is
that a fair thing to say, to make sure that that MOU is
operative and implemented in the manner that it should be?
Ms. Mittal. Yes. Training was something that was brought up
by almost every patrol agent in charge and every Border Patrol
agent that we talked to. They would like to see more regular,
face-to-face, land-unit-based training provided by a land
management agency so that they understand the environment that
they are working in.
Mr. Tierney. OK. So better training, better use of what
resources do exist, better resources where they are lacking.
What else would you recommend to the attention of this
Congress?
Ms. Mittal. I believe that holding the agencies
accountable, to make sure that they can demonstrate to you that
they have exhausted all of the available flexibilities that
they have available to their disposal and, yet, they are
running into problems in doing their job.
And if Congress can hold them accountable--I did not hear
any new information provided this morning by any of the
agencies that testified that they have exhausted the
authorities that Congress has provided them. So I think holding
them accountable is essential.
Mr. Tierney. OK. So it looks to me as though the Congress
did its job in terms of writing the laws. It may not be doing
all that it should be doing in terms of oversight right now.
Ms. Mittal. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. And, hence, here we are. So, thank you very
much.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Bishop. If there are no other questions? Fine.
First of all, I want to thank this panel very much.
Ms. Mittal, first, I want to appreciate the hard work that
you and the GAO put into the report. I think it is very
enlightening, especially if you read the entire report. And,
yeah, I even did read the footnotes that you put in there.
Ms. Mittal. You did, sir. I was very impressed.
Mr. Bishop. To our three guests: Mr. Chilton, I appreciate
you being here, for giving us the perspective of someone who
actually lives on the border and faces these situations on a
daily basis.
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Wood, both of you, thank you for being here
and representing what it was like to--representing the view of
a Border Patrol agent who is no longer worried about his status
as a Border Patrol agent. So thank you for your testimony very,
very much. I appreciate it.
Let's see. If there is no further business, then, without
objection, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you again.
[Whereupon, at 1:35 p.m., the subcommittees were
adjourned.]
[The prepared statement of Hon. Mike Quigley follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T8220.110