tv U.S. Senate CSPAN July 3, 2013 12:00pm-5:01pm EDT
stop the levels of violence and particularly the sexual assault. it is not for this country to support in a single group or party. what we should support his proper democratics will sources. >> mr. speaker i agree with the prime minister that all of us want to see a peaceful resolution to the present crisis therefore can the prime minister tell the house what work is being done even at this late stage by the u.k. and indeed the european union to encourage the egyptian government to secure a negotiated political solution to this crisis in advance of today's egyptian army deadline? >> what i can tell the right honorable gentleman is clear messages have been sent to president morsi included by president obama who spoke to him directly that we are communicating through our investors they guess he is a democratic mandate and we respect that. democracy also means ensuring that everyone has a voice and leaders have responsibility a responsibility to represent all
egyptians and show they are responsive to their concerns. that is what the government needs to do in order to bring about peace and stability in that country. >> news from a short while ago that egyptian president morsi has announced today his refusal to step down telling the military not to quote take sides as the deadline nears. the "associated press" saying president morsi's statement came shortly before the expiration of the military ultimatum for him to meet the demands of millions of protesters calling for his ouster as are the army will intervene overseas on a political roadmap in the crisis. staying in london british prime minister david cameron yesterday updated the house of commons on the outcome of his recent recent trip to afghanistan as well as his meeting with european leaders in brussels about the future of british membership in the e.u.. from london, this is just over an hour. >> thank you mr. speaker. with permission mr. speaker i would like to make a statement on afghanistan and also report back on last week's european
council. i visited afghanistan on armed forces day to pay tribute to the extraordinary men and women who risk their lives every day to serve our country. we should remember in particular the 444 who have lost their lives in afghanistan. i am the whole house will welcome the decision to use money from banking funds to build a permanent memorial at the national memorial arboretum in staffordshire so our generation and every future generation can remember and honor the sacrifices they have made for us. mr. speaker we are in afghanistan for one reason, to protect our national security by stopping that country being used as a base for which to launch terrorist attacks against our people and against our allies around the world. that requires a security response for assisting taliban insurgent attacks driving out al qaeda in training afghan forces to take on this task for themselves. it requires a political response
supporting the afghans to build a more peaceful democratic and prosperous future including a peace process. and it requires a diplomatic response working in particular with pakistan which has a vital role in fighting terrorism in the region. let me take a three intern. four years ago three-quarters of the most serious terrorist plots against the u.k. had links to afghanistan and pakistan. today it is less than half their british and international forces have stopped afghanistan acting as a safe haven for al qaeda and afghan forces are taking the security right across the country. on the weekend i went to cap -- and lost card the and the british forces i met are clear about the capability confidence and leadership of the afghan forces raid afghan forces are already delivering 90% of their own training and all of the 1000 police patrols in central helmand each week are conducted
alone without isaf support. it is this growing capability which enables us to draw down our troops. our numbers in afghanistan are reduced from 9500 to 7900. by the end of this year or be around 5200. until recently we were in 137 different bases. we are now in 13 bases and by the end of the year it will be four or five spaces and by the end of next year when afghan forces take on full security responsibility there will be no british troops in any combat role at all. beyond 2014 small numbers of groups will remain to help the afghans delivered their national army officer academy. this was a request to the afghan president himself. we will also contribute 70 million pounds a year as part of international financial support to afghan security beyond 2014. a strong security response will be accompanied by a strong political response. in helmand we have been working for years to support the development of that are
governance local justice public services and the chance for afghans to build sustainable livelihoods. 130,000 children are now school including 13,000 girls something that would have been impossible under the taliban. 80% of the population cannot get health care within 10 kilometers of their home. the national level the political process is moving forward. president cars they should honor his commitment to the first peaceful democratic succession of power in living memory for the next years elections at the end of his second and final term. over 50,000 new voters the party registered including over 10,000 women in britain is supporting this with 4.5 million pounds of aid specifically targeted to increase women's participation. this progress and a enough stand is a challenge to the taliban or the accommodation of the successful buildup of the afghan national security forces and progress on the ground demonstrates the way to a role in afghanistan's future is not through terror and violence but only by engaging in a political
process. so i welcome plans to begin direct talks with the taliban. the peace process must be afghan-led but we should do all we can to support it. it does not signal any weakening of our security response but if we can persuade people that there is a legitimate political part for them to follow we should do so. mr. speaker wilson of the problems in afghanistan will not be solved in afghanistan alone. the support of neighboring countries like pakistan will be vital. in my visit to pakistan i was encouraged by the commitment of the new prime minister noaa or sharif. his election was a first-ever democratic transition in that country from one elected government to another. it represents a sign of progress in pakistan. we discussed our trade economic and cultural ties and agreed to work together in extremism and tackling poverty in dealing with the issues that can fuel to power -- terrorism. building on -- i welcome and
prime ministers commitment to working with afghanistan defeating terrorism across the region. mr. speaker let me turn to last week's european council. this was rightly focused on sorting out europe's economy is doing what we are doing in britain getting a grip on spending and supporting private enterprise to create jobs and growth. while spending the council finalized with the european parliament the seven year budget deal we successfully negotiated in february. this will create new possibilities between different years and between different budget headings but crucially the deal delivers for the first time a real terms cut on the credit card limit for e.u. spending for the next seven years. there was no change to that every deal except total payments at 908.4 million euros across the next seven years. that compares with 943 billion euros in the last seven years. however in this process there was a further attempt to -- the british rebate. after attempts towards a cancer
rebate we reached a clear due that will remain unchanged. this was reflected in what i reported back to this house. this discussion that took this was not necessary and it was frustrating and frankly unacceptable we had to go throw up again but the proposal is to remove a rebate on agricultural spending in new member states and it would have cost british taxpayers over 1.55 billion pounds. it has now been categorically rejected. we will continue to get the rebate in the years ahead on the same base as we do now. it is fair comment is right and unlike the last government is government will not agree to give any part of it away. at the council there was a particular focus on tackling new fun employment by supporting the private sector to create jobs and tackling problems to hold back our businesses competing in the global race. what we actually did to answer answer the shadow chancellor's weekly the european week with european investment bank would increase its funding by 40% with all finance for small and medium-size businesses. we agreed to do more to help
young people not working to acquire the skills the private sector needs through proper education and training very much along the lines of britain's 1 billion-pound youth contract and we does agree to scrap regulation of ties of our business in red tape and they should be creating new jobs. to give additional detail and urgencies to the work we would establish a new business task force was six of our best business leaders to take a fresh ambitions look at the impact of the e.u. regulation on our companies. it is vitally expand our trade and increase overseas investment into the u.k.. that is one of the reasons i was the first to server and british prime minister to visit kazakhstan. since year 2000 this country is in growth at an annual rate between 89% per-capita income has doubled and it has the potential to be the sixth largest oil and gas producer in the world. my business delegation signed deals worth over 700 million pounds all of which will help create and sustain jobs right here in the united kingdom. finally mr. speaker the council
welcomed croatia which became the newest member of the european union. we also agreed to start negotiated since on exceptions with serbia and the stability and association agreement with kosovo. mr. speaker when we remember what happened in the balkans within our political lifetimes it is a remarkable achievement that these countries are now joining or preparing to join the e.u. with a sense of peace and stability and bring support. mr. speaker each of the steps in the council was about doing what is right for britain and right for europe. it is in our national interest to get spending under control to make europe more competitive and to expand e.u. membership to the balkans states. openness competitiveness and flexibility are vital elements of the fresh settlement that i believe is needed for the european union. we want more of a state for national parliaments empowers the throwback member states not just away from them. this is a new settlement that i intend to put in a referendum
within the first half of the the next parliament, referent of much of the of the british people the choice they want and which my party will offer at the next general election. it is a referendum which my party will be voting for in this chamber on friday and i commend this statement to the house. >> edward miliband. >> thank you mr. speaker. can i associate myself with the prime minister's remarks on afghanistan. let me join him in paying tribute to our troops are the extraordinary job that they have done over the last decade. and i join him in particular in remembering all those who have lost their lives in particular their families and loved ones as well. mr. speaker is right for the government to set a date for the withdrawal of forces from afghanistan but it is also upon the international community including the u.k. continues to make a contribution to afghanistan's long-term security post 2014. let me ask questions about post
2014 arrangements political stability in afghanistan and in cooperation with pakistan. on the arrangements for 2014 and after can the prime minister provide a bit more detail on the specific nature of u.k. forces role and can say with a beyond officer training that they further responsibilities to any foru..s and can the prime minister say at this stage what objectives will determine the length of stay of any residual u.k. force? political reconciliation in afghanistan i agree on the importance of a proper process. can you tell us what is the prospect in his view of getting political talks on track including the taliban that he mentioned in a statement and on what timetable given the end 2014 deadline for combat forces and what timetable that might be possible? >> turning to relations with pakistan i join the prime minister in recognizing the bilateral relationships urging pakistan and the united kingdom. i also join him in expressing the belief that the u.k. will also need to build strong working relations with
newly-elected pakistani prime minister sharif especially in regard to the future of afghanistan. i think mr. speaker across this house there is wide support not just for inclusive political settlement within afghanistan but original settlements involving afghanistan's neighbors. that was the reason for the prime minister's afghanistan-pakistan check five months ago and in that communiqué there was a commitment to building a peace settlement over the next six months. can the prime minister say what progress has been made since then and what more can be done to achieve his goal? let me turn to the european council. can i join the prime minister who welcoming croatia's entry into the e.u. as well as the start date for the e.u. serbia's accession negotiations in agreement with kosovo. on the european budget this house is right mr. speaker to vote for -- of last october and we support the recent europe agreement on the european union budget rebate including the
european promise agreement. i think will be a shame mr. speaker to let this occasion pass without approaching the prime minister's flowery words from his press conference last week. in this town you have to be ready for an ambush at any time and that means lock and load and have one of this bout. [laughter] i have to say mr. speaker it sounded more carry on of the council than high noon but we will leave that to one side to let me turn to discussions on youth unemployment which was supposed to be the main subject of of sunday but was actually a small part of the prime minister's statement. mr. speaker there are 26 million people looking for work in the european union and nearly 6 million unemployed young people. at nearly 1 million of those young people, one in six across the european union here in britain. targeting any extra resources
tackling youth unemployment is welcome but does the prime minister really believe the response is equal to the scale of the challenge? at the press conference after sunday and again today the prime minister said the council agreed to take action along the lines of reagan's huge contract but that is worrying news mr. speaker. last year the prime minister warned the youth contract and he said it would do enormous amounts on youth unemployment so can explain why according to a survey of 200 employees last week not one of them, not one single one has used a youth contract to hire a young person? the youth contract is not the solution to europe's unemployment problem and frankly the summit did not mark the recognition that it's long overdue that the current economic approach across the e.u. is leaving millions of young people without employment prospects and fearing for the future. of course we should look at e.u. regulations but does he seriously believe that is the solution to youth and employment including britain? >> or pain economy is struggling in the british economy has not
grown as they promise. that is why they're nearly 1 million young people still looking for work here in britain. long-term youth unemployment is up by 158% since he took office and the youth contract is failing. the truth is the premise can hardly argue effectively for action in europe on youth unemployment when he is so transparently failing here at home. >> grateful for his response and let me take his questions in turn. first of all in afghanistan in the post 2014 position we have been taken and decisions down the ones i have said which are the officer training academy and the force protection that would go with that and of course our funding of the afghan forces going ahead. in terms of commitments i would make the point i think this country is played a very big part but we have also paid a very big price so i think it is right to focus on the one thing we have been asked to do by the afghans and we take pleasure in doing the officer training academy rather than looking for
ways to go beyond that. in terms of the political process the timetable is urgent. we want the meetings to take place as rapidly as possible. i spoke to mr. rabbani who runs the high peace council is ready to meet and speak with the taliban but we have to accept the opening of the doha office in the way in which that was done, with the way that the office was advertised has caused a setback in afghanistan but nevertheless the idea of a peace process and getting them to talk is right and i believe it will happen. in terms i agree with what he said about pakistan and the democratic transition. i agree with with what he said about the trilateral process. it has helped move the agenda forward since there has been progress on the release of prisoners so the talks can take place in other discussions on conferences and borders and police and military cooperation of also made progress. he talked about the e.u. and my
flowery language. the point i was trying to make is that you have to recognize, you have to recognize there are 27 other countries that want to get rid of the british rebate and you can add into that the european council president and the european commission. that is why you have got to make sure you take a tough approach and you're ready for anything. we know labour's approach. you go in with her hands up in a white flag. that is all you get. that is what you get and that is why the difference between us on the rebate is that we attempt to rebate why they get so much of it away. that is the truth. he talks about youth unemployment. let me just point out to him that youth unemployment in the u.k. is down 43,000 this quarter down 60,000 since last year. we have not been this latest disc come place in. he asked about the youth contract. 100,000 people with work experience which has got many of them off benefits and into work and our work program the figures
in yesterday showed 320,000 people getting work. that makes it almost twice as successful as the flexible new deal. in terms of international comparisons over the last year youth unemployment fell faster than the usa germany canada france and italy. i have told him 100,000 people are getting work. i know they think that is worthwhile but on the side of the house we think it is worthwhile. what was interesting i thought about his response, there is not a word about the referendum to discuss the innovation on friday and i think i know why. because, because he has said he is not in favor of a referendum. the shadow chancellor has said it's pretty stupid not to have a referenda. his chief advisers said it's conceivable they might have a referendum. his chief adviser thinks all sorts of things inconceivable. now the labor leader has a new approach.
announcinannouncin g to the "the sunday times" they're not going to talk about a referendum. i think i can sum up his policy in three words, week, week, with week. >> sir peter capsule. >> may i ask the prime minister a question which i have asked other ministers over the years? to which central authority will the afghan national army zero its allegiance and as the army is mainly recruited and officer led by tajiks with the pashtun very unrepresented, what is more likely than there will be a civil war between the old alliance and the taliban after
2014, which will put afghanistan back into chaos which existed when the russians withdrew? >> let me try and answer all of the right honorable gentleman's questions. in terms of the afghan national security forces which are getting towards that number of 340,000 which is a sizable investment the international community has made the afghan army will be accountable to the afghan government and the afghan president. that is how it should work. he is right to say that we still need to work on the balance of the different ethnicities in the afghan national army but pashtuns are being recruited to the afghan national army. i recently had the great honor in speaking at a parade and gave an award to a pushed on pashtun from helmand who was going to serve an afghan national army. the point he makes about trying
to avoid a splintering of afghanistan is absolutely right. we want to avoid that. i think afghans want to avoid that and that is why it's so important that we continue long after our troops about the combat role we continue to fund the afghan national security forces but we also continue to fund afghanistan. i think if we do that the successive president to present karzai balances and understands the different pressures there are in the country i see no reason why the country can't stay together. >> bob ainsworth. afghan forces have improved their capability year-on-year but there are still challenges in logistics and equipment. i am told that there are no plans for us to give to any equipment to the afghans, even some of the more splintered equipment we have acquired over the years. if all of the isa countries
adopt the same attitude, how are those challenges going to be met after the combat machine? >> first of all we do look at all of the equipment we have an individual afghan request to see whether there is something we can make available. he is absolutely right to say the capabilities of the forces that increase. it is very striking now when you talk to our forces in afghanistan and is he knows well you have seen a radical improvement in what is available. i think one of the challenges is making sure that the afghan army has all the enablers and the assistance it needs and the americans and specifically are looking at that problem but what has been noticeable about say the recent attacks on kabul is they were entirely dealt with by the afghan national security forces and dealt with very effectively. >> may i commend the prime minister for the decision to
ensure the proper memorial will be created of the national arboretum which i'm sure is a decision the whole house will welcome but in the course of this discussion with the prime minister in pakistan was there any discussion of the problems caused by the border tribal areas which in the past have been used as a safe refuge for those elements of the taliban determined to thwart the efforts of nato and indeed to bring down the karzai government? so long as the borders remain porous and these particular areas provide safe haven then it will be very difficult indeed to achieve the objectives which the prime minister and the prime minister of pakistan obviously agree with. >> i'm grateful to my right honorable friend for his question. on the memorial of the national arboretum might think it is the right move the right move in if they can support and that some elements of the memorial at camp bastion is transferred to the arboretum so there's real continuity.
on the issue of the tribal areas in pakistan this is a problem that has dogged the country for decades. i did discuss this both with the afghan president of pakistan prime minister and i think the simple point is this. that it is in both countries interest that the danger of taliban -- talibanization of both countries is a threat to pakistan that there are pakistan taliban in afghanistan and is the threat to afghanistan that there are taliban in pakistan in both countries need to understand their shared interest in dealing with both of these threats and they need to recognize the importance of dealing with these things together so you have a safe and stable democratic pakistan and a safe and stable democratic afghanistan. >> when the prime minister's disgust with his fellow leaders did he mention friday the referendum in particular the fact that he required the good officers -- as a private member and not a
government tell? >> i didn't explain how the intricacies of the parliamentary procedure but i did in a very good debate we had on the future of economic union which was one of the sessions of the european council. my view that i've often made clear in this house that we need to have just as the countries within the eurozone need change and need to integrate more so those countries like britain that will in my view will not and should not and should never join also need changes as well. we need to make the european union flexible enough to include those sorts of countries and i think there is a growing recognition that this is the case. >> given ministers were originally proposing that their names on a private member bill is probably as well the minister was not explaining the intricacies of parliament should procedure. mr. speaker i quite agree with the prime minister is the correct message to the taliban
is the stability is best achieved not through violence but through negotiation. further to the questions from the opposition could he say what the cost base for the talks actually are? to what extent are regional players going to be involved and will pakistan be a part of that regional settlement? >> i think the overall prospect for talks between the taliban and the high peace council, the right in afghanistan to hold these talks i think the prospects are good but we have to recognize that the way in which the doha office was established, the fact that it advertised itself as the islamic emirates of afghanistan has caused a setback. it is some popular rightly in afghanistan but this sense and i discussed this with president karzai, the sense that it is in afghanistan citrus for all afghans to see a government and a future in which they can have confidence and for everyone and
for the taliban to lay down their arms and stop fighting, that is in their interest so a setback but also i think the underlying logic of what needs to happen is still there. >> with the right honorable gentleman in islamabad did he discuss with our high commissioner the operation of the clearance office which is currently preventing the mother of a constituent of mine who is dying of cancer from visiting him in manchester before he dies, and did he discuss with nawaz sharif the american drone attacks on pakistan which violate pakistan's sovereignty and killing very large numbers of innocent people on a war crime violating international -- international rule of law. spam the first issue i did not discuss with our high commissioner in a specific cases
but i did discuss with him the important operations of our these processing in the important work that he does and they think it is a good moment to pay tribute to our high commissioner in his hard-working staff trade on the second issue, there is nothing off the table in my discussions with nawaz sharif. i think the right approach is to maintain a tough security response to terrorism and there is no doubt that the presence of al qaeda in afghanistan and pakistan has been rapidly reduced over recent years and that is actually made us safer here in the u.k.. but we need to make sure that is accompanied by properly combating terrorism in all its forms and that means making sure we deal with the underlying narrative in which the terrorist depend and it is in that combined approach that we will succeed. mr. speaker, on the e.u. u.s. proposed trade deal will my
right honorable friend tell us what are the contents and the areas covered a negotiating mandate agreed behind closed doors last weekend? this is going to qualify for geordie but in which the u.k. competence controlled by the european commission. can my right honorable friend explained why we should be looking into these matters has not been supplied in this mandate and when will we get it? >> what i can say to my honorable friend is that the discussions are going ahead on the basis of maximum level of inclusion of all topics. i think it has been announced before in this house that there is a reserve on audiovisual matters as there has been with all the e.u. mandates for trade talks but uniquely in this case there is the opportunity come back into discuss those matters as well.
