U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

99–957 PDF 2017

THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL 

LAND MANAGEMENT ALONG THE 

U.S. BORDER TO RURAL COMMUNITIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

OVERSIGHT HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND 

INVESTIGATIONS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

Thursday, April 28, 2016 

Serial No. 114–41 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Natural Resources 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov 

or 

Committee address: http://naturalresources.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES 

ROB BISHOP, UT, Chairman 

RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, AZ, Ranking Democratic Member 

Don Young, AK 

Louie Gohmert, TX 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Robert J. Wittman, VA 

John Fleming, LA 

Tom McClintock, CA 

Glenn Thompson, PA 

Cynthia M. Lummis, WY 

Dan Benishek, MI 

Jeff Duncan, SC 

Paul A. Gosar, AZ 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Doug LaMalfa, CA 

Jeff Denham, CA 

Paul Cook, CA 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Garret Graves, LA 

Dan Newhouse, WA 

Ryan K. Zinke, MT 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Thomas MacArthur, NJ 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Cresent Hardy, NV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Grace F. Napolitano, CA 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo, GU 

Jim Costa, CA 

Gregorio Kilili Camacho Sablan, CNMI 

Niki Tsongas, MA 

Pedro R. Pierluisi, PR 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Raul Ruiz, CA 

Alan S. Lowenthal, CA 

Matt Cartwright, PA 

Donald S. Beyer, Jr., VA 

Norma J. Torres, CA 

Debbie Dingell, MI 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Lois Capps, CA 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Jason Knox, Chief of Staff 

Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel 

David Watkins, Democratic Staff Director 

Sarah Lim, Democratic Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS 

LOUIE GOHMERT, TX, Chairman 

DEBBIE DINGELL, MI, Ranking Democratic Member 

Doug Lamborn, CO 

Rau ́l R. Labrador, ID 

Bruce Westerman, AR 

Jody B. Hice, GA 

Aumua Amata Coleman Radewagen, AS 

Alexander X. Mooney, WV 

Darin LaHood, IL 

Rob Bishop, UT, ex officio 

Jared Huffman, CA 

Ruben Gallego, AZ 

Jared Polis, CO 

Wm. Lacy Clay, MO 

Vacancy 

Rau ́l M. Grijalva, AZ, ex officio 

(III) 

CONTENTS 

Page 

Hearing held on Thursday, April 28, 2016 ............................................................ 1 

Statement of Members: 

Dingell, Hon. Debbie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Michigan ........................................................................................................ 4 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 5 

Gohmert, Hon. Louie, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas .............................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 3 

Grijalva, Hon. Rau ́l M., a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona ...................................................................................................... 6 

Statement of Witnesses: 

Andrew, Jon, Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, U.S. Department of 

the Interior, Washington, DC ...................................................................... 21 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 23 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 25 

Chilton, Sue, Chilton Ranch, Arivaca, Arizona .............................................. 8 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 10 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 13 

Elbrock, Tricia, Animas, New Mexico ............................................................. 16 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 18 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 20 

Pinkerton, LeAlan, Commissioner, Boundary County, Bonners Ferry, 

Idaho .............................................................................................................. 30 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 32 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 35 

Stockholm Walden, Nan, Vice President and Counsel, Farmers Investment Company and Green Valley Pecan Company, Sahuarita, Arizona . 37 

Prepared statement of ............................................................................... 38 

Questions submitted for the record ......................................................... 45 

Additional Materials Submitted for the Record: 

List of documents submitted for the record retained in the Committee’s 

official files .................................................................................................... 57 

(1) 

OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEDERAL LAND MANAGEMENT ALONG THE U.S. BORDER TO RURAL 

COMMUNITIES AND NATIONAL SECURITY 

Thursday, April 28, 2016 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 

Committee on Natural Resources 

Washington, DC 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:34 p.m., in room 

1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Louie Gohmert 

[Chairman of the Subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Gohmert, Labrador, Lamborn, 

Westerman, Hice, Radewagen, Mooney; Dingell, Gallego, Clay, and 

Grijalva. 

Also present: Representatives LaMalfa and Gosar. 

Mr. GOHMERT. The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations will come to order. The subcommittee is meeting today to 

hear the testimony of the consequences of Federal land management along the U.S. border to rural communities and national 

security. 