>> the reverend william mccray. .. >> what is available in afghanistan, what is available in transport aircraft back for afghanistan and what is available here in the u.k. at the queen elizabeth hospital at birmingham and headley court, i think we can be proud of what we make available. but we also need to think of what happens next, and that's what these centers of expertise
around the country are all about, and i think it's also important that we continue the work of the committee chaired by my right honorable friend in terms of be the military covenant and continue to channel resources into these vital areas. >> mr. james gray. >> mr. speaker, the 444 british deaths to which the prime minister referred which were brought home through -- [inaudible] and my own mean the people of britain are hungry, looking forward to the end of combat operations and will welcome the withdrawal of a large number of forward operating bases and patrol bases in afghanistan. but can you bring us up-to-date on what will happen to camp bastion understand we believe, are we simply abandoning it? >> well, first of all, can i, through him, pay tribute to the people in my own constituency who, i think, have shown the best side of britain in welcoming back somberly and
properly those who have fallen in combat operations in afghanistan. in terms of camp bastion, no final decision has been taken, but it is likely that it could be used as one of the american-led bases for their continued presence in afghanistan. that would, obviously, be quite helpful in terms of the timetable of returning our resources. but what you see when you go to camp bastion now is a lot of work being done to return kit now to the u.k. >> did the prime minister have any opportunity in the margins to discuss even informally the dee tier rating -- deteriorating conditions in zimbabwe particularly as the e.u. took away some the recollective sanctions, will -- restrictive actions will he continue to get more international monitors into that country as soon as possible, otherwise we're going to see another stolen election. >> well, the honorable lady speaks with great expertise
about this issue. i didn't discuss zimbabwe at the european council, but we did, of course, have a national security council meeting recently with the counsel present. what we have been doing is working out how best to maximize the leverage and influence we have to get a proper election, a proper democratic transition, and that is why we're taking the steps that she refers to in the european union, but we keep all this under review to do everything to help the transition that that country so obviously needs. >> work in afghanistan is not to unravel after next year, one of two things must happen. either the taliban must be persuaded that they made a terrible mistake in giving house room to al-qaeda, or the americans must keep one or more strategic bases to dissuade them from offering house rule to al-qaeda in the future. does the prime minister know whether either of those things has happened or is going to happen? >> i think the most likely
outcome, and i'm perhaps a little more optimistic than my honorable friend, is actually both of those things will happen. i think if what you look at what the taliban have said recently through the statements is they've effectively said they don't want afghanistan to be used to harm other countries. and so i think that decoupling of the taliban from al-qaeda is well on it way. so i think that is positive. i think the second thing that is positive is that i don't believe that america, nato, isaf, any of us are walking away from afghanistan. as i've said, we will maintain the officer training academy, we'll maintain our funding of the afghan security forces, and in addition to that i think it's likely the americans will maintain a presence in that country to be negotiated, of course, with the afghan government. but the point i make is this: of course, we want to see a peace process succeed, but we have always had to respond how our security response of training
the afghan national army and police force is the key part of making sure that country won't fall back under taliban or al-qaeda control. and having seen the effectiveness of those forces, i think we can be confident that they are capable of making sure that happens. >> mr. mike gapes. >> mr. speaker, will the prime minister take this opportunity to praise the skill, persistence, dedication of the european union's high representative and her staff, kathy ashton, in getting the agreement on april the 19th between serbia and kosovo on normalization which is so welcome? and will he also take this opportunity whilst he's supporting further enlargement of the european union to explain why we're in favor of other countries joining the european union but many in his party want us to leave? [laughter] >> well, first of all, let me pay tribute to kathy ashton and the very good work that she does in the european union. i see that firsthand. we work very closely together,
she works with my right honorable friend, the foreign secretary, and while some of the dossiers she is responsible for must be immensely frustrating, there is no doubt that she can take huge credit for what has happened in terms of accession negotiations being opened with serbia and accession being completed for croatia. and i made that very clear at the european council meeting. as for, um, his comments about my party, i would just make the point that the conservative party has always been in favor of the widening of the european union. we've been arguing for that for decades. indeed, indeed, we were arguing for it and delivering it in the 1980s when his party stood on rather a different ticket. [laughter] >> mr. john barrow. >> mr. speaker, for the many of us who supported the expulsion of al-qaeda but opposed the morphing of the mission into one of nation building, this, indeed, has been a long and sad road compounded by the fact that we should have been holding talks with the taliban a long time ago. will the prime minister,
therefore, use his best officers to insure that talks with the taliban are truly unconditional? because this has been a stumbling block in the past, particularly with the americans. >> well, i'd say to my honorable friend is, first of all, since becoming prime minister in 2010 i have pursued this agenda of a peace process and a political process right from the very first day of taking office and have been discussing it with the americans and others for all of that time. of course, historians will argue about whether the berlin peace conference of 2001 was established in the right way, and let's leave that to the historians. we should be dealing in the here and now. where i don't agree with him is i think there is, um, one very important condition that needs to come about, and that is for an understanding that the taliban, as my honorable friend, the member for new forest said, the taliban will not allow and do not believe that afghanistan should be used as a base for foreign attacks.
>> angus robertson. >> mr. speaker, i'm delighted the prime minister finally acknowledges the right place for a european nation with five million as a population is an independent state of the european union. [laughter] but on the issue of e.u. competitiveness, this week i think there was good news which relates to mobile phone charges, a great success for the european union. although, curiously, the u.k. government has published a report saying these will remain in a sovereign scotland. this has been reacted to as tripe. will the prime minister show some leadership and end these purile, silly scare stories? be what the honorable gentleman cannot hide from is the legal advice is absolutely clear. clear from the government, clear from the european commission, and, of course, they said they had legal advice. they had absolutely none. but the legal advice is clear, if scotland votes to become
independent, it will have to queue up behind serbia, behind macedonia, behind kosovo in order to get back into the european union. that is the truth, unconvenient though it may be for him. >> would my right honorable friend agree that the country won't understand if members of parliament this friday fail to engage in the debate for us to renegotiate our membership with the european union and to let the people decide in a referendum on whether or not they want to have our membership of your on that renegotiated basis? this is not an issue which parliament and members of parliament can run away from. >> here, here. >> i think my honorable friend has a long track record of his support for the european union and makes a very sensible point which is when it comes to this bill on friday and when it comes to the issue of a referendum, you can either be in favor of holding a referendum, or you can be against holding a referendum. surely, you must have an
opinion. now, my honorable friends and i will be voting for that bill. we'll be voting in the lobbies on friday. what is the party opposite going to do? is it simply going to decide it doesn't want to talk about this issue? i think the whole of the country will find that completely feeble. >> mr. david winnik. >> not surprising that in view of the considerable concern which has been expressed abroad over u.s. intelligence operations against friendly european countries including e.u. officers in washington and new york there was no apparent discussion about this at the european council? surely, it's an item that should have been considered if it wasn't, and perhaps the prime minister can give us his views about what the united states have been doing. >> well, i say the same thing publicly and privately in the european council or in this house which is that i don't comment on national security and intelligence matters. i think that would be wrong. but i think it is important to
remember that our security services operate under the law. we do not use cooperation with foreign intelligence services to get round our own procedures here in the u.k., and i think it is worth remembering that the intelligence and security gathering that we do is of huge benefit to those partners including many in the european union with whom we share it. it helps to keep us safe, and it helps to keep them safe, and we should praise what our intelligence and security services do on our behalf. >> sir malcolm bruce. >> mr. speaker, will the prime minister say how the women of afghanistan may be represented in any talks with the taliban? and what assurances can he give to the women of afghanistan that the hard-won advances they've made in terms of the right for education for girls and the rights for hively hood of women will be -- livelihood of women will be sustained in the 2015 settlement and thereafter? >> well, i think my right honorable friend asks an important question x the answer to it is that the afghan president and the afghan government are absolutely clear that any discussions need to proceed on the basis of the afghan constitution which has
safeguards on those and, indeed, other issues. i think it is important to note that compared with 2001 when there were virtually no girls in school in hell -- helmand, there is now over 30,000, and this is important. >> in answer to my honorable friend that he's still a passionate champion of enlargement. but does he agree with me that it's not sufficient just to welcome a country like croatia into the e.u. we need to support them to insure that they are a benefit to the european union rather than a burden. >> i agree, we should support croatia, and we have agreed to the use of the european budget to make sure that croatia gets its receipts from the european union as well as making its payments into the european union. i think the strength of widening the european union is not only that when those countries come
in they are become even greater trading partners and investment partners for britain, but also the process on preparing to join they have to put their own houses in order in terms of tackling corruption, improving the rule of law and all the rest of it. we're seeing it in serbia, and it's very welcome. >> mr. peter bone. >> mr. speaker, last night i had a phone call from afghanistan from my son, and he wanted to express to this house how much the serving members of our armed forces who are out there appreciate the efforts of the prime minister to come out there and speak to them personally. and i hope the prime minister will accept those thanks. >> well, can i through him, thank his son for his service in afghanistan. we have been there for many years now, and as i said, you do come across people now who are on their second or third tour of afghanistan. people who have spent many months of their lives working under very difficult conditions. i think what we can be proud of is when you sit in a room with our armed forces and ask them
about the job they're doing, the morale is high, they're enthusiastic about the, about the capabilities of the afghan security forces, and they're also enthusiastic about the kit they receive. there are still issues we need to deal with, more access to wi-fi and one or two other things, but generally speaking i've found people in high morale who are enthusiastic about the job they're doing. >> yeahs min -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the prime minister's normal advisers are gentlemen in uniform, but when i asked him to reconsider the question of use of drones in afghanistan and pakistan, was there's been -- because there's been consistent body of evidence that show the use of drones have killed far more civilians than actually al-qaeda operatives. and with countries like pakistan openly objecting, that's also a violation of their sovereignty. so i'd ask the prime minister, please, can he relook at this whole issue of drone use properly? >> well, as this issue relates to pakistan, this is an issue
for the united states and pakistan. although what i've said about the huge damage that's been done to al-qaeda, i think, is beyond, you know, beyond debate. it is a fact. when it comes to afghanistan, i think it's important we give our armed forces every protection that they can possibly have, and that is where the use of istar drones but also other cameras and the like have done a huge amount to keep our arms forces safe and to make sure that we defeat the taliban insurgency. >> mr. richard -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. what exactly does the prime minister mean by fundamental renegotiation of our relationship with the e.u.? >> well, as i set out in the speech i meat at the end -- i made at the end of january this year, i believe we need to recognize changes taking place in the european union. that means that the single countries will have to integrate further. but it should be available for non-single currency countries to
see powers flow back to them. i gave one particular example that he might be interested in in which i think the phrase ever closer union should be disapplied from the united kingdom. i don't think it's ever something that we in the country were comfortable with. it was something we never really wanted to sign up to in the 1970s, and i think we do need that different sort of european union that we then give people the choice about whether they want to join or leave. >> jeremy corbin. >> prime minister help me in telling us what he really thinks about a afghanistan. we've been there 12 years, we've lost over 400 soldiers, thousands of others have died, 17 billion pounds has been spent, an illegal drone war is going on in pakistan and neighboring countries, and now there are talks that the taliban are qatar. does he not think it's time to reassess the whole question of intervention, what it does to the hatred between this country and others around the world and what it does to the peace of the
world as a whole? >> well, where i take such a different view to the honorable gentleman is this: we know what non-engagement with afghanistan leads to, because that is what happened after the end of the fall of the previous regime. there was a process when the world looked away from afghanistan, and we paid the price of a civil war that went on for years in afghanistan, plummeting living standards, rampant poverty, a country that went backwards in every regard and then became under the taliban a haven for al-qaeda extremists who then carried out plots killing people on our soil, in america, in other parts of the world. that's what happens when you don't engage. so, yes, of course the state of afghanistan is not perfect, but after all the investment and the sacrifice, you can at least say here is a country where there are not active plots against britain being hatched, here is a country that is making economic and social progress, here is a country that has an elected
president that is looking forward to a democratic transition, and here's a country that's got security forces that have a good prospect of maintaining afghanistan into the future. that's the result of engagement, and we know the results of disengagement, and i know which i think is better. >> jason mccartney. >> thank you, mr. speaker. the yorkshire regiment will be marching through later this month on a freedom parade. does the prime minister agree with me that these freedom parades are a fitting way for our communities to pay tribute to our brave servicemen and women for their contribution in afghanistan? >> i think my honorable friend makes a very good point which is i think there's a yearning in this country to find new ways where we can recognize what our armed forces do and all they represent. i think for some years in the past, this is not a political point, i think the last prime minister recognized it. but for some years we didn't really do enough, and we weren't quite sure how to show our appreciation. i think armed forces day is a good step forward, the military covenant is a good step forward, and i also think -- i think you'll find the military covenant was put into law by
this government, but i was attempting not to make a political point. anyway, he made me diverge. and i think these parades are a great way on a cross-party basis, on a no-party basis of everyone turning out onto our streets and saying thank you. >> paul flynn. >> will he seek to change the rules of this house so the names of the fallen can be honored by being read out in which chamber, the same chamber that sent them to their deaths? what lasting achievements have there been in afghanistan that justifies 37 billion of taxpayers' money and 444 deaths? >> what i'd say to the honorable gentleman is that we do read out the names of those that have fallen, and we rightly pay tribute to them because they have made the ultimate sacrifice on behalf of our country and our security. and he asked what this has achieved, and the point i would make is this: before 2001 afghanistan was a haven of
terrorists who were plotting actively to do harm to people in this country and elsewhere. since 2001, and he can ask the security services this question himself if he wants, since 2001 there have not been major, serious plots hatched in afghanistan and carried out against us. now, that is, i would argue, a big and important achievement. but i think we also have to look at the capacity afghanistan has today to continue to deliver that. when you went to afghanistan, as i did in 2005 or 2006 was my first visit, in helmand province there were no afghan security forces. they didn't exist. they have been built from scratch, and i don't think we honor those who have paid this price by talking down in any way the extraordinary achievements there have been. that's not to say things are perfect. of course they aren't. it's not so say there isn't more to be done, but we should on the ledger of britain's engagement
in afghanistan correctly identify the good points as well as the difficulties that still remain. >> jeremy -- [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. i welcome the focus on tackling youth unemployment. what confidence does my right honorable friend have this won't be a one-off declaration but a determined and long-term effort to defeat the scourge? >> well, i'm grateful to my honorable friend's question. of course, the six billion euro package is important and 400 million euros of that is available for spending in the five regions of the u.k. with the highest rates of youth unemployment. but i think there is a growing recognition in the european union that simply spending money on schemes is not going to be enough. it is the structural changes that we need because in the european union you have countries like germany and holland with youth unemployment rates around 9% and spain with over 50%. and it's the structural reforms and the flexibility of the labor markets that also needs to be addressed. >> diana johnson. >> to insure that women's voices
are heard in the direct talks with the taliban, can the prime minister just spell out, he said that 4.5 million pounds was being made available to increase women's participation in afghanistan. can he just spell out how that will be used to insure women's voices are really heard? >> that specific piece of money, which is part of a overall large budget is simply about getting women to register to vote. because what is happening at the moment through the afghan parliament is the new electoral registration laws are being passed, and it's very important that women register to vote in the forthcoming presidential election in april next year. >> neil carmichael. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. i certainly welcome the news the european investment bank is going to increase by 40% the amount of investment made in small and medium-sized businesses. i'd like to see the same in some of the banks as well. is there any genuine appetite to include energy in a more competitive framework, perhaps a single market? >> first of all, britain
supports this. our policy has always been one the fiscal policy we have to take tough actions, but in terms of monetary policy, we should be looking at all the ways we can help get money from wangs and institutions -- banks and institutions in businesses. that's what this european investment bank expansion should be about. in terms of energy, we continue to push for completion of the energy single market. there has been progress, but it's an ongoing battle. >> jonathan ash worth. >> the promise is right, and i'm pleased he discussed trade with the prime minister of pakistan. but does he think his efforts on trade will be helped or hindered if the home secretary imposes a 3,000 pound visa bond on visitors from india and pakistan? >> prime minister. >> what the secretary is looking at is the idea of using bonds in some immigration circumstances to make sure we do what is necessary to be done and what the last government didn't do is to differentiate between people who want to come here and
contribute and say study at a british university or those who want to come here simply as economic migrants. we do need to have an immigration policy that really does have an emphasis on quality and an emphasis on control. and that is exactly what we have. and one of the points i was able to make in pakistan as i made in kaszikstan and india, under our rules there is no limit on the number of overseas students who can come and study at a british university. no limit at all. they just have to have an english-language qualification and a place at a british university. that's what's required. but at the same time we've shut down something like 180 bogus colleges that were operating while he was assisting the government. >> mr. simon hughes. >> mr. speaker, i join the prime minister in again paying tribute to our armed services. as many of us did like i was able to do at the armed services events in our communities at the weekend. against the very welcome background of the knowledge that our troops are going to come home and there will be a conflict resolution process involving the taliban, can the
prime minister say something about what role he envisages u.k. troops and civilians and people from neighboring states will play to make sure the elections in the afghanistan in 2014 are peaceful and democratic and respected? >> well, my right honorable friend makes a good point about these elections. they are important. obviously, as the security in afghanistan is now provided predominantly by afghan national security forces and patrols are, they should be the ones predominantly providing the security around the elections in comparison to the last set of elections in 2009 which we were more engaged in. as for how we make sure that there is as good a set of elections as there can be, obviously, there will be all sorts of international parties engaged. >> [inaudible] >> thank you, mr. speaker. afghanistan based in my constituency has raised with me and the representatives of the foreign secretary their concerns for the welfare of minority sikhs and hindus in afghanistan
and the rights of women. what commitment has president karzai given in discussions with the prime minister about women's political representation and minority rights being maintained? >> >> prime minister. >> well, the commitment president karzai has begin me on this issue is that he remains committed to the afghan constitution, and he believes any discussions with the that'll ban should -- taliban should take place on the basis of a commitment to the constitution. >> henry smith. >> mr. speaker, at last week's e.u. council meeting, greater mobility of young people was discussed to tackle youth unemployment across the e.u. can i have assurances from my right honorable friend this won't lead to greater benefits tourism into this country? >> i can give my honorable friend that assurance. this government is engaging with others in europe to try and cut down on benefit tourism to try and look at what we can do to make changes to the habitual residence test so people can come to work, but they can't come to claim benefits. it's also worth making the point that as new members join the e.u., such as crow croatia, this
government will put in place the transitional controls that should have been put in place when members joined under the previous government. >> -- bailey. >> sir, we on both sides of the atlantic bring our troops home from afghanistan. one of the knots that ties the transatlantic relationship together will inevitably loosen. and can could i, therefore, ask the prime minister to comment not on security matters, but the political implications of these allegations in the newspapers about electronic eavesdropping by the united states on the e.u.? and say specifically what britain can do to help to heal that rift between the united states and other countries in the european union? >> on the honorable gentleman's first point, i don't believe that the ending of combat operations in afghanistan will in any way loosen the bonds that there are between britain and america. i think the americans are deeply appreciative of the fact that we've been the second largest
troop-contributing nation. they understand the very high level of casualties that we've taken. they also welcome the role we play at the heart of the command structure. you have the commander of isaf is an american general, and the deputy commander is a british general, nick carter, who i spent some of the weekend with. on the second issue, i've said all i wanted to say. i don't comment on intelligence and security matters, but in this country we operate very clearly under a legal process. >> mr. raymond tishney. >> can i congratulate the prime minister for being the first international world leader to visit pakistan and meet the prime minister which quite clearly shows our two countries' close collaboration and links that we share. can i ask the prime minister to clarify one thing for me, were discussions had with the prime minister about reforming the religious schools in pakistan which have often been seen as a recruiting ground for extremist organizations, and with that does the prime minister agree with me that, you know, we need to insure that there is a
widespread spectrum education in pakistan so students can move away from ethnic, radicalized violence in the country? >> from well, the discussions i had with prime minister sharif, he made very clear his three priorities were the economy, energy and extremism. and in terms of combating extremism, i think we agree that there is the need for the tough security response, but we also need to drain the, drain the swarm of extremism including through reforming education. and he was particularly praiseworthy of the work that british aid has delivered in the punjab where his brother is the chief minister and where sir michael barber, a well known british civil servant, has worked his socks off making over 30 visits to the punjab and delivering a program that has meant that millions of pakistani children have had schooling that they otherwise wouldn't have had, all down to his hard work and british aid. ..
you can see the police training, the army training of the national security force training and also the retention numbers. but it was a good moment to pay tribute to all of those from britain including from northern ireland the role they played in helping to train the trainers. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister agree that the session of cro net recipient of e.u. funds? >> what it is a it would obviously put a little bit of
extra on the budget. that's been refracted. it's pretty modest additional amount. i think it's in britain's interest that the e.u. continues to enlarge and expand. this is adding them to the world's already largest single market. britain is a trading nation. we have all sort of opportunity to increase our investment with them. reputing in place the transitional controls that are already available and they made the decision. >> prime minister's leadership on deregulation in europe. the commission has been worse for understanding the burden this places on our smallest businesses. how do britain's five million input to the new task force last week? >> i thank him for the question. i think we have to recognize that the commission has made some progress. we will probable get further if we credit them with some
progress. but push them harder for more. they consulted business on the top ten most burdensome regulation. they have committed to exempt microbusinesses with less than ten employees from from new e.u. proposal. they also look through the fourth coming regulation and removed 17 new regulatory proposal. overall, the burden on business down by some 25% in recent years. there is some progress but it's not going fast enough. i'm setting up the review regulation program. a lives of businessmen and women. small business can write to them and send in their idea they want changed. >> mr. e ian stewart. >> thank you. tasked with relationship with the new prime minister and
pakistan. may i urge them to keep high on their agenda the issue of treatment of community continue to face severe persecution. >> great. i think one of the advantages of getting in there ally the first prime minister to go and meet with the prime minister we can have this sort of dialogue. we have a full degreic -- strategic partnership. >> thank you. i recognize the prime minister on being the first western leader to following the election and the first. the democratic to power. in pakistan since the independence in 1947. the last thing in afghanistan cannot by b achiewfed without the involvement of pakistani. however, trade, energy, a whole range of issues will be the prime minister's agenda. what can our prime minister to do to ensure mom tom -- momentum is not lost?