Under Committee Rule 4(f), any oral opening statements at hearings are limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Minority 

Member. Therefore, I ask unanimous consent that all other 

Members’ opening statements be made part of the record if they 

are submitted to the Subcommittee Clerk by 5:00 p.m. today. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. Hearing no objection, so ordered. I also ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gosar, when 

he arrives, be allowed to sit with the subcommittee and participate 

in the hearing. 

[No response.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. If there are no objections? 

Mrs. DINGELL. No objection. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Hearing no objection, that will be allowed. 

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Mr. GOHMERT. Today we have the opportunity to hear testimony 

from witnesses that must live with the consequences of Federal 

land management every day of their lives. While there certainly 

are benefits to living near responsibly managed Federal lands: easy 

access to recreation, economic boosts from tourism, and the opportunity to work the land to provide for a family; there are also drawbacks that, in recent years, have increasingly threatened the very 

2 

existence of our rural communities; farming, ranching, and timber 

families; and the security of our Nation. 

This committee has documented time and again the countless instances where the Department of the Interior and its land managers have conducted themselves with little or no accountability to 

our Nation or to the communities they directly serve. We have seen 

the devastating impact that draconian Federal timber harvest restrictions have had upon rural communities. Massive numbers of 

employees, making good livings for healthy families, lost everything, including their homes, when companies were put out of business by uncaring bureaucrats. 

While the Federal Government’s payments to offset those losses 

to these communities have kept schools open, we all know that 

these paltry measures are not enough. The real solution is to allow 

responsible forest management to proceed, so that we can put people back to work and focus on the business of restoring the health 

of our Nation’s forests. 

In addition to the abominable treatment of our timber communities and the tragically poor schools, which results from Federal 

land that provides no taxes and termination of healthy harvesting 

and replanting, our government has failed to deal with the unprecedented and tragic humanitarian and national security crisis that 

occurs each day along our Northern and Southern borders. 

It is a fact that drug cartels and human traffickers have long 

used our unsecured borders to conduct their operations, and thousands of people have died as a result. Our unsecured borders also 

create a national security vulnerability that should not be tolerated. But because the Federal Government has chosen to favor environmental regulations over national security interests and 

human lives, this emergency continues. 

The flow of traffic across our unsecured borders has caused very 

real and very negative impacts upon our borderlands. Tons of 

litter, debris, and abandoned vehicles dot the landscape; and vulnerable habitats that Congress has sought to protect have been 

trampled and destroyed. 

Traffickers and drug lords could care less about bats, ocelots, or 

Sonoran pronghorn. Yet, land managers at the Department of the 

Interior have blocked Border Patrol from accessing these lands, so 

that they can secure our borders, enforce our laws, protect our 

lands, and save human lives, as well as our precious species. 

To be fair, it does appear that Interior is finally beginning to recognize that a secure border benefits all Federal interests, and documents received by this committee indicate that there has been an 

increased dialogue between Interior and Homeland Security. However, the Department of the Interior has taken too long to provide 

border access through our border agents, and the integrity of our 

lands and national security are jeopardized. 

For example, on April 11, the Department of the Interior and 

Homeland Security finally announced that three rights-of-way 

permits had been issued, so that DHS could improve communications equipment in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge. 

This area has long been a dangerous dead zone for our Border 

Patrol agents, and this technology, which covers less than 100 

3 

square feet at each of three locations, will finally give agents the 

ability to call for backup and assistance in unsafe situations. 

The fact that Interior and DHS worked together seems like a 

great success, until you look at the history of this project and realize that the finding of ‘‘No Significant Impact’’ dates back to 2013. 

And this project has been on the books at Interior since, at least, 

2011. 

That’s right, Interior’s inability to work expeditiously with DHS 

for 5 years on this critical security project, that, again, impacts less 

than 300 square feet of Federal property, unnecessarily put the 

lives of our border agents in jeopardy for at least 5 years. If our 

Department of the Interior defines this as success, it explains why 

so few endangered species have been rescued. 

I thank our witnesses for being here, and I am hopeful that they 

can bring some much-needed perspective to inform this committee. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Gohmert follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. LOUIE GOHMERT, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Today we will have the opportunity to hear testimony from witnesses that must 

live with the consequences of Federal land management every day of their lives. 