>> i think my friend makes a good point. aen incredible moment for pakistan this they should use it to get the remarkable country and enormous population great economic prospect of the future. the necessary decisions. i think we have to accept -- he has many to deal energy shortages, get the economy on track, he needs deal with extremism. it's a last element where we need to work together that the extremism they suffer in pakistan can't be addressed without also addressing the extremism that afghan are offer -- suffering from as well. as question try to achieve the joint work between the two the president and the prime minister between the two governments. that's the key. >> thank you, mr. speaker. my hon -- the best way to tack typical across the e.u. through the creation of jobs and growth. and the best way to do that is
to rise vision above the horizon of the e.u. and look country such as india or china two fifty of the world's population live to rig ourself of burden and regulation and make europe a more competitive environment. >> here,. >> i agree with him that creation of private sector jobs is the absolute key particularly for those countries. we have seen a decline on public safety job and tree times as many private sector jobs being created. we need to rebalance our economy and trade it. that means particularly the e.u. is a low grow area or no growth area in term of the eurozone. we have to look for new trading partners. we should look at kazakhstan we have second largest investment. and we need to, you know, compete in the global race and foreign partnership with the countries in the world. >> leader of the opposition rightly mentioned youth
unemployment which is falled by 15% in my constituencies. what might drive down further is single market. i welcome what the prime minister said about the negotiation for syria. does he agree to the long-term -- e.u. from the atlantic to the euro. if the e.u. going to include more diverse countries it needs to fundamentally. >> agree with what my honorable friend said. britain has believed in a wider, looser europe. we want to be that sort of europe it has to make change and be more flexible. the country in the eurozone are going need greater integrations. if we are going to be attractive as the e.u. to other countries we have to be competitive. >> i have been saving up the honorable member cetterring. >> my right honorable friend will know there are almost 11,000 foreign national offenders in our prison. many from e.u. countries. there is an e.u.-wide comp pulse
i are prison transfer agreement. only the united nations and twelve member states have ratified it. if it wasn't discussed at the e.u. counsel, will the prime minister use the best endeavor ensure it's on the next agenda for the e.u. council ahead of the removal of immigration controls from new countries? >> he makes a good point. this prison tran for agreement is absolutely in britain's interest. we have held specific national security council discussions about prisoner transfers, and about foreign national offenders. i think we need to do much better in getting people out of our jails and back to the country's where they belong. we are making some progress. it's hard work. this european union agreement is a potential benefit for us. we have to do everything we can both at the european council but also bilot raltly to get them to sign and implement. it's a program the government is
working on. the egyptian president mohammed morsi saying this afternoon he has no intention of stepping down. report from cairo from the associated press said that airport officials say a travel ban has been issued against the president and the leader of the muslim brotherhood. officials today said the travel ban has to do with his escape from prison during the 2011 uprising against hosni mubarak. we'll keep you posted as stories program. booktv in prime time on c-span2 continues tonight with personal reflections beginning at 8:00 eastern. an interview with an ann romney. at 8:15 former secretary of state george schultz weighs in on a rake of issues from nuclear weapons and "issue on my mind ." alice walker and collection of
personal essays, letter, and poems. >> and 10:00 former secretary donald rumsfeld discussing rule. here on c-span2. well, to tv network executives who are written feature articles on the recently faced off an hour-long debate on the topic. here is a look. >> business would like to be so horrific. my son had -- i got an bill from an independent contract for the service of discharge from the hospital. hospital swears it has nothing to do with the bill. i have to pay the independent contractor. everyone in the hotel business would love to do that. we can't. nobody can do things except health care. >> can't we? you volunteer to go to -- >> on my television networking,
which i'm sure most people watched today, you would have seen ads for cancer centers. now getting cancer not a voluntary act. which changed in health care, never talk about it when we political debates most health care is now the result of deliberate choice by the patient. >> shows cause cancer? >> it would hurt our business if they did. we actually view it as a cure. [laughter] and three out of studies confirm it. [laughter] you know, why? the reality is we talk about all health care the way we talk about a tire blowout on a highway. there's nothing you can do. your examples often that. we know people who have been through that. that's not part of health care today. the fat part of the bat in health care where the money is being spent chronic condition management, long-term treatment
of things such as cancer, and various replacements. they involve a decision that a customer makes. food is not voluntary either. we managed for build hundreds of years had to be centrally controlled. otherwise everyone would starve to death. health care changed. it's not what it was fifty years ago. in fact, this is the biggest industry in the country and in the developed world. it's something we use all the time. the idea that because you might have a blowout on a highway, we should govern the entire auto repair business to take care of that energy is absurd and particularly since if any of you had a tire blowout on the highway, the guy doesn't say let me say you net worth statement before i change your tire. steve documented how people do in health care. they do it because they can get away it. not because health care is different from everything else. you can watch that entire hour long debate hosted by the manhattan institute and
moderated by romney health care adviser at 8:00 eastern on c-span. booktv in prime time -- american history in prime tiff. we continue to mark the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. after that a conversation on pickets charge and later at 9:40 eastern, we switch gears with perspectives on the american revolution with u.s. navel war college professor. american history tv tonight beginning at 8:00 eastern on c-span 3. we can see out of the buildings. you can see humanity coming from a union station. we knew it was going big. we were supposed to be leading the march that people are already marching. it was like saying there go my
people. let me catch up with them. [laughter] and humanitarian pushed us, pushed us. we went on and start moving toward the washington monument. toward the lincoln memorial. it was a wonderful period, i think, in american history tv. this fourth of july at 2:20 p.m. eastern civil rights pioneer congressman john lewis shares his experience on the march of washington fifty years later. some of the places we have visited and historians we spoke with during the first season in the series of first lady. a little after 7:00 pulitzer prize, iing photographers display their work and talk about the coverage of world events. a panel talk about what it is to be a modern day american
citizen. last week during a house subcommittee hearing a custom and border protection official confirmed after foreign national escaped cross the border in to the country the agency doesn't track their exits. on the very same day last week, the senate passed an immigration bill which included an amendment that doubles the number of border patrol agents and adds more than 700 miles of fencing along the u.s.-mexico border. the hearing from last tuesday is two and a half hours. >> we exist to secure first two fundment tal the money away takes for them is weapon -- well spent. our duty is to protect these rights. our solemn responsibility to hold government accountability to taxpayers. taxpayers have a right to know what they get from their deposit. -- government. we will work tireless will i to bring the factses to the people.
good morning. and i thank everybody for coming to attend this hearing, which is entitled border security oversight. identifying and -- respondenting to the current threat. i would like to thank my colleagues for swroins us today. it centered on the porn of border security, but the conversation does not focused enough on how to secure the border. in the most effective marijuana. as a result, today's hearing will exam a variety of threats that the u.s. border security from illegal entrant to drug trafficking organization to potential national security breeches. it exams how to measure each of these risks and the most effective responses to the threats we confront. the department of homeland security is responsible for controlling guarding the borders of the united states. the department's operational responsibility include, quote, preventing and investigating illegal movement across the border including the smuggling of people, drug, cash, and
weapons. end weapon. the secure fence act of 2006, which intended to quote, establish operational control over the international land and maritime borders of the united, end quote, authorizes the secretary of department of homeland security to take necessary and appropriated actions to secure the u.s. borders. from 2006 to 2012, the issue is i measures implemented to help achiewf control of the borders have cost approximately $75 billion. despite spending money to secure the border the government accountability office reported in 2011 there were 129 miles of the 1,954 mile border roughly 6% of the border where border patrol can actually, quote, deter or detect and apprehend illegal entry, end quote. 6% operational control. the lack of operational control documented by gao directly
contradicts statements made by the administration that the border is the most secure. after gao reported low level. dhs changed the policy to make the number of quote, unquote, apprehension, the measure of effectivenesses. the number of apprehensions which dhs uses as metrics now does not indicate whether federal government efforts to secure the border are actually achieving operational control. they are not. one of the fundamental questions i have is if the rise in apprehension -- apprehensions is increasing, does that mean the border is more secure? or does it mean the border is less secure in the number of apprehensions is declining. does it mean it's less secure or the border more secure? i asked the attorney general this question. the attorney general holder said you cannot draw conclusions based solely on apprehension. i asked the secretary of homeland security who didn't give a they are row answer to that question.
it's something we need to explore. not to play goch got you. come up with a metric we can live with. when the metrics change you can't compare them to past performance. that's something we need explore. since the creation of the department of homeland security, the committee joes oversight effort have exam the effective use of taxpayer dollars at the border. the department is working hard to secure the border, there are examples of wasteful spending. for example fbi net which was intended to improve video surveillance of the border has cost roughly $1.2 billion. it has been deemed a failure. on april 2nd to the 49th of this year, members of staff of the overhouse oversight traveled to yuma, naco, nogales, arizona to assess the most recent effort to secure the border. i appreciate the men and women we interacted with.
we productive trip. the committee visited the elloy detention facility in arizona briefed by prison and ice official. they learned the individuals classified as otm. how the department classifies people, otm stands for other than mexicans, accounted for roughly 900 inmates from 60 different countries out of approximately 1500 in the elloy detects facility. in other words, more than half the people in the detention facility were not mexicans, they were from 60 different countries. for those that assume that the border problem is limp a-- simply a problem with mexico, it's just not true. there's nothing statistical that would support that. and certainly if you look at the detentions, it is a much bigger and broader problem than just people coming north from mexico. it is a bigger broader problem. based on our conversation with c vrk p officers officers in yuma,
nogales, and other cities there appears to be an increasing trend of otm moving across the border. a significant portion coming from latin america included guatemala, included india, china, and other parts of europe and china. boarp told the committee about potential problem to the immigration system. for instance, it appears judicial process for a-- asylum may contain very serious flaws. during our rip to the border we found that the government continues to identify new and emerging threat to secure the border. including the drug cartel use of semi submersible vessel and utterly light aircraft and the construction of underground tunnel. even in the heart of nogales they recently found another tunnel. today we hope not only discuss the threats but also responses to some of these risks including the us of effective drones,
strategic placement of troops and others, technology, which successfully be implemented along the border. whether through technology or border patrol agents we must allocate the necessary resources to secure the border but in a way that is smart, strategic, and ensures we do not waste taxpayer dollars. i want to emphasize, and i commend the support commend the work and support of our law enforcement officers. from the various different agencies. they do amazing work and exceptionally conditions. i can't thank them enough for the good, hard, diligent work. it's tough work. i look forward to hearing from our withins far productive conversation about securing the borders of the united states. however, i'm disappointed that joseph -- the associate director for refugee asylum and international
operations with the u.s. citizenship refused to testify before this subcommittee today. the committee requested his attendance and participation in the hearing thirteen day ago, june 4th, 2013. sorry june 14th of this year. despite providing essential two-week -- essential lay two-week notice to testify before the subcommittee the u.s. skip and immigration services declined to appear is asserting, quote, due to the lack of sufficient notice to prepare and clear testimony as well as prepare suitable witness, u.s. cis will be unable to appear at the upcoming june 27th hearing on border security. i want to thank the four other people from the other agencies who were able to prepare, who did come and were briefed. and are joining us today. i find it totally unacceptable with thirteen day's notice that's not sufficient time to
prepare to testify in congress about what you do every day and the job and responsibility that you have for your own department and agency. so i thank those that are here. we duly note the person who is not here and find unacceptable. the american taxpayers deserve answers to the important questions before the subcommittee today. we have left the seat open hope that the witness would appear today. it appears as if he's not. thank you for agencies that are here today. i also want to thank and commend my colleague trey go i gowdy for his work. the chairman of jew judiciary. as we move forward, it is critical that we get the border security portion right. every bit of legislation whether it's in the senate or the house has always focused on how are we going secure the border? how do we assure the american people that the border is
secure? there has been legislation that was passed in 2006. that dealt with supposedly securing the board and the fence. yet only 6% operational control. earlier we passed legislation that would ensure a viable entry exit system. we have none. that's a problem. we need discuss that today. so i look forward to the congress tackling immigration reform. it is much needed. we need to understand what is happening at the border and we appreciate those that are here today. okay. does anybody have an opening statement they would like to make? >> members may have seven days to submit opening statements for the record. and we'll recognize our first panel. mr. michael fisher is the chief of the u.s. border patrol. mr. david murphy, is the assistant commissioner for customs and border patrol office
of field oarpgs. mr. thomas 0man. did i stay properly is the executive associator districter of i.c.e., and rebecca gambler is the direct are for homeland security and justice. again, we thank you for being here today. pursuant to committee alls. all withins before sworn before they testify. can you please stand and raise your right hand. >> do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. let the record reflect the witnessing a in the affirmative. you may be seated. in order to allow time for discussion, please limit your testimony, if you would, to five statement. your entire written statement will be part of the record. i want to thank you for being here. we'll recognize mr. fisher first.
>> chairman, ranking member, and other member of the subcommittee. it's indeed an honor and privilege to be before you today to discuss the identification and the response to current threats. as we pair for the 2014 operations, the u.s. border patrol continues to be guided by the three pillar of strategy. information, interintegration, and rapid response. current intelligence estimates suggest that transnational criminal organizations and the networking that support them don't exploit the border in arizona and south texas. for the first time in over a decade illegal cross-border activity is more prief lent in south texas than any corridor along the southwest. today in activity texas accounts for 3% of all arrests along the southwest border. it's also note worthy to recognize as the chairman pointed out, that 60 percent of the these arrests from nationals
from some other country than mexico. and particular the top three sending countries are guatemala, honduras, and el salvador. the current activity in texas needs to put in proper context. even with elevated activity in rio grande valley. the daily apprehension rate is approximately 40% less than 1997. we continue to mature our integrated operations in each corridor with our federal, state, local, and triable partner. protecting the citizens against those that do us harm does not begin or end at the border. we cannot achieve border security alone. as we took the following actions; we directed most academy class and the agents to south texas. increasing the overall agent boots on the gunned and high-risk areas such as rio grande valley. we redeployed approximately 100
pieces of technology to south texas from either southwest border sectors. these were equipments such a unattended ground sensors, mobile surveillance system, and thermal imaging systems. as you may recall, we entered to a memorandum of understanding with the department of defense to allow the transfer of the detection and monitoring equipment from the military to cvp. what w the drawdown of forces in theater we sought to capitalize on the opportunity reuse equipment at the taxpayers already paid for to assist front line agents. accordingly, we recently delivered the first installment of the equipment to the field. for 224 dpe text and monitor systems that vitamin inventoried and sent to the southwest border. 75% of which went southwest texas. in march of this year, we initiated vulnerability assessment that flights along the southwest border utilize the predator b equipped with radar for broader situational
awareness. to date, we have developed more than any target holders covering approximately 320 noncontiguous miles. and of support of the effort we continue to -- to augment our own organic capabilities. in conclusion, my team has designed and implemented a strategy and we continue to learn and adjust our tactics, technique, and procedures as conditions on the ground dictate. i standby my conviction give the operational flex tobility match cape tobility threat, we'll reduce the likelihood and continue to provide the safety and security to the citizens who deserve no less. mr. chairman, again, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you, mr. fisher. i'll recognize mr. murphy for five minutes. >> good morning, chairman, vice chairman, and distinguished member of the subcommittee. thank you for the opportunity to
appear before you today. i appreciate the committee's leadership and deployment ensure the security of the american people and look forward to discussing the progress we have made in securing the border. we define a secure border at our nation's port of entry as well managed border. mitigate milk risk are effectively identified and addressed and legitimate trade and travel are expedited. every day we carry out the mission to protect the people and the economy of the united states by preventing dangerous people and goods from entering the country while expeanut expediting -- legitimate trade and travel at 329 port of entry. traffic at the port of entry differences by environment which em compasses air, land, or sea, type, travel, or cargo. and mode of transportation. general or personal aviation, personally owned vehicle, pedestrian, truck, containersized. each activity present a different set of challenge with
respect to threat, volume and type -- timing process. last year we welcomed more than 350 million passengers and processed 2.3 trillion in total trade value. we're seeing volume increases in all environment and anticipate volume to continue as the economy recovers. one of the most substantial growth in the air environment where we have seen a volume increase of 12% since 2009. it's important to note the vast majority come employs with all rules and regulation. our goal is to identify and interdict those few traveler and shipment that may present a risk. we're working to find and stop the needle in the hay stack while the hay stack is moving. we continue to improve our ability to do this and focus our finite resources on those people and goods that present the highest potential risk. in addition to refine our risk base and layered approach
security we are work to extend our borders outward and enter the threat before they reach the united states. dhs in cooperation with the interagency partners now screens people and goods earlier in the process. before boarding passengers or loading cargo on to planes or vessels destined to the united. since 2009, cvp expanded the predeparture screening efforts and checking all air travelers against all data bases on all flights arriving to and departing from the united prior to boarding. they extended the nation's border outwards in the cargo environment. all they are screened before they are laid on vessel almost 85% of high-risk shipment examined or addressed before arrival at u.s. seaport. in addition to improving our ability to identify and mitigate potentially high-risk travel and trade, they remain focused on identifying waste and facility the growing volume of people and goods entering to the united states. we have seen a mark facilitation
improvement and the development of series of transformation initiative that increase the speed of the processing including the engs pangs of the trusted traveler and trusted trader program. the elimination of paper form, and the increased use of technology. we will continue to aggressively pursue the strategies which both increase security and streamline the border process for people and goods. these type of programs enhance management tool have not only increase our ability to facility lawful traveler but provided significant security benefit. for example, he limited the number of acceptable travel documents and increased our ability to identify at our land port resulting in decrease use of fraudulent documents and attempt by inadmissible persons to enter. as we find the targeting and interdiction efforts along the southwest border transnational criminal organizations have begun to use unique and nontraditional deep concealment
smuggling method using smaller loads. every improving effort continue to forthe -- and often less successful smuggle techniques. in 2009 and 2010, we focused our agricultural protection effort on increasing interception of the highest agricultural risk pet. these pets have been detected can result in millions of dollar in economic damage. in the year following the nationwide trading we saw record level of interception and continued to maintain the level of interceptions today. the state of border security continue to improve at the or of ten try. we have made tremendous progress and well cherished having pushed our security measures and pushing a robust strategy to optimize the current business practice. in short me contained while face -- we continue to seek ways to
improve. chairman, ranking member, vice chairman, and member of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. i look forward to your questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. murphy. >> good morning. chairman, ranging member, and distinguished member of the subcommittee. on behalf of secretary janet napolitano, director, thank you for the opportunity to appear today to discuss a significant progress, i.c.e., and dhs have made to secure the border. as you well know, i.c.e. is the principle investigative agency within dhs and the second largest within the federal government. the men and women of i.c.e. play a critical role in securing the board ena carrying out smart and effective immigration policy. i.c.e. consistent of three operational program. enforcement and operations, ero homeland security investigation, his, hsi investigate a wide range of crimes.
subject to removal from the united per student to i.c.e.'s principle. i have been a federal law enforcement officer for 29 years. 27 of which have been spend in immigration enforcement over the years i have seen and worked the entire sickle of immigration enforcement. i have served on a frontline. i stack l organizations like with the form ins and focus on the back end of the process that being removal from the yet. over the past four years i.c.e. purposed the roars on removal of individuals. those priority include people who are threats to national security and public safety such as convicted criminal, reaching the illegal border crossers, and those who obstruct immigration
controls. it lead to unprecedented success. last year they removed almost 410,000 alien. some 55% had criminal conviction. this is almost double the number of criminal removal in 2008. in 96% the aliens fit within the private category i mentioned above. simply put, our reform and priority have made the community safer. i.c.e. remains a detention population on the field officer and border and nationwide. operational needs on the southwest border can change quickly and ice has a policy and infrastructure in place to meet the needs. those successes mentioned today could not have been achieved without the implementation of smart, effective policy issued by janet napolitano. we must work closely with the dhs partner in order to meet the goal. for instance, 44% of the vice detainee in ice schuss i did came from the vcp. our join effort are critical to the border enforcement effort.
i'm proud of the relationship i have with my colleagues i'm testifying with today. we had made to the detention system. all of our reform the help ensure the individuals and ice detained population held appropriately and classified according the risk. we have put in place strong safe against abuse and sure the detain knee. all the successes i is have outlined today have been the result of reasonable immigration policy and priority even in the time of budget uncertainty. we are using our resource in a smart, effective and responsible manner. we making the public safer. thank you again for inviting me to testify. i am pleased to answer any questions you may have. thank you.