While there certainly are benefits to living near responsibly managed Federal 

lands—easy access to recreation, economic boosts from tourism, and the opportunity 

to work the land to provide for a family—there also are drawbacks that in recent 

years have increasingly threatened the very existence of our rural communities, our 

farming, ranching, and timber families, and the security of our Nation. 

This committee has documented time and again countless instances where the 

Department of the Interior and its land managers have conducted themselves with 

little or no accountability to our Nation, or to the communities they directly serve. 

We have seen the devastating impact that draconian Federal timber harvest restrictions have had upon rural communities—massive numbers of employees making 

good livings for healthy families lost everything, including their homes, when companies were put out of business by uncaring bureaucrats. 

While the Federal Government’s payments to offset losses to these communities 

have kept schools open, we all know that these paltry measures are not enough. The 

real solution is to allow responsible forest management to proceed, so that we can 

put people back to work and focus on the business of restoring the health of our 

Nation’s forests. 

In addition to the abominable treatment of our timber communities, and the tragically poor schools resulting from Federal land providing no taxes and termination 

of healthy harvesting and replanting, our government has failed to deal with the 

unprecedented and tragic humanitarian and national security crisis that occurs each 

day along our Northern and Southern borders. 

It is a fact that drug cartels and human traffickers have long used our unsecured 

borders to conduct their operations—and thousands of people have died as a result. 

Our unsecured borders also create a national security vulnerability that should not 

be tolerated. But because the Federal Government has chosen to favor environmental regulations over national security interests and human lives, this emergency 

continues. 

The flow of traffic across our unsecured borders has caused very real and very 

negative impacts upon our borderlands—TONS of litter, debris and abandoned vehicles dot the landscape and vulnerable habitats that Congress has sought to protect 

have been trampled and destroyed. Traffickers and drug lords could care less about 

bats, ocelots, or Sonoran pronghorn. And yet, land managers at the Department of 

the Interior have blocked Border Patrol from accessing these lands, so that they can 

secure our borders, enforce our laws, protect our lands, save human lives, AND our 

precious species. 

To be fair, it does appear that Interior is finally beginning to recognize that a secure border benefits all Federal interests, and documents received by this committee 

indicate that there has been an increased dialogue between Interior and Homeland 

Security. However, the Department of the Interior has taken too long to provide border access to our border agents and the integrity of our lands and national security 

are jeopardized. 

4 

For example, on April 11, the Department of the Interior and Homeland Security 

finally announced that three rights-of-way permits had been issued so that DHS 

could improve communications equipment in the Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife 

Refuge. This area has long been a dangerous dead zone for our Border Patrol 

agents, and this technology—that covers less than 100 square feet at each of three 

locations—will finally give agents the ability to call for backup and assistance in unsafe situations. 

The fact that Interior and DHS worked together seems like a great success—until 

you look at the history of this project and realize that the Finding of No Significant 

Impact dates to 2013, and that this project has been on the books at Interior since 

at least 2011. 

That’s right—Interior’s inability to work expeditiously with DHS for 5 years on 

this critical security project that, again, impacts less than 300 square feet of Federal 

property—unnecessarily put the lives of our border agents in jeopardy for at least 

5 years. If our Department of the Interior defines this as success, it explains why 

so few Endangered Species have been rescued. 

I thank our witnesses for being here and I’m hopeful that they can bring some 

much needed perspective to inform this committee. 

Mr. GOHMERT. At this time the Chair now recognizes Mrs. 

Dingell for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to start 

by welcoming the Ranking Member of our Full Committee, 

Mr. Grijalva, and thank him for taking time to add his considerable expertise to these proceedings. He knows Arizona well. 

I want to extend my appreciation to all of the witnesses who took 

the time and effort to be here with us today. I am especially grateful to the Department of the Interior, who has testified about this 

same issue multiple times in this committee. 

Securing the lands along our border is a serious responsibility, 

both at the Southern and Northern borders. I use this to remind 

everybody we have a Northern border, too, which we don’t talk 

about as much. And I know it is one that neither the U.S. Border 

Patrol nor the Department of the Interior takes lightly. 

I also know that both agencies understand the importance and 

value of our Federal lands along the border, not only to our Nation 

as a whole, but to local communities whose economy depends on 

them. As we have heard before, both agencies are committed to 

working together to ensure that both national security and Federal 

land management go hand in hand. 