[inaudible] increased resources allocated to securing borders. for example, in fiscal year 2004, the broarp had over 10,000 eights and fiscal year 2011, there were over 21 agents. similarly, the number of customs and border protection officers stationed at port of entry have increased from over 17,000 in fiscal year 2004 to more than 20,000 in fiscal year 2011. further, dhs deployed technology and infrastructure to border areas. today i will focus my remarking on three key areas which gao has assessed dhs's effort to secure the borders. firstly highlight our work reviewing gao's effort to -- second, i will discuss gao work
reviewing interagency coordinate effort. and third highlight the work on df management of technology assets for securing the border. with regard to my first point, border patrol data show from fiscal year 2006 to 2011 apprehensions within each declined. border patrol attributed this decrease to various tack or its such adds changes in the u.s. economy and increases in resources. fiscal year 2012 data reported by the border patrol indicate that apprehensions across the southwest border increased from fiscal year 2011 but it is too early to seas -- assess whether this increase indicates a change in trend. further from fiscal year 2006 to 2011, estimated known illegal entry in each southwest border sector declined. in addition to data on apprehensions, other data collected by the border patrol are used by sector man
inform assessment of the efforts. these data include among other things, the percentage of estimated known illegal entrant who are apprehended more than once which is referred to as recidivism rate, and contraband see see they show that the rate decrease aid cross southwest border sector between fiscal year 2008 and -- [inaudible] the number of se sewer increased by 83% from 2006 to 2011. since 2011, dhs has used a number of apprehensions on the southwest border between port of entry as a measure for border secure it i. this measure provides some useful information but does not position the department to be able to report on how effective the efforts are at securing the border. resulting in reduced oversight and dhs accountability. the border patrol in the process
of developing golden measuring. hour it hasn't set target time frame for completing the effort. we recommend that the border patrol establish such time frame to ensure that the development are completed in a timely manner. the department agreed with our recommendation and stated that it planses to establish such time frame by november 2013. with regard to my second point, dhs and other agencies have reported improvement in interagency coordination of border enforcement operations. for example, federal partners responsible for securing federal lands along the borders have cited increase information sharing and communications. however, our work has also identified opportunities for improvement and more consistent implementation of existing interagency agreements and stronger oversight of interagency forms for border security. finally, dhs has deployed technology infrastructure and other assets to u.s. borders. however, dhs has faced a number of challenges and effectively
planning for and managing its technology programs and other assets. for example, our work has shown that dhs could better document the analysis that has used to determine the types quantity, and locations of technology it plans to deploy to the southwest border under the new technology plan. further, cvp has yet to define performance metric for assessing implementation of the new plan. hind are the effort to assess the effectivenesses of the plan going forward. in closing our work identified opportunity for dhs to strengthen the board border security program and effort. have made -- of board security related program. dhs general concurred with the recommendation and taking action to address them. we will continue to monitor dhs's effort in these area. this concludes my prepared statement. i would be pleased to answer any questions that members may have. >> thank you. i'll recognize myself for five
minute. gambler, is fair to say there are no metrics to determine how secure or not secure it is? >> currently the department using the number of apprehension on the southwest border between port of entry. >> that's an incomplete metric. >> it does not allow position the border patrol and dhs to be able to seas the effect i haveness of the effort. it doesn't compare app apprehensions to estimated entrance. >> thank you very much. mr. murphy, my understanding is that we have no entry exit system. particularly at the land-based ports to gauge who is coming in and who is going; correct? >> no. i wouldn't say that's completely correct. i would say we have made significant improvement and cities indication in entrance. that's been the focus as far as the exit. we are working on that.
it's a significant issue. we are well aware of it. and right now -- >> do you have any statistics to show how many people actually leave the country? >> no , sir. right now our outbound is -- >> my understanding is that the majority of visa that this country offers or b-1 b-2 entry exit system. i watched it. thousand much people in no galas and yuma extremed to the country. we improved through the state 4.3 million of the cards people are supposed to be in the country temporary; right? >> yes, sir. how many people came to the country using a b-1 b-2 entry exit card? >> i continue -- don't have that number. >> is it something that the agency has? >> yes. we track what comes in. it's what going out we need to get a better handle on.
>> do you track any of them going on? >> right now our outbound operation records intelligence, >> i don't know what i asked you. >> no , sir, we don't. we're letting millions of people, roughly almost a million a day in to the country. we have no idea how many are going out. is that fair to say? >> yes, sir. >> is is current law; right? it is current law we have supposed to have an entry exit program. why don't we have an exit program? >> we're working on it, sir. >> but -- look, you have been there -- how long have you been there? >>29 years, sir. >> why don't we have an exit program? it's not good enough to smile at me. >> no , sir. i don't have a good answer for you. we know it's an issue. >> is it a funding issue? >> is it a lack of commitment?
not available software. if you're telling me we are gauging when they come to the country, why aren't we gauging when they go out of the country? >> sir, i think it's a huge issue, and unfortunately it's a costly issue too. i mean, we would to replicate what we have coming to the country at port of entry almost going out of the country in order to probably get our arms around exactly that issue. >> we are told 40% of the people who are here illegally came here legally. when we don't have a viable exit system, and there are no met tricks, there is no information, there's no even an attempt to grater some names, i'm concerned about this entry-exit program. i'm concerned about the b-1 b-2 visa. i think the untold story of the immigration problem and mess we have. when the majority of the visa given tout this country are given via the b-1 b-2
entry-exit. the 4.3 million we gave out in fiscal year 2011, they are only -- what is the rule. you are only supposed to go to the country a certain ten meal -- miles or something? >> i think it's twenty five. we just increased it recently. >> why? increased it to what? >> new mexico 55 miles. >> okay so only supposed to -- in certain part of the country tin mile. some twenty five and now saying in part of new mexico 55 hims. do we do any monitoring of that? >> no , sir. >> so we gauge -- there's no monitoring. we do it on your word. we get millions of these out there. do you know how much -- we issued 4.3 million entry-exit cards in 2011. how many cards are out there? when you get a card how long is it good for? vailed for a year? forever? >> i don't know offhand. i know, there's a -- they put a date how long i
valid for, yes, sir. >> it's just the honor system right now. you are supposed to come back. you aren't gauging a single person as to whether or not they are returning. >> we're not capturing that right now. >> all right. my time is expired. i now recognize the gentlewoman from wyoming. >> thank you. , mr. mr. chairman, i want to thank the gentlemen and lady for being here today. my questions are going concentrate on fence as a mechanism to stop transland crossings. have we -- this is to any of you. has the fence between california and mexico improved the crossing of nondocumented workers and illegals? mr. fisher, you are nodding your
head. >> yes, congresswoman, the fence in particular, you mentioned san diego had an impact in reducing the flow of people in to the united states in those areas where we have fence. >> okay. how much of the fence is completed on the arizona-mexico border? >>. >> in total about 652 mile across the southwest border that has been complete. some is pedestrian fencing. some is vehicle barriers. not specific. i'm not sure specifically in arizona how much of the arizona, as you know, has about 260 miles of border. within the urban areas and douglas and naco and nogales, out to the east and west port of entry that has been extended significant number of miles. >> do you believe completing a fence on the board e between mexico and arizona would be ben foicial preventing the flow of people and narcotics across the
border? >> i do in some locations. >> and what locations would those be? specifically along the arizona-mexico border. >> would be in the areas with the networking and criminal organizations like to exploit the legitimate infrastructure that exist. >> what kind of legitimate -- what is such such as? >> certainly. if you think of the smuggling organizations like a business. they are trying to move the modesty whether it's people or narcotics. through the borders and out of the border area. the infrastructure this requires them to do that is road system, it's airports, bus stations, and all of that legitimate infrastructure that supports the communities within the border areas. >> what about wilderness areas where we don't have fences, where you've been restricted by other u.s. agencies from using motorized vehicles on wilderness
areas, and the offending party are using vehicles making it difficult for you to apprehend them. is that problematic? >> in some areas i wouldn't qualify it as problematic. there are areas you mentioned as public lands in arizona which prohibit and most situations on the steady state deployment motorized vehicleses. we have an entered an agreement with the department of interior and fish and wildlife to go under the area based on intelligence if we know there is activity. we are allowed on the areas to basically traffic individuals that come across. >> so you to get agreement with another federal agency to gain access to federal land on our side of the board ensure. >> the agreement has been already set. and the words allows us to go on to the lands. remember, some of that public land is protected under the environmental laws. >> so you can --
>> from going on this will. we have the agreement we are allowed to go in when we are actually working the border. >> okay. so you can pursue somewhat? >> yes, we can. >> can you protect the border and patrol the border? >> in some area, most areas we can. >> with vehicles? >> yes. we do it with vehicles, horseback. a lot of detention made from the air also. >> the tucson border has been an area where we have seen significant crossings. >> that's correct. >> is that now the second most prevalent area to cross? >> it is, well, in terms of apprehensions right now it is second only to rio grande valley in the south texas area. >> it continues to be a major source of crossings. >> yes. >> what would be your recommended best deterrent to illegal crossings in that area. in mexico, in mexico and
arizona. >> certainly. i think there's a couple of things, i wouldn't invest on one thing in particular. one is the investment and additional technology. detecting and monitoring. >> we have seen some technology reports that so. technology has failed, and was expensive and it's failure has not necessarily been corrected. how is that going -- the fbi net. what is the department's plan to improve that technology? the border radar system? about three years ago when the fbi was being assessed but secretary janet napolitano asked cvp to make an assessment whether we should exploring that type of technology and the innovative technology that. >> 1.2 billion as i understand has been spent on that? >> sounds about right, yes, ma'am. >> and you are assessing now
whether that is going forward in a productive way? >> we made that assessment, and our recommendation to the secretary, which he agreed to, was to invest more in the mobile technology and not to invest in thing like fbi net which are more static. >> my time is expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. mr. fisher, will you provide to the committee, please, the interagency working agreements on your ability to patrol and pursue potentially people that are here illegally on public lands that are designated wilderness or similar wilderness study areas, oregon pipe would be an area. is that something you can provide to the committee? >> yes, mr. chairman. >> how long it would take to get it to us? >> i'll take it back as an action item right after the hearing. >> when is a reasonable time i should get upset you haven't
provided. it. >> far be it to me. >> you in charge here. make a decision. >> july 3rd. is that fair? >> you read my mind, sir. >> thank you. of this year. >> thank you. >> we recognize the gentleman from tennessee. mr. duncan for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. chief fisher, just out of curiosity, can you give me a rough number how large or how many border patrol agencies there were when you started the agency twenty six years ago. >> less than 3,000, sir. >> less than 3,000. >> yes, sir? >> the reason i asked for that, i remember we gave big increases in funding for border croal in the '90s and now, of course, heard missgambler sm2004
we have gone from 10,000 agents to 21,000, i think it was. now the senate passed an amendment to saying that we are supposed to double that, again, and frankly, i know you can never satisfy any government agency's appetite for money or land, but i'm skeptical as to whether we can efficiently, effectively spend all the money we are throwing at this effort, and increase the number of agents that much that quickly. what do you say about that, commissioner murphy? how big was customs when you started 29 years ago. >> sir, to be honest. i don't know what the number is. >> yes. >> but obviously, as you indicate, there is, you know, significant work to be done, and but the determination of the
right number, i mean, that's obviously something i think is going to have to be decided. >> in the number coming across in large part determine by the economy and the economy and mexico and the economy here because i read during our downturn that the numbers coming across greatly decreased, and there were more people -- a lot of people who come here illegally were going back to mexico or other countries. is that true? >> one thing we have done to transform the way we look at border and the numbers we need, we created the workload staffing model. this takes 100 different data elements and over 1 million calculations that takes in to account the current volume of activity, apprehension, seizure, hours of operation, how many folks on board now. it basics takes that number. it's a dynamic process, and it
will tell you based upon the workload and the time it takes to different function in the workload how many body you need. .. >> what do you say about the statement by ms. gambler that because of the transition from operation, using operational control and so forth that she says, therefore, until new goals and measures are developed, dhs
and congress could experience reduced oversight and dhs accountability. what do you say about that? that's a pretty serious charge really. >> yes. i can say our operational temple now, we're shoulder to shoulder with the border patrol, our level of collaboration's never been higher. my staff meets with the border patrol staff at least once a week talking about enforcement strategies on the border. we, as a matter of business, we detain all recent border entrants. so i think we're doing the right thing. i think with the resources we have, i think, i think we're executing the mission at all-time high. i mean, my removals at a record high, arrests at a record high, detention's at a record high, and i think the mission of us and the border patrol working hand in hand along with cbp, i think it makes sense. >> chairman chaffetz mentioned
4.3 million coming across just on one program. can anybody on the panel tell me how many people are entering this country legally each year? does anybody have a -- ms. gambler, do you know anything about that? somebody should know that surely. >> we could provide that number to you, for the record, sir. i don't know it off the top of my head. >> all right. and what are the latest estimates as to how many are coming across illegally? surely this panel should know something like that. your latest guesses or estimates. >> our estimates right now, sir, we're averaging approximately this fiscal year, in fy-13, approximately 1100 ap reheptions. if you take a look at what we're trying to design as it relates to the effectiveness rate and getting what the chairman mentioned as the denominator, trying to get that known flow, we don't have those estimates right now, but we are working towards getting that right now.
>> well, i think that's something you should provide to us as soon as you get it. >> agreed. >> all right. thank you very much. >> following up on that, mr. fisher, how many turnback souths per day? >> um, i'd have to go back. i don't know specifically what that number is, but we do track that, and i can get -- >> how many gotaways? >> i can do that as well. the effectiveness rate along the southwest border right now is approximately 75%. >> again, i really challenge that number as i think the gao does. those are just the known, those are the known gotaways, right? does not include turnback souths or tbss? >> it includes all of those variables, the apprehensions, the gotaways and the turnbacks. that is the effectiveness formula. so when you look at the apprehensions, you add those to your turnbacks and divide that by the total entries, that is the effectiveness rate. and we're working -- >> that assumes that we -- what about the ones we're not aware of? >> right.
and so there's two different methodologies that we use. what i mentioned earlier in my testimony about the geospatial intelligence piece is really to do just that, is to shrink the border, increase our situational awareness so that we have a better sense of what that number is to cover a lot more of that border. >> would now recognize the gentleman from south carolina, the always-dapper mr. gowdty. >> thank you, chairman. chairman chaffetz shared a bit of philosophy with me a couple nights ago at dinner, and i wrote it down to make sure i got it right. he said be you don't know where you're going, you probably won't know when you get there. yeah, that's what he said. ms. gambler, i am asked constantly about border security. so tell me what is an ambitious but reasonable goal with respect to border security to the extent that it is a condition precedent
to any other part of immigration reform. what are we looking for? >> congressman, setting a goal for border security would be the responsibility of dhs or would be a -- >> i know. but i'm asking you if you were everyone rest for the day, what would you do? what's a realistic but ambitious goal? >> again, that's a responsibility for the department to set that -- >> and i appreciate -- >> call for congress. as would be the case for any bill, gao's role would be to review the implementation of any provisions or programs that the executive branch might implement resulting from a bill if we were asked to do so -- >> how long have you worked for gao? >> i've been with gao for, since 2002. >> all right, so that's 11 years? >> yes. >> surely you have an opinion on what is likely to work. i mean, because you probably are
following the debate just like the rest of us are. before you get to any other aspect of immigration reform, they want to make sure the border is secure. that's an easy phrase to use, but it's a hard phrase to implement. so what is a realistic definition of a secure border? >> what we've recommended is that the department of homeland security set a goal for its border security efforts and then set metrics for assessing progress made against those, against that goal. dhs is in the process of developing those goals and measures, and we've suggested that they set time frames for completing those goals and metrics so that there are mechanisms in place for assessing what the goal is for border security and how that can be measured. >> why is there not currently a goal, or am i just naive? >> up until fiscal year 2011, dhs was using operational control as its performance goal and measure for border security.
they discontinued using that measure -- >> why? >> -- fiscal year 2011. what they told us was that they wanted to move toward more quantifiable metrics for border security and using the number of apprehensions on the southwest border was designed to be an interim measure. now, dhs said they were going to put those metrics in place by fiscal year 2012 but have been using the number of apprehensions as the interim measure, and we recommended, again, that they set time frames and milestones for completing development of those goals and measures. >> let me ask it another way. if you had to go back to your hometown and you had to stand in front of people who are asking you whether or not the border was secure, what metrics would you use in answering their question? >> if i was asked that question, i would say that the department has not yet set goals and measures for a'sing how -- assessing how secure the border is, so that makes it difficult to assess against criteria or a yardstick -- >> many difficult may be an --
difficult may be an understatement. makes it kind of hard for those of us who are interested in getting on to the next steps of immigration reform. if you don't get over the precedent that can prove to your constituents you have a reasonable but ambitious border security goal, it makes the rest of it pretty tough. all right, visa overstays, do you know how they are currently investigated? >> we issued a report on overstays in april 2011 and have ongoing work looking at overstay enforcement efforts as well. that ongoing work we'll issue at the end of july, this next month. >> and i promise i'm going to read the report. but you already know something about the issue. so -- >> yes. >> -- currently, if mr. chaffetz were here on a visa and he overstayed, how would we know, how would we investigate it, how would we decide what we're going to do about it? what's currently being done? >> if someone, if a foreign national enters the u.s. and there is no core responding --
corresponding departure record for that person, that record would be checked against numerous dhs databases and would be prioritized against i.c.e.'s law enforcement and public safety priorities. if the person met that, those priorities, their information, their record would be sent forward for investigation to i.c.e. field offices. >> um, you wouldn't have to wait for that person to commit some other offense or have some other interaction with government, would you? surely? >> the overstays that i.c.e. is prioritizing for investigation are those who meet their public safety and national security priorities. if the person would not meet those priorities, and they were likely an overstay, they would not be investigated by i.c.e.. >> mr. chairman, i was going to ask my friends d i was going to thank them for their service, and i was also going to ask them about what role, if any, state and local law enforcement should play in asissing them, but i'm out of time. so i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. the gentleman from south
carolina i think would be interested to know that based on the farm la ms. gambler just shared, the majority of visas that we give out in this country are b1, b2 entry/exits. mr. murphy testified they don't track any of the exits, none of them, so we have absolutely zero information about who may be overstaying, who may have gone beyond the bounds, because they're variable. it's probably the biggest gaping hole we have in our border. there's no tracking, there's no information, there's no statistics, there's no field reports, there's nothing unless that person commits a crime. and i would hope that we could provide, that the agency would be able to provide through maybe the d. of justice and others -- the department of justice and others a report of how many people committed crimes that came here on a b1, b2 entry/exit visa. and somehow, some way we're
going to unearth that number. but now i'll recognize the gentleman from -- mr. bentivolio, for five minutes, the gentleman from michigan, and he's now recognized for five minutes. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you very much for appearing here today, really appreciate it. maybe you can help me clear up some questions i have. i keep hearing in the media we have 11 million people here that shouldn't be here. how did we arrive at that number? is that something -- i mean, if you ve no way of knowing who you didn't catch, how do you come up with a figure of 11 million? anybody? >> congressman, i don't know where that number comes from. >> ip hearing it in the media. >> i've heard it as well, but i don't know the attribution where that came from. >> so it's really not 11 million, it could be more, right? >> i don't know that either. >> whether we don't. we really don't know, do we? because we don't know -- well, i
guess if a crime is committed and nobody's there, how do you know the crime was committed except by evidence, right? but we don't have any evidence. manager like that. anyway, i have a few other questions. what percentage of border does technology cover? >> i don't know the percentage, that's a really good question. i could find out and get back to you, sir, specifically. we have approximately 15,000 pieces of equipment covering about 17,000 miles. it doesn't cover all 17,000, that's just based on the military specs in terms of what the equipment can do. you have to then take into consideration the geography and to position my in which -- topography, but we can factor that as well. >> okay. i also heard you have cameras that do thermal imaging, other cameras. so when you detect somebody that's crossing illegally, what's the response time? >> it really depends on where the entry is detected. again, depending upon where we have patrol agents, depending upon whether we do it within the first 100 meters or within the
first mile. terrain is going to dictate that. the tactics and techniques of the agents on the ground will determine where is the best way to make the approach in a safe and secure manner. >> okay. and border patrolman told me that he went out to -- this was a alert, he had to go out there, and there were 26 people x -- and they just scattered. my question is how do you send one or two border patrol agents to pick up 26 people? i mean, that's -- especially in the terrain i was in when i toured the border. >> right. >> i mean, is there another way? so he said, well, they had, they caught three, but 23 got away. >> with right. >> is that how we determine the number 11 million? >> i don't believe so, but your earlier points are -- whether there's one border patrol agent that responds or whether there's two or three border patrol agents responds really determines how they're applying the strategy on the ground. in some cases the border patrol agent may not know how many people, it may just be a sensor
indication, so we may not have specific quantities of individuals that may have made the incursion. and many times border patrol agents are assisted with air-to-ground support, our office provides overwatch for us in that regard, and our strategy is built on being able to deploy and redeploy resources for those border patrol agents if, in fact, they come across a group of 23 and they run. generally what would then happen is we would continue tracking operations, and more resources would be brought to bear to be able to continue to track to the extent possible to make sure that we apprehend everybody that comes across in between the ports of entry. >> i also heard when i was there stories of hanggliders flying out of mexico, you know, the personal gliders? >> yes. >> dropping off drugs in the united states and then flying back. are you doing anything to stop that? >> yes, sir. matter of fact, we saw the, i believe you're referring to the ultralights over the last few years. >> thank you. >> are yes. and one of the things i alluded to earlier in my testimony when you look at the transnational
criminal organizations and those networks that own and operate within the border areas, they're always going to adapt their operations to be able to increase their profit margin. and one of the things that we've seen is the ultralights. we're working with the air marine operations center in riverside, california, which gets radar feeds from throughout the united states to be able to adjust those radar to be able to detect low-flying air a craft like the ultralights. we also have agents that use mobile surveillance system offense the ground to be able to look up to identify those ultralights as well. >> have you ever heard of the term catch and release? >> catch and release, i believe, was a phrase a few years ago, and i believe it was, it was coined perhaps maybe not the first time but used quite a bit by secretary chertoff when he was the secretary of homeland security. it was meant when we were seeing increases in activity in locations that part of the policy at the time is people that we were going to apprehend
in between the ports of entry, we were not going to just release what we would call on their own recognizance. so the whole policy and where it is today certainly in high-risk areas is we want to maintain the policy of catching individuals that have come illegally between the ports of entry and make sure that they are detained. >> okay. so a person that came here illegally you catch 'em, and then you release 'em on their own re-- >> no, sir. the current policy was, really it was to end catch and release. >> okay. >> in other words, what -- in some locations over the years depending upon fluctuations in funding availability for the enforcement and removal operations, individuals that would otherwise or that would request a hearing in front of an immigration judge, if they did not pose any risk to the public and there was no detention space allowed, there was a provision within the administrative piece to release them on their own recognizance pending their