But some would have you believe that the only way to achieve 

border security is to throw our environmental protections out the 

window. They will have you believe that the only safe option is to 

militarize the borders with barriers and guns. There is one person, 

in particular, who will have you believe that the only way to ensure 

our safety is to build a concrete wall across the entirety of the U.S.- 

Mexico border, including our Federal lands, and that that wall 

should be paid for by Mexico, all $25-billion-plus. 

But what they may fail to mention, is that Congress has already 

required Customs and Border Protection to build nearly 700 miles 

of fencing across the border, much of which was built across 

Federal lands. As a result, a large portion of fence was built without consultation from the public, private landowners, or Federal 

5 

land management agencies. An alarming 37 laws were laid down, 

including fundamental environmental protections like the 

Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act. The fence has 

since caused major damage to American communities, local and regional economies, and has further threatened endangered species. 

The migratory and breeding patterns of diverse animal species, 

like the wild jaguar, have been disrupted. The normal drainage of 

rainwater has been re-routed, causing flooding like that which 

caused the collapse of a 40-foot section of the fence in the Organ 

Pipe Cactus National Monument. 

In communities along the border, the economic damage of the 

fence has also been substantial. In these communities, frequent 

crossing of the border is a way of life. Residents may live on one 

side of the border, while working, shopping, or eating on the other. 

The fence literally splits these residents’ lives in two, and disconnects them from family and friends. Business owners have also 

suffered, as long wait times at designated ports of entry deter visitors. Private landowners have been forced to allow the fence to be 

built on their property with little compensation, drastically reducing their property’s value and appeal. 

Fences and walls are a harmful, knee-jerk reaction to a complex 

issue. As Pope Francis said, ‘‘We need to be focused on building 

bridges, not walls.’’ Both Customs and Border Protection and the 

Department of the Interior understand that protecting the border, 

our wildlife, and our communities can be done in unison; but they 

must be done thoughtfully. Bypassing important laws and protections is both unnecessary and unhelpful. 

I encourage the committee to work with these agencies to try to 

reach a meaningful, long-term solution. 

I yield back my 32 seconds. 

[The prepared statement of Mrs. Dingell follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HON. DEBBIE DINGELL, RANKING MEMBER, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to start by welcoming the Ranking Member 

of the Full Committee, Mr. Grijalva, for taking the time to add his considerable expertise to these proceedings. I want to extend my appreciation to all of the witnesses 

who took the time and effort to be here with us today. I am especially grateful to 

the Department of the Interior who has testified about this same issue multiple 

times in our committee. 

Securing the lands along our border is a serious responsibility—both our Northern 

and Southern borders. And I know it is one that neither the U.S. Border Patrol nor 

the Department of the Interior takes lightly. I also know that both agencies understand the importance and value of our Federal lands along our border—not only to 

our Nation as a whole, but to the local communities whose economy depends on 

them. As we have heard here before, both agencies are committed to working together to ensure that both national security and Federal land management go hand 

in hand. 

But some would have you believe that the only way to achieve border security is 

to throw our environmental protections out the window. They will have you believe 

that the only safe option is to militarize the border with barriers and guns. Some 

members of the other side of the aisle will even have you believe that the only way 

to ensure our safety is to build a concrete wall across the entirety of the U.S.-Mexico 

border, including our Federal lands. And that the wall should be paid for by 

Mexico—all $25 billion plus. 

What they may fail to mention, however, is that Congress has already required 

Customs and Border Protection to build nearly 700 miles of fencing across the border, much of which was built across Federal lands. As a result, a large portion of 

fence was built without consultation from the public, private landowners, or Federal 

6 

land management agencies. An alarming 37 laws were laid down, including fundamental environmental protections like the Endangered Species Act and the Clean 

Water Act. The fence has since caused major damage to American communities, 

local and regional economies, and has further threatened endangered species. 

The migratory and breeding patterns of diverse animal species, like the wild 

jaguar, have been disrupted. The normal drainage of rainwater has been re-routed, 

causing flooding like that which caused the collapse of a 40-foot section of the fence 

in Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. 