administrative hearing with the judge. so what we looked at over the course of the year, and that policy has adjusted depending on what resources are available, and it fluctuates to be able to minimize risk. >> thank you. mr. chairman, i have one more question? >> okay, great. >> go ahead. >> thank you. we go to trial or go in front of a judge, and the judge would release them, correct? >> well concern. >> that's -- >> generally not to get, because i'm not the expert anymore, the real border patrol agents do the work in the field. but generally what would happen is once we made the determination, we issued a warrant of arrest and a notice to appear. that notice to appear was for an immigration hearing. >> okay. how many would come back and actually reappear before the judge or -- do you have a percentage that come back, or do they all come back or just 50%? 75%? >> i don't have that number right off the top of my head,
sir, but it would depend on which year you're talking about or recently. >> it's probably closer to about 10%, would that be right? >> i would not want to guess at that, sir. >> okay. thank you. mr. chairman, i yield back my time. thank you. >> thank you. now recognize the ranking member, gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, for five minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, everyone, for your testimony today. sounds like you have an easy job, gentlemen. [laughter] challenging, to say the least. over the last decade the u.s. taxpayer has funded tens of billions of dollars in additional personnel, technology and infrastructure along that southwest border. i think we've installed radiation detection portals, nonintrusive imaging equipment, license plate readers, camera systems, fencing, and the list goes on. despite the staggering sums of that money, we know that cartels are still able to bring illicit drugs into the country, persons looking for work still cross over, organized crime networks still manage to smuggle various
forms of contraband through these ports of entry. so nobody disputes the fact that this guns, gods and gates spending has been effective to a degree. but not all spending's equal, i guess. so what i'm going to try to do as we go forward, take a look at which areas of investment have been more e factive and produce better results. so let me begin, if i can, with you, chief fisher, on the gates. as i understand it, billing the border fence -- building the border fence or improving the existing fence makes sense in some locations but may not make sense in others. for instance, just west of san ysidro, california, people say it helped control illegal crossing problem there. others say it provided significant benefits in other locations, particularly in urbanized crossing corridors. does that sound accurate to you? >> it does, sir. >> okay. ms. gambler, i also understand that gao has wed the effectiveness of the -- questioned the effectiveness of the fence, and that question's been raised for a number of
years. is that also true? >> in our work, congressman, we did find that dhs had not taken steps to assess or quantify the contributions that fencing is making to border security, and we recommended that they conduct a cost effective analysis to do that. >> okay. so if congress were to decide to double the size of the existing fence or at least add hundreds of additional miles to it, how would the department determine where to build that extra fence? >> i don't know where, how they would determine where to build the fence, but they do have analysis underway to, in response to our recommendation to determine what contribution fencing is making to border security efforts. and that would be an important question going forward. >> i'm guessing that it makes sense to add fencing in some areas and maybe a total waste of money in others, is that generally true? >> that would be for the department of homeland security to determine. >> mr. fisher, mr. murphy, does
that sound true to you, that in some areas it would be a good investment, other areas it may not be a good investment at all? is. >> that's accurate, sir. >> okay. and are you comfortable we're helping to identify which areas are which? >> are i am, sir, yes. >> ms. gambler, there are also proposals to add new sensors, technologies, camera systems all along the border to detect illegal crossings. i know that gao previously reviewed some major technology problems with the sbi net and found hundreds of millions of dollars had been squandered in that effort. there are challenges that, obviously, had to be overcome. so before we invest in that type of technology, billions of dollars or whatever, can you tell us what lessons were learned from that whole sbi net situation? >> our body of work looking at dhs' management of border security, border surveillance technologies has identified challenges in the management of that technology including the technology being delivered on scheduled to and within cost
parameters that were set for the technology. back in 2012 we issued a report on dhs' new plan for deploying border surveillance technologies to arizona, and one of the key findings from that report was that dhs had not fully documented the underlying analysis and justification used to support the types, quantities and locations of technologies it plans to deploy under that new plan. >> okay. you're comfortable that the department is responding to your reports and your recommendations? >> the d. did agree with those recommendations and is taking steps to address them. we do have ongoing work reviewing that new plan and are monitoring dhs' actions to respond to our recommendations. >> so now we're talking about possibly increasing the number of agents exponentially on that basis. so what steps should the border patrol take to make sure that the increase of personnel is effectively utilized, that they're placed in the right places and the right numbers? >> the border patrol issued its
new strategic plan last year, may 2012, and as part of that implementation we understand that the border patrol is developing a process for assessing what resources are needed and how to deploy them. we understand that that process is moving forward, and they're looking to implement it in fiscal year 2013 and '14. >> and, mr. fisher, can you tell us a little more about that? >> certainly. within the framework of the strategy, we really focused our efforts on being risk based as opposed to just asking for more resources and deploying them in lateral fashion across the southwest border. that was a significant strategic shift in our thinking and certainly within our deployments over the last couple of years. as we move forward, we also recognize that technology has come a long way. i can still remember as a young agent getting the first pair of bravos which were night vision goggles from the military after the first gulf war, and i thought at that point we were really going to make a difference in border security because for the very first time
as an agent, i was able to see 5 feet in front of me at night. i thought that was going to change the operation by which the border patrol started back in 1924. we continue to learn and adjust with the technology, and i will tell you as good as technology is getting and as more technology as we get, it is still no replacement for a well trained border patrol agent. because at the end of the day, it doesn't matter what you have flying in the air, how many unattended ground sensors you have buried on the ground, the border patrol agents still -- a lot of times alone as we have learned today -- has to close that 50 meters by himself or herself, and the thinking and training of those agents who are out there on patrol, there is no substitute for that. i'm very proud of the work that they do, and it's a combination of taking a look at the best technology that's available, taking a look at the infrastructure and then continuing to train and support the border patrol agents is the best way, and that's the way that we're approaching the implementation against this new strategy. >> thank you. thank you again for your work and for your testimony here today. >> chair now recognizes the
gentleman from arizona, mr. gosar. >> thank you, mr. chairman. chief fisher and mr. murphy, in your shared testimony, you said the following: we do not use this term "operation control" as a measure of border security because the complex nature of the magnitude of different border conditions cannot be described by a single objective measure. although an indicator of success, we cannot measure border security solely based on crime rates because even the safest communities in america have some crime. if you are claiming that one objective measure is not enough to measure border security, then why is only one measure, apprehension rates, used or cited when top dhs officials try to pass off our southern board as secure? >> well, apprehension still is a metric that we capture and report to the department. however, we've learned quite a bit over the last couple of years, and i think ms. gambler talked on some of that. the apprehension number really
doesn't tell you much, because if you compare and contrast it from previous fiscal years, if it goes up, i can say that is success, and if it goes down, i can say that's success. that in and of itself was not a good metric. but you need the apprehension to then peel back the layers to understand how many people within that total population of arrests were there. because recidivism does matter. it's important to me, and it's important to the organization to distinguish those individuals who are only apprehended two times from those individuals that were apprehended perhaps six or eight times. >> would you agree, mr. murphy? >> well, sir, from our standpoint as i indicated in my testimony earlier, we look at it as a well-managed border. i don't think there is one single metric. there's a variety of things that we do look at, but i think what we have tried to do is to, um, look at transforming the way we do business, our processes, bringing in new technology, trying to, basically, do a better job much more efficiently, and in that way we feel that we're going to have much more success not only from
a standpoint of apprehensions or seizures, but also from the standpoint of facilitating the legitimate flow of traffic and trade. >> are you aware of are, an experiment in which a drone actually looked at a corridor over time and looked at apprehension rates and made a comparison of actually who crossed that border versus apprehension rates? are you aware of that study? >> no, sir. >> actually, it's very staggering because it showed there were 422 apprehensions, but in actuality, there were over 7,000. are you aware of that, ms. gambler? >> we have not seen that study. >> really? and we're going to trust our border security with homeland security and we still don't understand that? how familiar are you with the numbers that you're citing to the american public and to congress in regards to the number of illegal immigrants in this country? >> in terms of the data we reported in our december 2011 report, we reported the data that border patrol had available on -- >> based on apprehensions. so this is showing you in this,
in this technology aspect that we're showing less 6% actually being apprehended versus what is actually a known factor, is that true? >> again, we looked at the data that the border patrol was collecting at the time that we did the work, and we looked at number of apprehensions as well as estimated known illegal entries and presented that data. we did also identify some limitations with that data. >> and it's very antiquated, i would -- i'm just pointing out that when you're citing these studies, they're antiquated measures, and we need to have more opportunities for a diverse opportunity not just from federal government, state and locals to look at the metrics in regards to border security, would you not agree? >> and we recommended and the department is in the process of setting goals and metrics for border security, and we recommended that they come up with time frames for completing that effort so that the measures can be completed in a timely manner. >> and does that include state and local officials so that we have a uniform policy
enforcement all the way through this country, not just on border? >> it would be the departments set those goals and metrics -- >> to be honest with you, ma'am, i'm not real comfortable. i'm from arizona, and we've got some problems here. border security should be a uniform policy that's all the way through. and i can tell you coming from a number of people within my conference, it's not going to be left up to homeland security. it'll be a joint venture in regards to having border security so that we see the metrics from border patrol all the way encompassing all avenues of law enforcement. because i think that's what the american public wants. we have limited resources. homeland security has really not really restored a lot of trust. trust is a series of promises kept, and we don't find much with that with homeland security. let me ask you another question. thousand you feel -- how do you feel about border security around yuma, arizona? >> around yuma, arizona? >> uh-huh. >> in our work when dhs was using operational control as its performance measure for border
security, yuma reported that its miles were under operational control. now, that was up til fiscal year -- >> can well, let's go, i've got to take a little lean leniency , because it actually is one of the shining stars, and that's the proper answer. there has not been an illegal border crossing in that 40 or 50-some miles in the yuma sector for over six years. is that not true? >> i'm not aware of that specifically -- >> when you're coming here to represent what dhs has proposed, we need to have success models, and yuma is a success model. it has border fence, it has a unified application of the law from border security to law enforcement, and what's even more important is actually prosecution. is it not true that those folks from the tucson sector do not want to be pushed to the yuma sector because they're going to get prosecuted? is that not true? ..
ms. campbell you are with the governmengovernmen t accountability office and not homeland security, right? >> i'm with the government accountability office. >> i hope that is obvious for the information being sought from you and i think you are doing an excellent job and i just wanted to clarify that. the other thing i'm going to ask the gentleman that he would produce the study you mentioned at the beginning of your questions.
and make that available for the committee. >> the chair now recognizes the general woman from new york mrs. maloney. >> good evening and thank you for your hard work and your testimony today before the committee. i am concerned about commerce. not only do we need to keep bad products out and homeland security and all of that focus but mexico is a very important trading partner with america and it's our largest, it's really our third largest trading partner and our relationship has grown tremendously since nafta and significantly in the past years. mexico has grown to be roughly 500 alien bilateral trade and that's important to the economy of america. it's also sustained through the trade i some estimates 6 million jobs in the united states, so it
has economic value that is important to our people. and they say that u.s. sales to mexico are larger than all u.s. exports to the brick countries which are brazil, russia india and china so in short trade with mexico is important for our jobs. and i guess i should ask mr. murphy, isn't it true that part of your profession is not only to protect the border but also to help facilitate trade between our two countries and our ports of entry on both land and sea and is that true? yes that part of your goal and not only security which is number one priority but also to allow legitimate fair trade? >> congresswoman thank you for the question. you are absolutely right and that is one of the -- we believe that border security and economic prosperity go hand-in-hand and we also believe
and recently there was a study done by usc that showed that by adding additional cbp personnel onto the ports of entry to facilitate not only border security aspect but the trade facilitation aspect, it helps build, it takes down, dads to the gdp. it also takes for lost opportunity costs, it reduces those that absolutely and the partner both with canada and mexico. we have for 21st century border and beyond the border initiatives in mexico right now. we are working on mesa and the radio on pre-instruction pilots so we are partnering closely with mexico and we recognize the importance of trade and that's the life out of our economy. i just think that cbp and zero fo have particularly matured in recent years in recognizing that dynamic and the importance of that trade. >> you mentioned the laredo site import and that is a very
important site. i understand 700 of the fortune 1000 companies do international business through that port. can you just give an example on the ground on how you protect against terrorist and ill legal guns and really bad gangs coming into our country and also allowing the trade trade that is necessary? how do you make that happen in a way that allows the trade but also has a significant strength to stop terrorists or illegal guns or other activities? >> there are a number of ways. we have technology. we have our rpm's for the detection of nuclear radiological elements. we also have our license to readers and on the southwest border right now our technology right now ,-com,-com ma 60% of the documents being used on the border are iaf i.d. compliant. we are trying to enable trade
programs and their trust and travel programs but from the standpoint of the trade we are trying to again focus our resources there. we are working with again on this trust and trading program with rcp pack we have another number of programs. laredo is a huge industry for trade for the united states and again we have recognized that fact. we have directed our resources. i mentioned earlier about the workload staff. this is the way a way we can direct and allocate resources where there are too many people from the trade standpoint and also from an enforcement standpoint. >> there was a report that i read the synopsis of. i believe it came out of one of the think-tanks and i'm going to read the report and get it to the chairman. it said that a side effect of the increased border security was that more immigrants were staying in the country.
usually a lot of mexican workers would come in and do seasonal work and leave and go back to mexico but now because the border is becoming much tougher to get in and out of a are just staying in america. i would just ask anyone if they would like to comment on it. are you saying that and is there any substance to the idea that this report put forward? >> i have not seen it. >> anyone else want to comment? would you like to comment? >> we haven't seen that study. >> or the idea? said he seen that? >> we have not evaluated that issue. >> thank you. my time has expired. >> i would now like to recognize myself for five minutes. in february i think it was i told my staff after several long weeks of working hard if i could find two days where i could go someplace warm with some sand
and they send me to arizona to tour the border fence. it was a big eye-opener. earlier mr. fischer we discussed the ultralights and mr. murphy could you comment on that as well? >> if i'm not mistaken mortar patrol received $100 million for the ultralight problem. that is an awful lot of money and yet we are really not seeing any significant change. can you tell me what seems to be the problem? $100 million. you probably post quite a few border patrolman just to sit and look up into the sky and nothing seems to be getting done because i keep hearing it's a problem for the boots on the ground. >> it is then an emerging threat and continues to be so today. one of the things to take into consideration is ultralights can really take off and land pretty
much anywhere so the whole area of operation for the smuggling organization opens up that aperture and other areas we have seen across the southwest border. we have and continue to experiment with ground-based radar to be able to tweet the radar to make sure we are able to identify flying ultralights in others it may be flying in that particular area. the truth of the matter is we still look to adjust our policies. first and foremost as a law enforcement organization we enforce the laws in the united states and we do so with a matter of consistency compassion within the constitution. one of the challenges we face right now is even if we detect an ultralight and identifying it in and be able to track it with a blackhawk blackhawk helicopter the endgame if you will has not been established in terms of what we can do to that particular ultralight. it will simply take out its
cargo which up to this point has been narcotics predominantly marijuana and there is a ground crew that later picks up the marijuana and moves on. so it doesn't land in the united states. it turns around and goes back to mexico so we are working with the department in science and technology to increase the effectiveness and continue to work within the law enforcement framework on how we can mitigate this developing threat. >> according to border patrol agents the 100 million-dollar detection program has not worked and has been a waste of taxpayer money. another quote order patrol and ultralight aircraft in possible to stop. we don't have the technology. this was also reaffirmed on my tour of no golos with the border patrol. other border patrol agents difficult mission to find applications intercept narcotics and arrest smugglers. success rates are low. those are the comments from the boots on the ground, those guys in the trenches and i have
another question regarding this. it would seem to me that well, we have this very expensive fence. it's 18 feet tall and i'm asking questions and i just want answers. you can't put wire on top because people are hopping over the fence. people are driving up and actually with a torch cutting through the steel and sending people in that way and then then they are welding at backups of the border border patrol does not see it. in other cases, what else? a number of tunnels. there is no real detection and i asked about dogs. is there some problem with employing more dogs within the border patrol agents? >> not that i'm aware of, sir, no. >> so instead of this $100 million system that does not work, we note dogs can detect, know this for a fact can
detect things in the sky as well as on the ground and it's very low-tech. maybe not as but what are your comments on that? should we employ more dogs versus $100 million worth of high-tech? >> i would sit just substituting k-9 and their handlers for technology or infrastructure. we employ approximately 300 canines in handlers throughout the border and they along with the horses and other technology that we have is a complement. the other thing to take into consideration and i would -- each section of the border is different. what may work in yuma arizona may not work in a place like no golos. somebody else relied technology may not work in sections of el paso texas but he works really well in a place like el central california so identifying these techniques and procedures of of the criminal organizations in understanding how they operate understanding the extent to which they are vulnerable so we
can exploit that. there is no cookie-cutter approach to deal with to do that in my opinion, sir. >> the chair recognizes the gentlewoman from illinois ms. kelly. >> thank you mr. chair. i would like to talk about the data issue. one thing that seems clear from today's hearing and on the government accountability office apprehensive review of the department's border security statistics is the number of immigrants apprehended by the department or amber hitchens has declined markedly along the southwest border between 2006 and 2011. this amounted to a 58% drop in apprehensions which seems to suggest the border enforcement is currently working. ms. gambler do you believe the number of illegal border crossings has -- >> that report you cited was on apprehensions of this number of illegal entrants that the border patrol arrested in that data
show's apprehensions deadline -- decline. the 2012 data reported by the order patrol indicate that amber had since increase from 2011 levels. in that report we provide data on estimated no and illegal entrants by sector and those numbers estimated by the border patrol did decrease in southwest border sectors over that time. >> the meaning of apprehension data by itself seems to be the subject of some debate in remains clear the department continues to use this figure on an interim basis until it's able to develop an interim approach in that poses some concerns. ms. gambler how long has border patrol use the numbers of apprehensions for central patrol? >> they have been using that since 2011. >> when will order patrol use a
more comprehensive data point for measuring flows of -- >> we do started developing those this year and they will baseline this year and really start with with the new metrics in fiscal year 14 which will start one october. >> can you please explain how the border patrol uses apprehension data to allocate resources? >> that branch of data weeds redeployed resources. that is based on risk and it's done both in terms of my staff at headquarters looking at the strategic laydown of all forces within the southern and coastal environments and really it's left in the hands of field commanders in the field to be able to redeploy those resources in the areas that they have operation control over. >> if you were to get additional border patrol agents where would you place them? where'd you see the big need? >> we would look into areas for instance where we are unable perhaps to put a fence or unable
to put certain technology because it's a combination. it's not just putting in border patrol agents. we have to do that in consultation with certain field commanders to tell us what works and what doesn't work and we will make sure that we put the resources in the areas of the highest risk along our borders and work our way back from there. >> when you say they tell you what works and does not work how often do you check? do you have every three months or every month? what is the evaluation process? >> quite frankly, with 21,370 border patrol agents they are not shy to let me know through e-mail what works and what does not work and i appreciate their willingness to tell us at headquarters what is the best approach. >> do you have any current concerns? >> in terms of the apprehensions data and the number of illegal entrants that the border patrol
apprehend an art 2011 report we did identify some limitations with the data that border patrol collects and estimates for what are called turn backs and not a ways. the limitation with that data are clued border patrol from using that data to make comparisons and performance and cross sectors. border patrol issued updated guidance to the field in september 2012 to provide for a more common approach to estimating turn backs across the southwest border sectors and we understand the border patrol sectors are implementing that guidance. >> do you have a more complete data including not a ways and turn backs? >> we are getting better at that but let me be clear. in some cases i say we broadly have to be very careful in applying a very specific scientific method and accuracy and certitude to a function and operation that does not allow
that. we will do the best we can to determine how many people came in and how many people did we apprehend that no technology or no system that i'm aware of is going to with 100% accuracy make that determination going forward and it doesn't exist another law enforcement organizations that i'm aware of. >> my time is my time is up, thank you. >> the chair now recognizes the gentleman from arizona. >> thank you again mr. chairman and before i start my second line of questioning i want to make the point that we make sure that mr. lang away has an opportunity to come before this committee. whether he comes here or we go there because i think we need to have this discussion with him. ms. gambler one of the things i'm critical about and to be honest with you i'm a big fan of gal, but in this case what i want to see is we cited the number of studies with regards to the gentlewoman from illinois. i need to see that same type of
application from where we are coming from in arizona so i want to see equal latitude. mr. fisher just made a comment that what works in yuma doesn't work anywhere else but the principles are the same, are they they not? did turns enforcement in apprehension and then also going before just as? >> the principles in the strategy applied but the application in different geographic areas do not. >> i am happy with that. i'm happy with that. let me ask you a question both mr. murphy and mr. fisher. a secure border means living free from fear in the towns and cities. do you feel that feel that the folks in southern arizona can actually say that today? >> in some locations that would be accurate. >> how about you? >> yes, sir. >> sir. >> i would safely want to start making this deterrent probably the 50 miles coming from the california border secure beyond going into the tucson sector beyond that 50 miles not secure we have some type of trouble in
with the tucson area and further east we have bigger problems do we not? >> a quick look at the border and by the way you mentioned that can fluctuate with the criminal organizations adjusting operations. >> from what i understand you know we have got a problem in the tucson sector. it has shifted more to the texas side but you are right there are still some generalities that hold true. >> certainly. >> can we put the slide appear up on the screen? the signs were found posted not at the border and not within 20 miles of the border or posted 80 miles from the border. local law enforcement officers in addition to custom importer or troll officers that told us that our police -- our policies are failing and the enforcement measures are so shoddy as an equivalent to ceding parts of our great country to cartels.
i am downright angry that the federal government isn't doing its part to protect its own citizens. i do thank the thousands of agents and officers who put their lives on the line day in and day out but it seems there is such a disconnect between those on the frontlines and the bureaucrats who have marched up here on the hill to tell us what we think and what we had to hear. thankfully from time to time we bypass the proper channels and go directly to the source which is what i do. i am a science guy. to get the raw intelligence before it scrubbed and framed in washington. i've talked to numerous cbp agents during my time in congress. the story they paint is far different than the one painted by dhs and representatives here today in the news media at large. one agent told me the methods for counting border crossings is inadequate. as the officers are told to count tracks going north. the problem is that the drug runners cover their tracks carefully going north because they don't want to be tracked. a number going north is less
than those found going south because cartel members don't care if they are being apprehended going south. they have already dropped off their drugs and since there are they going south they may as well get a free ride home. another agent told me when he first started one of the supervisor started a meeting one day by saying apprehensions are down. we are not catching as many people. this particular officer had a feeling that he and his colleagues were about to be scolded for not doing their job. you can imagine his surprise when he was congratulated and and told good job by the same supervisor. a man who puts his life on the line each day referred to the apprehension metrics by measuring border control as asinine whereas napolitano or secretary claims borders are more secure than at any time the foreign people estimate they might have for him 20% of border crossings on a good day. when it's possibly the most discouraging in shameful thing i've been told by cbp agents on the grounds that they feel they have signed up for one job and i actually had two jobs.
they say their job is to fight the drug cartels in the so-called -- but their job is a constant by the government. by the government. in their worst they have to fight their own employer to do the job that they were hired. this is a situation that could only be created by this town. i would ask you consider having another hearing on a later date for which you can invite cbp officers and other state and local officers from the front lines and they are able to offer some real perspective highlight the real problems and help guide us towards a real solution. when we start looking at the border it's a fascinating issue. we have forest service and we have primitive areas and they have to have the common sense policy in which they have apprehensions to make this country secure so i would like to hear from the border patrol agents. thank you. >> thank you. the challenge -- chair recognizes the gentleman from florida mr. mica. >> i have absolutely had it with officials who refuse to appear
before our committee. this is the chief investigative panel of the house of representatives. what is this guys named? i want to meet him, with directing chair right now. i want to meet with mr. chaffetz and mr. issa and i want these people held responsible. we will subpoena him in here or they will appear before us one way or the other. this is the last time this is going to happen, that i will be involved in any of the subcommittees or the full committee and have particularly a dhs staffer, and this is an important position. this isn't just any staff, not appear before this committee and it's important that they appear with these other witnesses. i am absolutely frosted and this is the last time i guarantee you. they will regret not appearing
before our committee. i don't care who it is. so again, i know you were acting as chair right now sir and staff, i want a meeting within the next 24 hours with chairman chaffetz and mr. issa and we have to bring the other side of the aisle in on whatever it's going to take. again i'm not very pleased that we would have again the associate director for refugee asylum and international operations for some his nose at a legitimate request timely given to appear before this committee, subcommittee and congress. i have some information i guess both mr. fisher and mr. murphy, customs and border protection. who oversees procuremeprocureme
nt of some of the equipment that would have the most knowledge? both of you have equal knowledge? i wasn't here earlier but you are looking at mobile rather than fixed surveillance systems. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> mr. murphy is that correct? i have information from a whistleblower that there are several types of the surveillance equipment available and one is available at $54 million in the second is available at over $100 million. are you all where of the two principle types of mobile surveillance equipment? >> i am not aware of that. >> i want you to be aware of it. this is information i have that again on the procurement that you are dividing the contract. i am not interested in a 50% premium that the taxpayers pay
on this mobile equipment. i want a report back from one or both of you on what's going on, what kind of equipment is being purchased, why we are paying twice as much for some equipment that has the same capability i'm told is the other equipment, okay? do you get it? back to the committee threw myself or through the chair. i want a report on why you are paying twice as much for some equipment that has the same capability as others. we have very limited amount of money. isn't that correct? this is something that has been brought to my attention by a whistleblower. i wanted to verify the document in just exactly what you are doing here. okay let's go to border crossings and protection. there are three different types of entry documents. there are four actually. the past four.
global entry. you can get in with the global entry card. do you have to have a passport to? murphy, fisher? >> based on the western hemisphere travel initiative we took a thousand different documents and there are few but with a passport. >> can you get in with a global entry by itself? yes or no? >> i will have to get back to you. >> wade, what is your position in? >> the acting assistant commissioner for field operations. >> you can tell me whether i can get in or out with the local entry card? >> in order to get the global entry card you have to have your document and your document and face will appear on the screen when you're coming through. >> but can someone entering the united states from canada or mexico or somewhere, come in with just a global entry card? >> i will have to get back to you, sir. >> please don't tell me.
it's pretty scary. there are two other documents. one is the nexus and fast. >> cargo through trucks. >> and there's another one. what is the one for mexico? >> sentry fast nexus. >> we have got all these cards. i had a hearing a couple of weeks ago on the i.d. card which is again that so-and-so from dhs is here so we can't go after him because they are responsible for overseeing some of the standards. we have all these cards. none of them have a dual metric capabilities. is that right? >> dual metric in terms of? >> fingerprints and irs with the biometric. >> they have fingerprint. >> but they do not have dual. we had someone get the
transcript from last weekend testified from the fbi that fingerprints can be altered. they are not secure. and the only secure means of identification guaranteed would be dual biometric and that is irs and fingerprint. we do not have anything with the irs, nexus, fast, global entry, passport and what was the other one? sentry, right? >> i believe we are looking at the irs. >> for 11 or 12 years i asked that be done in law after 2001 and i think 2002. ..
that's my first round. i'll go in to my second round. did you have a -- >> yes, sir. >> we'll let her go and i'll come back. i'll try to recover in the meantime. [laughter] >> gentlewoman from new mexico, gentlelady, excuse me, from new mexico. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you to the panel. i'm in an interesting position from new mexico in that we have small unique border from new mexico to mexico. but are effective pry particularly be therd -- the border at el paso.
not that we don't get the same border investment, not the federal investment for border protection issues beyond the border itself but in the state. we are effect ed by trade issues, which was a topic this morning in term of the questions. we're effected by the efficacy of what you con the border. we have public safety issues, and we also have one of the highest drug trafficking and stance abuse -- substance abuse. i is am absolutely concerned about security issues, and i think this question tbifn the topic of the question steady for miss gambler. i'm watching what is occurring in the senate. there's mom tument for even more
invest at the border. tell me which of the investment, personnel, equipment, fencing high-tech investment. which of those are the most effective? and i need to know that both in term of whether it's a cost-effective aspect, or whether it's giving you those protections that we're interested having occur at the border? >> congresswoman, your question gets a key take away from a number of gao reports we have issued looking at cvp effort to deploy technology, infrastructure, and personnel along the border. that take away is that the department has been challenged to be able to identify the contribution that itself investments have been making to border security. for example, we recommended that the department conduct a cost-effective assessment to be able to assess the contribution that tactical infrastructure and fencing have made to border
security. with regard to the technology, and our review of dhs's new technology plan for placing surveillance technology along the southwest border. we recommended that dhs identify the benefits and met tricks -- metric for assessing the impliation of the plan. it gets a key take away from a number of issues we have issued on border security efforts. >> my issue is, i'm hearing that from my colleagues on both sides, that we know we need to do that. we have to perform those evaluation. we don't have that con cross-suit information. -- concrete information. in your opinion, given unprecedented investment. i'm concerned about whether they are making the difference that we need, should our next set of funds --
our recommendation have gone to the need for dhs to be able to assess the benefit from the investment. and the contribution that those investments are making to the border security effort. >> okay. if we don't do that, then the reality is you and i hope, have immigration reform continue to make sure that we do have secure borders invest in technology we'll be using in other places, and efforts and we continue do it in the contingent, effective manner. we will not regardless ofons wt for protecting and securing the border while making sure that effective trade takes place and legal travel back and forth as
cross the border is not minimized accepted in a productive and safe manner. i'm based on the testimony today i'm very concerned that we don't have that information readily available to us. and so that minimizes any of the effort we make in congress. is that a fair statement? now anybody can answer. 23 whole seconds. no takers? come on! mr. murphy? >> ma'am, i think we are working very hard to identify our risk, i think we're working very hard, again, to not to beat a dead horse. our working with stafting smolgd helping us areas that need additional resources, and basically trying to take up more of a business transformational look at the processes and how we do business. >> all right. sounds like we may not be as ready as we should be.
thank you, mr. chairman. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from wyoming. >> thank you. to the previous comment from the jentd l lady from new mexico, therein lies the problem. trying to get us to do comp hennive immigration reform at the time when we cannot assure our constituents the people we work for, that the border is secure is a nonstarter. when i go home, all i hear about is secure the border first, then we'll taunt comprehensive immigration reform. i hear it from all aspects, from all of my constituents. and i cannot tell them that we have a accomplished step one, secure the border.
which is their green light to move forward on comp comprehensive immigration reform. it is not a new condition that the american people, especially those from nonborder states have put on us. they have been telling us for years secure the border first, then we'll talk about comprehensive immigration reform. there's a bill probably pass the senate today that will comp hen -- comprehensively reform immigration. t not going the pass the house we have not addressed the one condition the american people have put on us before they'll allow us to have a robust conversation about comp we haven't secured the border. my constituents have asked me this repeatedly.
is a fence the least expensive, most effective way to secure the border in land to land borders crossings? mr. fisher, is that true? >> in some locations with that would be, true yes yes. >> do we have a fence in every location where it's true if. >> that i don't know. i would add not just a fence. you put in places because you identify as high-risk which is attributed bay lot of illegal crossings in between the port of open try having the fence itself doesn't necessarily secure the border security. >> the corker amendment being discussed in the senate, i don't know if it's pass order failed, would add 700 miles of fence and 20,000 troops on our border to defend our border. now if you were me, and you go home every weekend and your
constituents are telling you secure the border, secure the border. would you vote for the corker amendment? representative, i'm not a position to, one, put myself in your position. although in similar circumstances, when go home, my wife and son ask me the same question. we have an interesting discussion about that. i can understand the challenges you and certainly other members of the committee are looking at right now as it relates to the current legislation. >> what do you tell your wife and dismield. >> i try to change the subject, ma'am. >> i'll bet you do. mr. murphy? >> sir, i mean, ma'am it's an important issue. >> let me ask you, the corker amendment, 20,000 troops, 700 miles of fence on our southern border. would you vote for that amendment? >> i don't think i can put myself in your position to an
that. >> do you have the same conversation with your family that mr. fisher does? >> yes, i do. >> what do you tell them? >> we have men and women doing the best we can with what we have. >> is the border secure, is the southern border secure? >> ma'am, i don't have resources on the border. we do not control -- >> mr. murphy. is the southern border secure? >> i think we're working toward that end. >> is it now? if i go home this weekend, can i tell my constituents they're going to ask, is our border secure. what should i say? what would you say if you were me? >> we're doing our best. >> mr. fisher? >> i would say in certain sections a along the border it's true. the border is secure. >> can you give us the sections where it's not secure. can you give us a map and show us where it's not secure. in those locations, those some loy locations can you tell us how to make it secure?
>> we are in the process of building it now. when you get, are you going share it with us? >> it would be my intent too do so. it wouldn't be my call. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i yield back. >> the chair recognizes the gentlelady from jill. mrs. kelly. >> i had another question about dat. clearly the border also collects that other than apprehension. and the government accountability office is also reviewed this data, for instance, gao analyzed a percentage of repeat border crossers found the figure declined also between 2006 and 2011. to these indicators paint roughly the same picture as apprehension the number of illegal border crossings may have declined over the last six years. what else do you think they tell us. >> recidivism rate data --
found that the rate across the southwest border decreased by 6% during that time. the recidivism rate looks at estimated known illegal entrants who are apprehended more than once. so it's not exactly the same. it's not exactly the same as looking at data on apprehension. it's looking at number apprehended more than once. >> thank you. i also wanted to make a comment that i totally understand on both sides of the aisle in this committee that when we call someone, we expect the person to be here and expect the person to answer our questions, but i also -- it is my understanding that the gentleman has offered to sit down with staff, so just want to make sure we can give him a little credit with that. i agree, when we call people they should come session. from my understanding with we
has offered to sit down with the staff. so thank you. >> chair now recognizes the gentleman from florida. mr. mica. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let go back to the identification that are used for entry at the border. either of you gentleman, mr. fisher, mr. murphy, are you familiar with any of the technical boards that approved the credentials that are used for crossing the border, mr. fisher? >> i'm not, no. >> mr. murphy? >> no , sir. >> this is why it's so difficult to conduct this hearing without someone responsible from dhs who can answer these questions. we have at least about five documents i cited.
none of them have dual by biomettic capability. the accounting commission and the chief -- did you know mr. fisher the documents can be used by themselves either global entry, an ne x is or century? >> i don't know that sir, it's not my area of expertise. i'm not able to question whether or not there's any coordination in the development of the documents. and what they dane or the capability they contain.
how many individuals were apprehended last year, maybe you have already told the subcommittee crossing the borders illegally? >> i don't have the number of illegal aliens crossing the border. i can tell you we arrested and process removed 410,000. >> you removed 410,000 back to their original point of entry or whatever country they came from? >> yes, sir. >> okay. how many then are incarcerated in the united states last year at any time? it would be all of them or is there a population of illegals in our prisons? >> yeah. on the 410,000 removed last year, 225 are convicted criminals. we got -- 725 were convicted.
>> 225,000. >> 225,000. >> yeah. 55 percent of the 10,000 were convicted criminals. >> okay. and do you detain those convicted criminals? >> yes. the -- our approach we have four priorities. those that are threat to national security and community safety and convicted criminals. recent border entry and -- and the cost while in prison. do we also pay for their legal cost? do you have any idea if they are all granted -- are they read any rights? >> no. oral administrative process. after they -- they get convicted of crime they dot time and whatever stay or federal facility we get them after the fact. we try process them for removal while still in the custody of law enforcement agency. we don't incur unnecessary cost. are they entitled to any kind of legal counsel we provide or get their own counsel.
>> they can get their own counsel out of administrative -- they are not okay. what is the cost on the incarceration? >> funded it at 34,000 a year. and those beds turn over quickly. the funding for detention operations about 1.7 billion. >> i thought member of customs and border patrol people were killed historically maybe the last decade. most of the culprit been apprehended? mr. murphy, mr. fisher, do you know? over the last few years there have been arrests of individuals who have enough evidence to
warrant the i don't remember working with reagan administration when they killed kiki i like the way reagan handled it. he closed the borders, for awhile. we still have people who haven't been apprehended who have killed our agents; isn't that correct? >> okay. that's a sad commentary, i think we need to everything possible to target those individuals. that would be a good use of drones. [laughter] to take them out when you kill an enforcement officer or border patrol personnel in the united states. i yield back the balance of my
time. >> i would like -- as the staff could if the send a letter, i've asked a response on this. i guess they divided up the contract between a couple of vendors and one of the pieces of equipment, i understand, costs twice as much as the other. it's nice to divide the contract. i don't really care about that. i'm looking a the taxpayer it has the capability. i want to find out the mobile surveillance equipment acquisition, the cost of the equipment difference in any capability. and what would justify paying twice as much for the same thing. and we will have the meeting with -- we will have the meeting with chair of the subcommittee and the full committee chair hs wit.
other than that, again, appreciate my courtesy. >> thank you. i have a few more questions. mr. fisher, you testified earlier that part of the border secure and other parts are not. what part of the border are unsecure? >> these are the areas where generally we don't have access to the immediate border. we don't have full time border employment -- and many cases nonexistent technology. lead us believe that the criminal organizations may -- adjust the resources accordingly. that's what i meant in some cases the border is more secure than others. >> what percentage is unsecure? i don't have a percentage, sir. it's difficult identify a percentage. >> miles? >> it's even harder to disting miles because it flex waits. >> what particular areases?
texas, new mexico, arizona? all across the southwest border. there are sexes that are considered secure and less secure. it's a good example. if you look at there's a five-mile stretch in san diego. my recent post as the chief of san diego that five miles between port of entry and the old time mesa port of entry. you may have visited it in one of the recent border tours. that's what we need the whole southwest boarder to look like. there within the five mile stretch they put over the years single fence. we all-weather roads. on top of that secondary fence we have razor wire across that. we have integrated fixed tower and border patrol agents routinely dpe employer that. very little people cross that section of the border. if you look over the last ten
years of the predominance in tunneling activity along the southwest border, that area is most exploited. >> thank you. i'm looking for what port of the border is unsecure? you mentioned that it's -- part is secure and the other part is unsecure. now you are saying back pedaling it's not as secure. it's either secure or not secure. that's an interesting point, sir. when you look at security, it's not an either/or proposition. it's the state of the border in a particular time. any section of the board we say is secure is potentially continuing to be exploited. >> yeah. you said part of the border is less secure. >> that's correct. >> okay. so you're saying at stern times all of the border is unsecure and sometimes it is secure? i'm confused.
>> i would like to help you fix the border and make sure it's secure 100% of the time. but you're telling me part of the border is not secure. what geographickial area, whatever one particular area. i would qualify right now is we have less security in that particular area than we do in other part of arizona. >> do you have a map? can you get a map. >> i can get a map. i'm an old soldier. you know, and my perimeter is going to be secure. when i go to sleep at night, i want to know that i've got people out there to protect my perimeter. i understand sir. >> americans want to know go to sleep at night knowing the perimeter is secure. i want to know, like a soldier, what part is the weakest. what is the strongest? what can we do to fix it.
we are supposed to turn them to hhs. we contact them saying we have a juvenile in co i did. where do we take them? we have to deliver that unaccompanied juvenile to them so they can place them in a facility comparable to a juvenile. any officer were doing so many escort of the juvenile, there are bumping up against the overtime cap. so the cost is the same for an officer to go to san antonio to detroit to drop off a juvenile with health and human services and fly back to san antonio is a fixed cost. since we are bouncing up against the can since we are asking other officers do have officer fly down san antonio pick uptake them detroit. it's a way to deal with the
budget and the mandate and the limit of overtime we can pay our officers. according to the blog, they are saying immigration agent are dropping them in sanctuaries. awaiting for am nebraskaty. >> that's not accurate. my officer turn them to health and human services. officer refewee resettle. they are contract with certain people that detain the juvenile and get l mm and food until he's get hearing from the immigration judge and get order removed. you would have to talk to them how they build that contract. who they contract with the house of juvenile. but that's totally taken out of context. >> okay. so the other question is why would you fly a juvenile or anybody from texas or arizona or new mexico to detroit to await trial or some kind of dispositions? >> because health and human services ran out of beds in
texas. they have contracts from because of the surge in rio grand valley, health and human services ran out of contract beds in texas. how here is health and human services tells us this is the availability taking care of the child. here is where you bring them. that's the hhs calling on contracts for bedding. >> okay. i want to get back to -- thank you, by the way. i toured elloy a holding facility, prison. what do you call if? >> detention facility. thank you. i understand you have so much bed space. >> we're funding for 34,000 beds. at elloy. >> no 1500 something. 150 about 1500. right. if the beds are filled, and all the beds are filled and you have
30 that you just caught where do they go? >> well, we actually had other 37,000 because they were over the budget because of our strong -- we have a portion didn't make sense. what we do is completely imrond budget as aliens come in to custody. we need to make a determination. is there somebody sitting in a bed that is a noncriminal, a nonmanned story case. maybe he has a child serving in the armed forces. can we take him and alternative form of detention, maybe an a.j. the bracelet, release them and make the bed available for the priority case. we save our bed for a priority case which are criminal aliens, those with a threat to national security and border crossers. we actually increase the beds in texas to make sure that we can detain recent borders crossings. i think it's important border control strategy.
so i've heard border patrol agents tell me that they get a me age saying beds are filled and they 0 don't respond to or make a real big effortturing all the 26 who maybe only capture three or four. is that accurate or? >> we have brought on a couple of thousand mored be in texas to deal with the influx. there are situations where somebody released to the custody. we release them every day like every jail. maybe we can't gate travel document. he's from a country, for instance somalia. maybe we can't gate travel document to somalia. we have a supreme court decision that said we can only detain someone to six month. if there is no significant likelihood of removal. we must release them as long as they're not danger to the community. as border patrol give them the edge we make a priority to
detain the alien. there are times unaccompanied juvenile we turn them to hhs or release them to our custody. if they claim fear, and they get their interview by cis and they find fear of claim positive, then that becomes eligible for bond. we release aliens all the time on bond if they meet bond set by the judge. it during the recent trip and some arizona news outlets are
increasing an indian national more than 1,000 since jan of this year crossing that state. what other countries are that coming from? >> the big majority right now, in order is guatemala. it's big as hon door rays. they have to interview them. the issue a travel document. they took 20 days the beds are backing up. what i did is issue instruction to start a pilot program with the agreement from the government we made equipment available for them.
in the last two weeks we remove over 5,000otm to the country to the pilot program. that got my bed level down. as far as the east indian in arizona, they can speak to that. it's my understanding they are actually surrounding themselves at port of entry claiming fear. the processes will contact cis. they aring an interview, and try to make the determination is that fear credible, if they make that determination, yes, he has a substantiated criminal fear returning to the homeland, that becomes eligible for release either on bond or supervisor release.
i'm unfamiliar with the are main began case. we get -- last year we released aliens over 150 countries. we see them from every country on the planet. >> okay. and they go before a judge. >> yeah. on mexican nationals we can -- otm. pretty quickly. before we can remove them to the homeland, they have to be interviewed by officials in other country to ascertain that yet they are in fact a citizens much guatemala.
have like an average? approximately around 7,000 or 8,000otm. >> otm so the rest are? >> citizens of mexico. >> and 80% show up for the -- >> it will be released could be an officer doing the a bed check at the residence. we have 80% -- those released on alternative of detention. >> that leaves 20% didn't appear. >> yes, sir. >> how many people is that? approximately? well, it's hard give, i can tell you that's what we -- 10,000?