In communities along the border, the economic damage of the fence has also been 

substantial. In these communities, frequent crossing of the border is a way of life; 

residents may live on one side of the border, while working, shopping, or eating out 

on the other. The fence literally splits these residents’ lives in two and disconnects 

them from family and friends. Business owners have also suffered as long wait 

times at designated ports of entry deter visitors. Private landowners have been 

forced to allow the fence to be built on their property with little compensation, drastically reducing their property’s value and appeal. 

Fences and walls are a harmful, knee-jerk reaction to a complex issue. As Pope 

Francis said, we need to be focused on building bridges, not walls. Both Customs 

and Border Protection and the Department of the Interior understand that protecting the border, our wildlife, and our communities can be done in unison, but 

they must be done thoughtfully. Bypassing important laws and protections is both 

unnecessary and unhelpful. I encourage the committee to work with these agencies 

to try to reach a more meaningful, long-term solution. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the Ranking Member. At this time the 

Chair recognizes the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, Mr. 

Grijalva, for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF THE HON. RAU ́ L M. GRIJALVA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you for your courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and 

thank you, Ranking Member. 

Some of my colleagues, and certainly the presumptive Republican 

nominee for President, seem to envision a border region populated 

entirely by murderers, drug traffickers, and criminals, in general, 

who must be kept out of the country at all costs; but that is not 

the real world. 

As measured by the Federal Bureau of Investigation crime statistics, U.S. border cities rank among the safest in the United States, 

and stand in stark contrast to the fragile, though improving, security situation in major Mexican border cities like Ciudad Juarez. 

Fear-mongering, rhetoric, and political posturing only serve to 

sow fear and division. They further the marginalization, exploitation, and vilification of the U.S.-Mexican border region, as well 

as the people who live and work there. A great, great wall on our 

Southern border may grab headlines, but this simplistic and kneejerk proposal represents only the latest in a series of reckless, 

legally dubious, and economically unsound—not to mention just 

plain dumb—campaigns carried out in the name of border security. 

History shows border walls, no matter how great, do not work. 

The Great Wall of China and the wall in Berlin are a couple of examples that come to mind. In reality, many parts of the Southern 

border, as was mentioned by the Ranking Member, are already covered in fences and barriers—700 miles worth. The economic, environmental, political, and social impacts of the border wall fall short 

from the gorgeous and beautiful, as been described. The damage, 

however, is pretty great. 

7 

The border wall has had high human cost and increasingly negative impacts on species and ecosystems, which know no borders. In 

2006, the Federal Government Accountability Office found that border crossing deaths doubled after the United States ramped up 

border security in the mid-1990s, even though there did not appear 

to be a corresponding uptick in undocumented migration during 

that time. 

In the past 17 years, more than 6,500 people have died trying to 

migrate through the U.S. Southern border. Despite its popularized 

image as a lifeless, inhospitable region, the Southern border is an 

area rich in diversity of species, ecosystems, people, and culture. 

The fragmentation and destruction of the physical environment 

caused by the border wall threaten our cherished wildlife and 

environment. 

As was mentioned by the Ranking Member, several species of 

wildlife have been observed and photographed stranded by the border wall, from pygmy owls, to desert bighorn, to jaguar. Studies 

have indicated that the border wall is a significant impediment to 

a variety of wildlife, including many imperiled species. 

We must protect our borders. But a great, great wall across the 

entire Southwest border is not the answer. Our shared goals of protecting endangered species, building a resilient border economy, 

and securing the border are not mutually exclusive. In fact, border 

security is at its best when it is built on a healthy economy and 

a healthy environment. The realities of border residents demand us 

to be creative and not simplistic. We must devise thoughtful solutions that measure up to the real stature of the problem. Simple 

minded and unilateral actions, such as construction of a wall, are 

not real solutions. 

Earlier this year, I introduced a bill, the ‘‘Border Security and 

Accountability Act of 2015.’’ Among other measures, my legislation 

secures our Nation, prevents real criminal activity, upholds our 

basic values, and respects individual liberties at the same time. At 

the very heart of my legislation is a humane, accountable, and 

more effective border security strategy that understands the local 

and regional impacts of border security infrastructure. It respects 

civil and human rights; promotes commerce and trade, which is 

vital to the region; protects the environment; and supports the people that call the border region their home. 

This is an approach we need. It is pro-family, pro-environment, 

pro-business, and, indeed, pro-security, without sacrificing one 

priority for another. 

Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesy, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. At this time we will now 

introduce our witnesses. 

To my left is Ms. Sue Chilton from the Chilton Ranch and Cattle 

Company in Arivaca, Arizona. Then we have Ms. Tricia Elbrock 

from Animas, New Mexico. And then Mr. Jon Andrew, the Interagency Borderlands Coordinator for the U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Then, skipping down to the end, we have Ms. Nan 

Walden, the Vice President and Counsel for the Farmers Investment Company and Green Valley Pecan Company, located in 

Sahuarita, Arizona. 

8 

Now I would like to invite the gentleman from Idaho, 

Mr. Labrador, to introduce our other witness. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am pleased to introduce Commissioner Pinkerton today. Lee is 

currently serving his second term as a Boundary County Commissioner in my district. As the name tells you, Boundary County is 

at the boundary of the state, which is the boundary with Canada. 

Prior to serving as County Commissioner, he served over 23 

years with the U.S. Border Patrol. He served the final 8 years of 

his career in Spokane in the Spokane sector, which includes north 

Idaho. He chose to live in Idaho after he retired, and we are very 

happy about that. It has been a wise decision for him, and obviously, it has been a wise decision for the county. He has been doing 

a great job in the county. 

Lee, we welcome you today, and we look forward to hearing your 

testimony. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you. I will remind the witnesses 

that your entire written statement is part of the record. But under 

the Committee Rules, oral statements are limited to 5 minutes. We 

have a timer there. When the yellow light comes on, you have 

1 minute remaining; and when the red light comes on, you will 

need to conclude your comments immediately. And, as I said, we 

have the written statements and we are grateful for those submitted by the witnesses. 

We were notified we were going to have a vote about 2:50 p.m. 

It got moved back earlier than we anticipated. So, why don’t we go 

ahead and take one 5-minute statement, and then recess for the 

votes. I think there are two votes, is that correct? 

OK, so Ms. Chilton, if you would present your oral statement for 

us, we would appreciate it. 

STATEMENT OF SUE CHILTON, CHILTON RANCH, ARIVACA, 

ARIZONA 

Ms. CHILTON. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, 

thank you very much. I really appreciate the opportunity to be 

here. My name is Susan Chilton. Our family ranch is adjacent to 

the town of Arivaca, Arizona, about 55 miles southwest of Tucson. 

The southern edge of our ranch is the international boundary. 

There is no wall for 25 miles, only a 4-strand barbed wire fence, 

easily cut or crawled through in seconds. That same little wire 

fence is all that separates us and our neighbors from armed 

Sinaloa drug cartel operatives. 

Thanks to the failed Defense in Depth strategy of the Border 

Patrol, we live in a No Man’s Land, essentially ceded to cartel control. Our town’s main road is the de facto international boundary, 

even though it is actually 20 miles north of the boundary. Why 

can’t the Border Patrol secure the border at the boundary? 

First, the Border Patrol has faced NEPA obstacles to upgrading 

the barely, barely passable ranch roads leading south from Arivaca 

to the actual boundary. Recent U.S. Fish and Wildlife declaration 

of critical habitat for the jaguar along this drug importation corridor has blocked essential road improvements. Critical habitat for 

the jaguar is, in our opinion, a transparent ruse. The few jaguars 

reported anywhere in Arizona since the 1940s have been lone 

9 

males exiled from their northern-most outpost 150 miles south of 

the border, and thousands of miles from their core habitat. Not one 

female has been documented as present in more than 65 years— 

and the pictures you are seeing up there are drug packers and 

their environment right on our border. 

How does this critical habitat ruse for the jaguar affect border 

security? In December, we took Commander Beeson of the Tucson 

Sector Border Patrol to our boundary corrals in what the Border 

Patrol knows is an active entry zone. Then we drove over the ranch 

roads to our neighbor’s border ranch. It is 5 air miles away, however, it took us 3 hours to get there with Commander Beeson. That 

is because the roads are barely passable, and there is no road paralleling the border. 

That means the Border Patrol cannot get to where it sees the activity. The wildlife that is actually benefiting from the jaguar habitat is located in Sinaloa, Mexico; and they are happy about that 

declaration, because that gives them a free drug import area. 