, i mean, you talk 400,000 people you process? yeah, actually we had an intake of 475,000 last year. we remove 410,000. some were find their case. we have some case to an immigration court and they get a final the board of immigration apeople and go further once more to the circuit court. we have at love aliens with final order sit in the beds that we can remove because they have appeals pending. they have 400,000 plus. 20% is simple matt is 80,000 people never show up. our current operation backlog, people order removed and fled we have not been removed is 462,000. >> 462,000 and the news report or media reports 11 million illegal in this country.
somebody told me it's closer to 20 million somebody else 30 million. >> 11 million figure that's why i think -- it's smart and effect i have enforcement that knowing question remove 400,000 aliens, you know, that's with a we're staffed for and budgeted for. 400,000, i think a smart way to do that is going to be the first 400,000 we encounter, the first 400,000 in the door, i think our policy that focusing on the criminal alien those are the threat to national security, i like to think we can decide how the 400,000 are going to be. the more criminals they are, the safer our communities are. our policy is clear. let us decide bhot 400,000 is going to be. let make as many of them as community safety factors as possible. that makes the community safer. 225,000 criminal aliens remove last year. that's a significant impact on community safety.
not even to mention recidivism rate around 20%. >> 225 that's half of the 400 -- >> 55%. >> if you look at the 410,000, 96% fell to the priority either 55% criminal alien, and the rest of them 96% either fugitive. those ordered removed and reentered which makes reentry or recent border entrance. it remains a main priority for us. we need to secure the border. >> and a second illegal entry is a felony. if they have been ordered removed formally by an immigration judge and catch them they can be prosecuted for a felony. reentrance after deor itation. >> do you agree with other law enforcement professionals who are concerned that the rise in otm or correlate in the rise of smuggle operation coming out of mexico? >> i think the rise in the otm
apprehensions are a vast majority being smalled by the organizations operating out of mexico. thank you. >> i have -- let see one last question. -- yes. thank you. when i was at elloy they gave mae daily report. i think it had a sheet of paper with the countries, i guess in the world; right? and little space next to. pane every day somebody would fit out the report and write the number being held at the facility in that little space on the sheet of paper. is that a daily report? i'm unfamiliar with that. that might be something he does. we track every alien in custody. how long they have been in custody. >> what concern me, i saw the people, you know, they were --
which all the country what were represented in that facility. and knowing that from what i have seen, we adopt capture 100%. we don't. the one thing that bothered me the most was there was a number one next to the country afghanistan. to describe the app ration and secure the u.s. borders. what do you view as a biggest
threat to the security of the borders, mr. fisher, we'll go down the line. >> certainly the biggest threat, i would describe it would be those individuals that seek wake up thinking about doing harm to the country. that's the number one threat and the strag strait gi looks to target. >> what does it mean? i'm sorry sir, well, we had to do evaluate threat along the border and what the threat is. what do you think the biggest risk is? and how are we responding to that? to give you an example i -- there was one person there from afghanistan. and right now we are fighting a war in afghanistan. common sense. why is somebody from afghanistan sneaking to our country and trying to. they are being held in elloy prison at the time. and then i hear 11 million illegal.
and -- you yourself said the border is not secure. if somebody wants to do us harm is going exploit our weaknesses and weak point in the border. it's my job as the congressman to protect this country number one priority in the constitution. and you're telling me our border is not secure. and i would like to know what you think the big e threat to the security of our border is. and what risk, what, you know, can you give me a personality age? >> first, congressman, i share the same responsibility as you as a chief of the united border patrol. and i along with the other agencies took the same mode to defend the constitutions against all enemy foreign and domestic, the framework and the strategy we implemented over the last couple of years. specifically the threat that is still, as you mentioned, keeps me up as well. the individual's potential terrorist that are seeking step try to the country. and may do so between the port
of entry. we build strategy and try to identify the requirement to minimize the likelihood that those individuals if they are inclined to get to the country in that manner were able to detect and apprehend them when they do so. if you look at threats as vulnerability as established geographically i can't give you certain segment of miles and percentage. i can give another example outside the west desert in arizona, a place like south texas where the border is separated by the rio grande valley in areas where we don't have a lot of detection capable. we don't have impediment in other place like 12-15 foot fences right now we see the vast majority of individuals seen the entry are those areas.
we know what is come freeing a cargo. we get that information in advance at a land port of entry and seaport we are the rpm. but i believe that is where we have really deponent most work as far as identifying that threat ahead of time. we debated boarding to 2400 people in 2012. these are potentially high-risk individuals that could have come to the country to do harm. >> 100% border security. we don't have it. and one from afghanistan comes in. that's all it takes. >> thank you, sir. i carried a page and gun for 29 years. i think it's -- i care about the security of this country, and i think it's my job to protect the security of this country and security of our community. i think the biggest threat is
those who want to come to the country to do harm. two different fashions of terrorism which the other side of the house hsi they think a priority division we are working on is investigate of an national security nature. but i think also important is safety of the community for those that come here want to commit crimes not only enter the country illegally but commit a crime against the citizen in the country. i've been doing for a long time. there was time when a street agent we would arrest alien. they are near in violation of the law. i'm enforcing immigration law. at the end the day what impact did it make? at the same time i'm arresting a person here illegally but hasn't committed another crime. there's a child predator walk out of state prison. the administration and i truly believe this, has done a lot for community safety by deploying secure communities across the country. we have referred to a presence in every yale. when an alien gets arrested and
fingerprinted. we will find out. we can take action and remove move them from the company. the strategy i.c.e. built on prioritizing what we do on national security threat and aliens that are threat to public safety we are built to remove 400,000 people. let's make it count. i think what we're doing now makes sense. i've been doing it 29 years i think we're in a better spot than years. >> thank you very much. mrs. gambler? >> the border patrol has identity throat board and from illegal migration. the border patrol is working on developing some risk assessment tool to help us assess what the risks are and help inform the identification of resources. and that is in process right now. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank all of
our,s for taking time out of mare busy schedule to appear before us today. the committee stands adjourned. [inaudible conversations] before the july 4th recess the senate passed an immigration bill 68-32 that including and amendment sponsored by the bob corker of tennessee. that doubles the number of border patrol agent and adds more than 700 miles of u.s. america fencing. lawmakers will begin crafting a strategy to consider the own immigration bill on the house floor. for legislative work and follow
the senate on c-span two and the house on c-span. an update on protest in egypt citizen today flooding the street of cairo as the military deadline noon eastern for the president to step down has come and gone. egypt's military has suspended the country's newly drafted constitution and called for early election. they have also announced that president morsi will be replaced. in fact this afternoon the associated press reporting an aid to morsi said he's been moved to an undisclosed location .
so a mother expwroans magazine analysis of 62 mass shootings looking at the record and -- you suggested that most mass shootings involve some jared lee loughner, adam lanza, there was significant record of mental illness in a number of those shootings. but when we think about everyday shooting, everyday gun crimes, we see that people who are have serious mental illness tend commit crimes at the lower rate than the overall population has a serious mental illness.
they're responsible for a lower portion of crime than their portion of the population. and like wise, when you look at crimes with weapons, which most times will mean guns, again, a crime committed by people who are mentally ill is underrepresented. and you know what -- i think it's worth pausing for a moment to think about how does it fit in. how does the u.s. fit in to this picture of everyday shootings? we may not have a gun crime problem that the mental illness component is exceptional. the done crime problem in the u.s. is exceptional. we're not a uniquely criminal society. we're not a uniquely violent society. but we are a uniquely deadly society. the level of homicide in the u.s. is specially unusual when
you compare it to similar countries. so we have a level of homicide that is seven times higher, roughly, than comparable countries and firearm homicide, which is 72% of homicides in the u.s. involved firearms, which is way, way higher. so we have a big -- an exceptional and strange gun crime problem, but when we think about the everyday shootings, mental illness doesn't seem to be deeply involved in it. you can watch the entire event hosted by stanford university center for ethics and society tonight at 10:30 eastern on c-span. over on c-span 3 watch american history tv in prime time tonight as we continue to mark the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg. by touring the battle field monuments, followed by a conversation on pickets charge. later at 9:40 p.m. perspectives
on the american revolution with u.s. that value war college professor. american history tv tonight in prime time starting at 8:00 eastern on c-span 3. we can see the sea of humanity coming from union station. we knew it was going to be big. we were supposed to be leading them. people were already marching. it was like saying, there go my people, let me catch up with them. [laughter] and this sea the humanity pushed us, pushed us so there's march on. and start moving toward the washington monument. toward the lincoln memorial. it was a wonderful period, i think, in american history. fourth of july on c-span at
2:20 p.m. eastern congressman john lose shares his experience on the march of washington fifty years later. and 4:45 some of the places we visited and some of the historians we spoke with during the first season in the series in first lady. a little after 7:00 pulitzer prize winning authors -- bill clinton and new jersey governor discuss proactive steps against natural disaster. at 8:45 a panel talking about what it is to be a modern day american citizen.
to moderate the session with the federal reserve governor jeer any sign. it's part of the cfr peter series at international economic. and begin again, i remind you it's on the record. a brief bio on the speaker. i have known him for years, and he, of course, has been a member of the federal reserve board since may of 2012. prior to that, he was a professor of economics and finance at harvard university since 2002. also, a senior adviser to the secretary of treasury and the national economic council in 2009 in the obama administration. he has had many recognitions in the career. he's widely regard as if not the
leading scholar in the intersection between finance president -- negotiation. i'll turn it over to governor seen. we'll have time for question and answer. thank you. [applause] thank you. thank you, rich, thank you very much. well it's a pleasure for me to be here at the council. i look forward to our conversation. just to get things doing, i thought i would start with brief remarking on the current state of monetary policy. as you guys know all too well. we had our meeting last week. we opted to keep our asset. purchases going at the current rate of 85 billion a month. there's been a lot of discussion about recent changes in our communication both in the statement, chairman bernanke's
press conference that followed the meeting. i'm speaking for myself and not, you know, my views not necessarily shared by anybody else. so i think it's useful to take a step back and start off by talking about the design and conception of the round of asset purchases. and two features in particular are a note. the first is, you know, design to be flow-based and state contingent. we intended from the beginning to continue doing asset purchases until the labor market improves substantially in a context of price stability. the second, and this is sort of key, in contrast to the guidance we have been given with the federal funds rate, we choose at the outset of the program not put a concrete articulation on what substantial improvement meant. ..
sense with the mid-range of the forecast made by the fomc members to read now that forecast at a fixed point in time, it has gone down about half a percent. so why there has clearly been some progress. is difficult to do the attribution, but my own belief is that our policy has at least played some supportive role in generating that improvement. wanting a point to is that some of the clear progress has been in areas that are typically responsive to monetary accommodation, housing market, auto, and so forth. asset purchases also bring with them various risks. i have been particularly concerned about the risk related to financial stability, but it has been met. the fact we've made progress in some sense has brought to the four communications issues because clearly the further down the road you get, you know, you
get closer to the and in some sense. market participants need to know what will have a stronger demand to know the conditions that will lead you to wrap up the program. that is the context in which i think the current messaging should be interpreted. in particular i view the remarks of the press conference in which he suggested that the economy progresses and essentially as we anticipate asset purchases might be expected to wrap up when unemployment falls to something like 7 percent. that is an effort to get more specificity around the sort of here to for less well-defined mission of substantial progress. now, it is important to stress that this added clarity is not a statement of unconditional optimism, nor does it represent a departure from the dated dependent philosophy of the program. rather, involving a subtler changes mandated dependences implemented, that is to say,
rather than just saying substantial progress is a greater willingness to -- we will notice it. i think that's a very natural revolution. as we make progress toward our objectives the balance of the trade of this going to shift from wanting to maintain flexibility is a closer, you know, we have less balance sheet and 70 essentially about how long it will take, how much we will have to accumulate to get to a given and point them we did back in september. so the balance sheets of uncertainty becomes more manageable. the same time the market's demand for specificity goes up. so, in addition to guidance about the ultimate completion of the program, market participants are also interested to know were eager to know about the conditions that will govern in german adjustments. here to it makes sense for the decisions to be dated dependent, but something would like to stress is that when we approached -- as we approach an
fomc meeting weren't just a decision against it is appropriate to give relatively heavy weight to the accumulated progress that we have made and to not be to excess of the sensitive to these sorts of near-term momentum captured by the last payroll number that comes in before a particular meeting. now, in part, this just reflects good statistical input. that is to say, you don't want to put too much weight on one or two noisy observations, but there is more to it than that. not only do our actions shape market expectations. the converse is true as well. market expectations influence fomc action. so it is difficult for the committee to take an action at a meeting if that action is highly anticipated and we don't want to create a lot of market volatility. but once you recognize there is to weigh feedback between financial conditions and fomc actions an initial perception that noisy data plays a central
role in the policy process as a potential element of becoming somewhat self-fulfilling. so, -- and it can be a source of volatility and asset prices. in an effort to make reliable judgments about the state of the economy as well as the reducing possibility of adverse feedback loop, the best approach is for the committee, to be clear on the proposition that when we make a decision in september we will give primary way to to the accumulated stock of news that has come in since the inception of the program and to not be unduly influenced by whatever data will be coming in the weeks before the meeting. now, let me emphasize, that does not necessarily mean that we are going to abandon -- it does not mean that we will abandon the premise of the program as a whole. so, for example, even if a data release comes in in september and it does not overly colored
the decision to make the adjustment in september, that data remains valid for the remainder of the program. you know, the revision substantiated, the further data in october and november substantiated, since we have been some sense of fixed and. cool, if the news is we would tend to go further -- the program would be extended further even if an adjustment is made based upon the data. so i think the principle of articulating through where we're going in many ways takes a lot of the heat out of the exact pace. there we go. takes a lot of heat out of the exact pace of when we do it. this is in some sense clarity we're trying to provide to the market. a better sense of where we're going, execs speed at which we are driving when we pass chicago becomes a little bit less important. so, and some, i think there is basically the following key
principles for effective communication. first, it is central for us to reaffirm the idea that the program is effectively dated dependent. second, as the chairman has tried to do, give more clarity and the type of data that will determine the end point of the program. third, when we make interim adjustments, as we will, the interim adjustments should be made primarily on the basis of accumulating progress toward our goal and should not overemphasize the most recent momentous data. so, that is about asset purchases. with respect to the federal funds rate, there we have had explicit -- we have explicit guidance in place since september. that explicit guidance stance. we have reaffirmed it in number of members have come out and basically reaffirmed that in recent days. we have that six and a half threshold. that is when we will first begin to consider an increase in the
federal fund rate. and, as the chairman emphasized, that gives us further flexibility in terms of reacting to the incoming data. for a example, if it continues to be softer than we anticipated would be very natural for us to extend and no longer -- we will be dealing with effectively optimal at that point in time by extending the duration of time in which we keep the federal funds rate very low. now, of course there are limits to what you can do, even with the communication in terms of market volatility. i think the best that the fomc can do basically is to help market participants understand how we're going to make decisions the about the policy fundamentals that the fomc controls, that is to say, the path of the shore rate and the toe stop of assets that we're going to purchase. now, you know, a perspective
that is useful to keep in mind and is sort of really what occurs in academic finance, if you look at variability in asset class, nba stock prices, long-term bonds, you can really only explain a relatively small fraction of that variability by appealing to changes in fundamentals. this is robert schiller many years ago showing you again on the spine of a small fraction of the variability in stock prices by changes in dividends, changes in earnings. a similar thing holds true for long-term bond prices as of. the bulk of the variation comes from the finance folks called the discount rate which is sisley a fancy way of saying something we understand as well. >> in other words, it could be changes in investor sentiment, risk aversion, levering it, delivering, people getting offsides and having to sell the market dynamics broadly speaking. that is just a general statement. but it sort of reminds you, i
think, and often doesn't make sense when faced with a large crisis, crisis, it does not make sense to have a temptation to say, i can explain that based on a particular set of fundamentals in other words, to say, the prices move a lot, what is the change in expectations about the pat the policy, not necessarily sort of the right with think about it. well it may seem like a very significant increase, i think it is a mistake to infer from those movements that there must have been essentially an equivalent rebates change in policy fundamentals. you know, just to be specific, nothing we have set suggests a change in direction function for the path of a short-term policy rate. we have been very explicit as that bumps of. and with respect to the asset purchase program, if you think about the specificity that we have put around it, the clarity we have put around it to my own personal reading of it is a put is very close to where market
expectations were before. really get these primary dealer surveys and others. a program that under sort of the scenario we are envisioning wrapping up something in the neighborhood of the 7 percent unemployment rate seems very much in line with the target expectations. again, i would not try to back out from the market moves. there had been a substantial change a policy. the same time, i don't mean to suggest that the market movements are inconsequential or should be dismissed as noise. i think they teach us a lot about the dynamics of the market and our communication policy in tracks with that. the only point i'm making is that businesses and consumers a looking to market prices for clues about the stance of monetary policy. they should take care not to over interpret the market move. so, you know, we have attempted in recent weeks to provide more clarity about the nature of our reaction function, but i just want to stress to my view the
and alive fundamentals of the policy stance is being broadly -- >> thank you very much. look forward to the conversation. [applause] >> okay. well, thank you. covered a lot of ground. i definitely want to give our audience plenty of time to ask you questions. i think i will focus on two or three points at the outset. one of the things that you mentioned right toward the end of your opening remarks is that the reaction in markets provides you with information that you were learning about one thing that occurred to me, there has been a big discussion in academia. the stock verses float a fact. so has the market reaction
taught you or the fomc in any information about the stock verses flow argument? >> that is an interesting question and you hear this all the time flow matters more than stock. i think that that is certainly right. i think that is certainly right. that is the idea that it matters to some extent. rover has a little bit more truth. in the current statement, when i hear flow i am not thinking narrowly just of the flows of our purchases, but flows related to, you know, redemptions from open-end funds, things like that. that is probably more because it is hard to say -- it would be hard to say, well, we had a surprise. it was not a surprise about stock, but another thing that there was a big surprise about either really the stock or the flow. so there is something going on that is not the stock or flow of our stock. could be flow related, but i
would be more inclined to think of as market flow related. >> data it. you mentioned, as did the chairman last week, the 7% guidance which was the first time that the fed had given us a number for substantial improvement in the labour market . the chairman spend less time last week talking about inflation. of course, as you know, inflation is running well below 2 percent now. so is that conveying any information about your or the board's thinking about the ways that those two are receiving right now? >> i think inflation is obviously essential to what we do, central to our mandate. i will say something about the inflation forecast. you know, the thing to maybe stress more so that our forecast for anybody else's, again, the central data dependence of everything we do, both in terms
of the asset purchases and as well as the for guidance. i think that the chairman emphasized this in his press conference. maybe not quite as much play. for a sample, we think inflation is slightly -- likely to mean at least some -- could be wrong. could be wrong. if that turns out to be wrong that is central to everything we do. the likelihood that se the fundd six and a half is going to be much lower if inflation is something. >> and you mentioned that. yeah. >> one of the things that i have admired, for those of you on the website, he is given number of speeches, three in the last several months that are really excellent overviews of some of the issues that fred faces as he thinks about the new policy in markets. there are those who interpret the chairman's comments and the
board's decision last week as being, in part, i influenced by your work in terms of rowdiness or potential access appearing in markets. would you like to discuss that? to the extent that that was a factor? >> i would be happy to discuss my stock, but let's just focus. a decision that was made, the most recent meeting was really first, foremost, and almost entirely a decision about clarity. as i said, don't think it was an effort to change the stance of monetary policy. but.
in no world where there is no clear in clinton we are seeing substantial progress and people are -- different people have different views of what that means, i think as you start running up to a meeting you have sort of speculative dynamics. maybe not the most productive thing in the world. many market participants are thinking, what exactly is the fed looking at? well, maybe the latest job market. maybe they're looking for a number like 200,000. maybe that is not how we are thinking about it, maybe that is of the market's thinking about it. the number is not 200,000 it's hundred and 70,000. there is no way the fed will do anything at this meeting. at least -- we're not a prisoner of the market, but is circumscribes a little bit of flexibility. very strong market presumption that you won't help. once you have pinned down -- not pinned down, but once you have articulated the end point a little bit better it takes the heat off of any particular meeting. of course we did not ask in september or did not act in december. the market was in some sense
free to draw their conjecture. three more months laundered the program goes on. x number of billion dollars in increased asset purchases. now it seems more like a decision to do it now verses later, but the total skills of the program has a tighter connection to economic fundamentals. i think there is a desire to sort of minimize, reduce speculative stuff that is around, you know, -- >> one point which may sound a bit technical, but i think it is relevant here. i think it was december of 2012 when the six and a half, six 1/4 threshold was introduced. that was -- that actually appeared in the fomc statement. in this context, the 7% number appeared not in a statement, but in the chairman's press conference. should we infer anything from
that? >> well, i think the one thing you should infer very clearly, it reflects in some sense the extent to which the fomc was thinking about this. there really is a change in policy. we were thinking of the same central policy is before. we were trying to clarify a little bit with the substantial improvement. the press conferences and natural preserve the natural first menu with a chairman can explain. as he said, it's a little delicate because i don't think we want to be having the 7% north hurt as a formula. think the word he used was indicative. or trying to be a little bit -- on the one and provide more clarity, but not be -- here is the equation. 7 percent unemployment / the square root of labour force but dissipation right. it is indicative of the sort of labor market conditions you might want to have. that means that other things will be in line. not 7 percent on the back of very weak labor force participation or weak gdp grew
up as something like that. giving him the opportunity to put a little bit of color around it seemed like a sensible way to proceed. >> one more question for me in and i will let our audience as the questions. there are different flavors of fed guidance. and this summer of 2011, the fed introduced the notion of what has been called the calendar date guidance. of course, going back to the greenspan version of that, considerable. any thinking on your part or the fomc about the relative advantages or disadvantages of calendar date catton's verses what you have laid out here very clearly today? the macro threshold. >> i think we learned basically -- calendar guidance was a natural first place. it is extremely clear. communicates easily. it's unconditional. but i think that we learned as
we were going, some of the limitations. because it is unconditional how strong can you say, we're going to go to the end of 2014 when obviously it has to depend on -- so if you want to altman to put a little bit more force behind the statement, it has to be dated a pendant in some way. it's impossible. the trade-off for have been playing with. impossible to summarize the state of the labour market exactly by any particular number but i think the evolution in our thinking has been, it's better to attempt to build some contingency rather than to have a flat rate. just to be very clear, you know, when the chairman spoke you said something like, we might reach the 7 percent mark in the middle of 2014. but he is not putting a date on it. he's not saying we will buy and sell. he is saying if the date is dependent thing works out, hit the median of the forecast, that might be where it was up. think we have become very
sensitized to the limits of putting a fixed calendar date. >> okay. i think it is now time for questions from the audience. i see mr. fisher. >> hello. good morning. peter fischer black rock. an observation and a question. both this morning and chairman bernanke, you're actually played with the language a little bit. the committee has always spoken about the outlook for the labor market improving substantially which would refer to the committee's forecast. the committee's forecast for the labor market has improved dramatically from last september, as you alluded to. and so, they shift to the 7% number or something like that has actually moved from a forecast that is the committee's and long-range to a point in time, point number. and that just sort of leave that for you as a backdrop to ask you , putting aside whether it is a calendar based database, is for guidance here to say in central banking? are we ever going to go back to central bankers commenting about
the state of the world that they see in front of them and doing whatever they do today? or is for guidance commenting on something about time horizons and data in the future going to be with us or we ever going to exit from for guidance? >> that is a very good question. the only thing i would try time back a little bit is transparency, if the transparency aspects verses the how far for an aspect. so i think and i very much held that the transparency aspects is with us to stay. some aspects of for guidance were clearly designed to deal with the zero lower balance. in other words, you know, we cannot lower the current fund rate. you wanted to an accommodation in which to do that is to talk about what will happen a year or two years hence. i think as we move away there is an element. it is pretty clear that the threshold, you know, is in some sense an effort by the committee to commit itself.
as we move away from that zero lower bound, i think the imperative for transparency is still there. the idea the you're always in some sense going to be saying, here is where the funds rate or suggesting here is where the funds rate will be to your sense, that seems to be less obviously an optimal thing to do when you have room to maneuver on both sides. the uncertainty is more to cited so that part, i think, as the committee has been clear, has been an attempt to deal with the special problems that arise. >> thank you. i like your comments on the interpretation. the forecasted be on the short-term rate of interest and a 2%, fomc forecast. and no long-term relay of interest at 3 percent. is it possible that of a sudden
the markets realized after the events of may that eventually we need to reset and that explains the market's reaction? at the end of the day. at the beginning of macon and was around 40 basis points. eventually will have to reach 300 basis points on the 30-year. >> right. i mean, you can -- this is not something that is a challenge to write. which is that that is probably a reasonable statement about eventually. we understand less well why the change happened when it happened . so in some sense it is easier to say, oh, yeah, this is where the fundamentals should be. but i think as i was trying to stress before, what is hard to explain based upon fundamentals, gosar to spend best on fundamentals as the size of the change, not the level, but the size of the change relative to the amount of news that was -- news about the path the policy. and i would submit based upon my own understanding that the news
that was released about the path of policy was small essentially. basically reaffirms the policy. prices chased a lot, why they changed a lot now, you know, maybe people converged around a new thing. maybe there was something having to do with clothes and so forth. but i think it is not a sufficient explanation of it to just say eventually. if you want to understand the dynamics. eventually the rest will have to wind up. >> pleased to introduce yourself. >> joyce chang from j.p. morgan. thank you for your comments. was wondering what your thinking is on what the fed has done on the interest of financial regulatory reform, conditions and market dynamics and how you were viewing says the implications for the current market conditions and what longer term implications are. >> well, there has been a lot of -- you know, there is a lot of
aspects regulatory reform. a lot of work. for example, one of the things that has been given a lot of attention is with respect to the liquidity regulation, you know, what that will do to the supply of security, what that will do to, you know, premiums, t-bills and things like that. so we have quantitative impact studies. i mean, you are asking, i guess, about, you know, the kind of thing we hear about some touch of petitions which has to do with liquidity in the market and whether flows have a bigger effect on market prices because of liquidity in the market. it is true. it seems to be true that zero balance sheets are smaller than they were before the financial crisis. it is hard for me at this point to do any attribution of that to the regulatory stuff. it may well be. i have not seen any data it really makes it a tight connection. but, i mean, at something where clearly paying a lot of attention to, there is a
regulatory effecter something else. >> jim. >> thank you. >> good morning. james grant of grant's interest rate observer. can you help us understand the economic differences, not the legal one, the economic distinction between the private manipulation on one hand and the public manipulation of markets, doing business as qe twist and portfolio balance channels, whatever happened to the price mechanism? >> it's a hard question for me to answer because i don't see the connection between these two whatsoever. i mean, obviously it is a set of criminal or near criminal activity, which is a very substantial policy concern. a lot of effort is going to go into trying to us both reformate itself, look at other benchmarks , see if there are more resilient.
that is all set of issues. to be frank and i just don't see the connection. >> let's see. >> thank you. my name is jeffrey rosen. first of all, an observation. you speak with remarkable clarity for an economist. i guess because you -- >> adelle have to take that. tsk. >> that's a compliment. the question is this. you talk about the employment rate, the unemployment rate as being an important datapoint in policy formulation. but unemployment rate is essentially to cover the employment rate has two components, onion rear-ended denominator. a lot of commentary at the construct of the denominator and the concern that frequently it does not adequately take into account the number of people who dropped out of the labor force. i am curious if it's another way of saying a 7 percent unemployment rate in one economy
may be very different than a 7 percent unemployment rate in another economy. how do you take that into account in thinking about the policy formulation? >> that's a great question. let me preface by saying, the chairman in this press conference talked about 7% as an indicative gold. i think it is indicative in some sense for is a source of reasons, on the one hand, we would like to have some ability have some specificity. to do that you have to pick a number, even if -- it will be hard to have a formula that involves an unemployment rate. so it's a desired have some specificity, and maybe the unemployment rate is about as good as any single number we come up with, but we absolutely recognize that it is not a perfect summary statistic. the reason it is an indicative goal is, i think, the spirit behind it is really very much tied up of what you said which is, you know, if it is 7 percent unemployment rate, in some sense of the type that you would expect a secede with a substantial improvements in the
labour market, that's kind of all were looking for. if it's 7 percent that it's there because of an aberrant move in the labor force participation rate, that's all we're looking for. it's an attempt to provide clarity. >> right there. >> is the committee ever measured how good it is at forecasting economic activity and inflation. >> i am not sure. i am aware. i will take it guests. i think beyond a certain horizon be on the server horizon my
guess is that the fed, as talented as they are properly does not in a meaningful way out forecast and other collections a private forecast. but, of course, that -- the awareness of that limitation is the central thing to the way we think of politics which is why we do things in a data dependent way. we have to make a forecast. a central dependency and think about what's your doing, but you recognize that the staff is unbelievably good about showing us a large standard error band around these forecasts when they make them. that is -- we talked about why we move away from calendar gadsden towards, gated -- is an appreciation you get into the sdp, sort of, we all have to do this. an exercise in humbling the government. we each have to write down a forecast a record in this the hell wrong we are going forward. but, you know, we understand
that problem and that is the reason we are sort of trying to be dated dependent. >> credit suisse. good morning. governor, you have spoken a lot recently about the financial stability and wanted to ask a couple of questions about how we're driving and whether we past chicago and that department. two questions. one is, you said we have been making good progress. we are not satisfied yet. what things will make you satisfied? and a follow-on question, how important is that to you in the broader picture of financial stability, and are there other top of the list priory reforms for financial stability beyond too big to fail? >> so, on too big to fail, my view is, is twofold. on the one and that think we made very meaningful progress. in fact, i think we just made public the fact we're going to have an open board meeting next week to talk about the final
rule. so if he think about that collection of things that have been done in terms of increased capital, sort of the chief did surcharge, stress testing, all of that. that is really quite meaningful stuff. you know better than i do, terms of the capitol position, the largest financial restitution is . you know, resolution work. the idea of making large institutions resolvable under title to is another very important thing. we in conjunction with the fdic have been working around thinking about having a senior debt requirement that will facilitate all that. so i want to be mindful and appreciative. i think it's very substantial progress has been made. the same time, around you, i would not characterize myself, we are finished we should be
satisfied with where we are. think there is potential of of further road to go on margins. and part of this is because people talk about that too big to fail subsidy. you see these numbers turnaround . at the bloomberg and number, 83 billion. i think that is part of the debate. i think it may be getting more attention than it should. even if there was no to big to fail subsidy and we completely committed absolutely as we will and should that the government will not bella institution. so the problem that the failure of a large financial restitution has estimate spillovers and consequences for the rest of the financial system, and i think we want to get to a place where we feel like capital and the other stuff that goes with it is sufficient to basically attenuate the systemic spillovers. i have said, and i know the governor has said on occasion, we should at least be open to as
we get all this stuff that we talk about gun, open to considering doing more. maybe that would take the form of some kind of capital surcharge. that should at least be on the table. we should not be in a mode that we are done and we should be complacent. but, you know, what happens aside from all of that, you make a great point which is you get a little too focused on just the largest institutions. if we put enough capital into resolutions and get the situation with the largest institutions essentially in good shape, of very important part of the crisis had to do with problems associated with its short-term funding anywhere in the system. even if we totally stabilized of a large institutions, there can be essentially anywhere you have a liquid security there really -- very heavily levered against short-term funds, all the issues that go along with repo funding,
you know, the liquid position, some of that stuff lives in the firms, but it transcends. i think a second very important round of work that we have to do will move to center stage as we progress on the biggest institutions is going to be dealing with short-term wholesale funding in a kind of comprehensive and coherent way as opposed to just where it resides in the biggest institutions. i think that is something that you have given us a blueprint, the next year's. >> next question. right there. >> nancy true, true enterprises. i am not an economist, so i may have missed something somewhere, but your remarks have been positive. that is the way we're headed, but i don't see where the growth will come from? china is not doing well. brazil is not doing well. europe is not doing well. we have ted start products.
>> i will give you my own take. again, the caveat that i have not made a number of times. we may be too optimistic. you may be right, in which case the policy will be dated dependent. the growth does not come the asset purchases will go on moderate. if i had to tell you a story white things will be better or at least somewhat better going forward, you know, we have had now we're averaging around 2 percent growth. a lot of the headwinds of europe and others have dissipated, but we are running pretty strongly, strong fiscal restraint this year. so between the, you know, changes that were made at the beginning of the year with the phase-out of the bush tax cuts and the sequestered, on the order of one-and-a-half percent of gdp, head wind coming from tax. so the fact that we have 2 percent growth begins that had wind and the fact that we pretty
much know that the head when will dissipate over the coming year suggests that you use some additive adjustment. and you see the underlying strength, the private sector trying to push forward. the market is clearly stronger than it was a year ago. to some extent its internal. you know, some of the external stuff. we may not. we may disappoint. we may disappoint. >> elizabeth bramwell, retired portfolio manager. i was wondering if you could explain how asset purchases can help the small business?
i live in a city, geographically made up of a small business. and they are dependent on actually saving more than going to a bank for a loan. so when interest rates are 0%, it's very hard to increase your savings. maybe we are destroying. >> clearly the effect of low interest rate, it is important to remember, of course, that people tend to wear many hats. many of the same people who are putting their money into a cd at the bank and therefore not earning a high interest-rate are also borrowing to buy a house, borrowing to buy a car, all of that kind of stuff. the basic code, as i said, the basic hope is that the stimulus is running through the sector.
and that builds a stronger economy in the demand. housing goes out. so all of the tertiary indices associated with housing. a lot of that is small business. not to say that there are some people who are not on the wrong side. , but if he looked at the totality of the economy, one would hope that for the most part you lifting of small business as well. >> i am going to invoke. as you mentioned, a distinguished academic career. what is ben is the biggest surprise? >> many, i may be under appreciative. maybe -- i underappreciated the
interdisciplinary. it kind of made me wish i had gone to law school and had spent several years on the trading floor. spend some time and politics. i came in. a lot of my research was on banking regulations as opposed to macroeconomics. we think about regulation not in theory but practice, it's both deeply legal and has tremendous amount of interest is in negotiation and international negotiations on all the stuff that is essentially rudimentary. and scrambling to come up the learning curve. a little bit surprised by how much i'm scrambling to come up the learning curve on that. that is one of many. >> on a related point, as a faculty member you obviously -- committees in your time. tell us about the dynamics of monetary policy by committee.
>> so one of my big successes was avoiding, while under the desk. nobody asks you about it. i really appreciate the process. i mean, you have to go into this with a view that individual people are going to have strong opinions about stuff. there is going to be some collective wisdom. i have been very impressed by that part of it. >> time for one more right there. and then we will finish bread on time. >> so, you have been, i guess, the leading discussion of financial access is as a cost to qe. and yesterday a colleague and his speech sort of highlighted that, you know, perhaps in early april levels and financial markets are beginning to debt
become a bit more constrained. but then not to penalize what was a great speech, within she gave fairly strong language guiding interest rates on the front-end. policy expectations. and to some extent to, you know, this notion is very appropriate. talking about volatility. trying to have it both ways with the markets. so sort of talking down the markets with regard to policy expectations, talking down the market with regard to volatility , but then sort of asking for a reasonable amount of risk premium to be introduced into things like emerging market for high-yield bonds. >> i will restate something has said a moment ago. and i sincerely believe might understanding of what we were trying to accomplish at this meeting was about kind of clarity.
trying to manipulate volatility to do something particular. so let me clarify a little bit. in spite of the fact that i have reasonably strong views about financial stability, meant to say what type of financing stability and when i believe is i do believe that in a general monetary policy framework when one thinks about monetary policy it belongs in the framework one should be thinking about the financial stability consequences so, abstract away from today, if i am thinking about whether i should raise our lower the funds rate defense's ability consequences in my view belonged in the decision. that is part of the mandate. we care about unemployment. we don't literally care about the means but variability. for example, lowering the funds rate was going to increase output but was going to create more variability, that belongs
in the decision. >> in general proposition. now take that analytical framework to today. maybe there is a trade-off. more accommodative policy is supple. obviously on the usual round, but it creates some financial stability risk for the market. you have to do the trade off. the point being, we are far from our objective on the unemployment rate on the labour market more generally. when you do the trade of which i believe you should always be doing but when you do it under today's conditions at the end the threat of sort of still comes down to one in which you want to end up being accommodative. we have the appropriate -- here is a way to say it. we would have been that-2. maybe if you are really concerned with financial stability you say it should not be-2. it should be-1. we will be at zero either way. so that is my -- i think you can simultaneously believe it is
important to think about this and a general framework and we should not get lazy and dismiss it because when we get closer to full employment the balance may tilt, but for the time being at think the policy was appropriately calibrated and that is why i think my own interpretation to is the goal this time around us to clarify the policy of those two and modulate it. >> okay. i think on that note we will conclude and stay right on time. thank you so much. [applause] [inaudible conversations] >> book tv en primetime continues tonight with personal reflections. beginning in 8:00 eastern, the interview with and romney on her book the romney family table sharing health good recipes and favorite traditions. at age 15, former secretary of state weighing in on a range of
issues from nuclear-weapons to the economy and energy development. issues on my mind. at 915 pulitzer prize winner alice walker and a collection of personal essays, letters, and poems. at 10:00 eastern former defense secretary donald rumsfeld discusses rumsfeld rules, lessons in business, politics, war, and life. book tv tonight in prime-time beginning at 8:00 eastern here on c-span2 to a tv network executives who have written in future articles on the impact of medicare and health care cost recently faced off in an hour-long debate on the topic. >> every business would like. my son just had an appendectomy. i got a bill from an independent contractor for the service of discharged from hospital. hospitals where is it had nothing to do with the bill. i have to pay this independent contractor. everyone in the auto business would love to do that, but we
cannot. no one can except in health care. why can't we? >> though. >> i can get to a different one. >> my television network, you would have seen ads for cancer centers. now, getting cancer is not a voluntary act. what has changed in health care, although we never talk about it is that most health care is now the result of a deliberate choice. >> causing cancer. >> it would hurt our business if they did. we would actually view it as a cure. [laughter] three out of four studies confirm it. [laughter] you know what, the reality is we talk about all health care the way we talk about a tire blowout on the highway. there's nothing you can do. we know people who have been through that. that is not the sad part.
where most of the money is being spent and where all of the wealth is is chronic condition management, long-term treatment of things such as cancer, and the various replacements. but it's all about a decision that a customer makes. we have managed for hundreds of years to be centrally controlled. but health care has changed. it is not what it was 50 years ago it was catastrophic. this is the biggest industry in the country and in the developed world. it is something we use all the time. the idea that because you might have a blot on the highway should govern the entire auto repair business to take care of that is absurd and particularly, if any of you ever had a car blow out he doesn't come out and say let me see your net worth statement. he documented how people do that they do it because they can get
away with it, not because of care is so inherently different. >> watch the entire debate hosted by the manhattan institute and moderated by former romney health care advisor paul howard tonight at 8:00 eastern. over on c-span2, watch american history tv in prime time tonight as we continue to mark the 150th anniversary of the battle of gettysburg by during the battle field monuments followed by a conversation on discharge. later at 940, perspectives on the american revolution with u.s. naval war college professor. american history tv tonight in prime-time starting at:00 eastern on c-span. >> we came out of those buildings. we can see a sea of humanity.
supposed to be leading them. there go my people. let me catch up with them. and this sea of humanity process. we just like don and saw -- serve moving toward the washington monument. it was a wonderful time for american history. >> this fourth of july at 2:20 p.m. eastern civil-rights pioneer congressman john lewis shares his experience on the march on washington 50 years later. at 445 some of the places we visited and the stories we'll spoken with during the first season of our series on first ladies, a little after seven to my display work and talk about coverage of world events. for president bill clinton and new jersey governor chris christie discuss the active steps against natural disaster.
at age 45 a panel talks about what it is to be a modern-day american citizen. house democratic whip spoke to students yesterday at the university of maryland about the issue of college affordability. on monday a measure freezing the interest rate on new federal subsidized student loans expired causing the rate on new laws to double from 34 to 68%. the u.s. senate is expected to take the measure next week to address the rate increase. from the university of maryland campus in college park this is an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for being here. the first thing add that we would do, i know you just introduce yourself.
hi. >> our you. >> the lady with the money. the advice on how to get the money. has been wonderful. season a great job. let me start by, some of you may know, i was a student at the university. naturally depending upon how later parents had you in their life. i started here in 1957, and i'm still alive. that is the good news. the news that will be hard to hear is that my first semester cost me $86 for 15 press.
isn't that incredible? and frankly college park, i did not start to concentrate and tell my second year here. same story. i did much better in high-school in any event you go and. if you had marilyn residency gunmen. and i came. i was a commuting students. this was just incredible. when i think of the costs that are confronting college students in america. and the state colleges, there were theoretically have opened so all and very affordable.
we still have state colleges open to all. very affordable. they have gotten a lot more expensive, not just relative to 50 years ago, but more expensive relative to even when i went to school. and it is very important that we keep college affordable not for you to read it is very important that we do so for america because you and you and you will make a difference for america. and if we did not make sure that the best and brightest can get into school and can afford school and, yes, i went into the public service as some of you know five months out of georgetown law school, graduated
three years after. it was a pretty good transition. very frankly -- and i practiced law. i did not carry a great debt. georgetown was more expensive. ito was called the national defense education act loan. i can remember -- none of you know where it is, but it is about half an hour from here, my neighborhood where lived. september of 1957. i was listening to my radio and a 1949 dodge coupe. the russians had launched a vehicle they call sputnik, and it was circling the globe. america was shocked. america was shocked that we were not first in space.
and dwight eisenhower, the republican president of the united states said that is not a simple. we need to make sure our young people can get in school, stay in school. that's why it's called defense education act. it was perceived to be part of our national security that we make sure young people could get in school. i went to law school because i was working as a file clerk. i was only taking a 11 or 12 crispers master. i was going to school and then going to work. the debate that is going on in washington today is about how we make courage affordable inaccessible to our best and brightest and make sure they don't graduate from school so
that they can't go into public-service or be teachers. cindy kelly school carrying 65, 75, 85, $95,000 debt load. .. this is what is going to happen to me. so i thank you for being here to discuss this with me a little bit. as you know, we are having a debate in washington as to how we structure the various loans that we