Border Patrol officers do not have reliable communications in 

many parts of this No Man’s Land. They cannot call for assistance 

if they encounter armed drug patrols coming north, so they do not 

really want to be down there alone. 

In our No Man’s Land, electronics and drone surveillance alone 

are totally inadequate, because, as the Border Patrol agent in 

charge of the Tucson Border Patrol Station told us right before he 

retired, ‘‘Even when I can see what is happening, I can’t get there.’’ 

Border Patrol has no forward operating bases in this cartel route, 

so the time delay for reporting to the actual border in this area is 

between 2 and 3 hours. We have taken two groups of high-ranking 

Border Patrol officials to the border, shown them our private land 

with water, good sites for portable facilities, corrals for their horse 

patrol, and offered them the use of this private land for $1 a year. 

My husband has offered to lend them the dollar if they can’t afford 

it. 

What are some of the specific consequences of the failed strategy 

of Defense in Depth? 

One, residents like us are exposed to encounters with heavily 

armed drug packers. In addition to the two burglaries we have personally suffered, we have rancher friends who were held hostage, 

robbed, and forced to drive the invader to the border just last fall. 

Another neighbor’s 15-year-old daughter was the target of a homeinvading south-bounder group in March. Another neighbor gave up 

in the face of these constant incursions and sold out to the Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The current Defense in Depth strategy converted former historic ranches into taxpayer-financed enlargements 

of cartel-controlled territory. 

Recreationists, hunters, campers, fishermen, and picnickers are 

encountering signs put up in those areas that they may encounter 

illegal traffic, smuggling, and armed persons. Many would-be 

worker entrants suffer rape, mutilation, abandonment, or murder 

at the hands of the cartel. Just a few months ago, one individual, 

reportedly with a drug packing group, was incinerated 9 miles 

north of the border and just west of our ranch. The official and 

highly—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Ms. Chilton, we need to—— 

10 

Ms. CHILTON [continuing]. Improbable story is that he was trying 

to charge his cell phone by throwing a wire over a high power line. 

If you believe that, we don’t. It is only a matter of time until 

terrorists—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Ms. Chilton. 

Ms. CHILTON [continuing]. Discover what the drug packers have 

discovered, and that is that this is an open entrance to the United 

States. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Our time is restricted, as I said. You are a minute 

over, so we need to move on. We are going to be able to take at 

least a couple of more statements. Thank you, Ms. Chilton. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Chilton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SUSAN E. CHILTON, ARIVACA, ARIZONA

My name is Susan Chilton. I am a retired Arizona Game and Fish Commissioner. 

I chaired the Commission from 2004–2005 and am currently chairing the state 

board that reviews applications for the Commissioner’s position and sends finalists’ 

names to the governor for appointment. I have been an educator for more than five 

decades and an active amateur student of Arizona wildlife, southern Arizona wildlife 

habitats, and range botany. 

My husband and I live near the historic borderland cattle ranching community 

of Arivaca, Arizona approximately 55 miles southwest of Tucson, Arizona. Our ranch 

is adjacent to the town of Arivaca and continues south to the international boundary 

with Mexico. Our fence at the southern edge of our family ranch is the international 

boundary. There is no wall, only a four-strand barbed wire fence—easily cut or 

crawled through in seconds. For a total of 25 miles east and west, that same little 

wire fence is all that separates us and our neighbors from armed Sinaloa drug cartel 

operatives who pass easily through that open door. 

We and our ranch neighbors live in a No Man’s Land essentially ceded to cartel 

control. Our town’s main road is the de facto international boundary even though 

it is about 20 miles north of the actual border. Why? 

The two Border Patrol stations responsible for different parts of our ranch are 

headquartered in Nogales and Tucson; the officers spend hours of their working day 

on Interstate 19 getting from their headquarters to the Border Patrol checkpoints, 

including the closest one on Arivaca Road about 20 miles northeast of our home. 

They spend some time driving east and west on Arivaca Road and a lot of time at 

the checkpoint. They are implementing the strategy known as Defense in Depth. 

That means that all of the hundreds of square miles of borderlands north of the unsecured international boundary between Nogales and Sasabe and south of Arivaca 

Road where we and our neighbors live are basically entrance routes controlled by 

Sinaloa Cartel-paid scouts. 

Cartel scouts are supplied with military-grade equipment and a salary. They 

move from one site to another according to cartel strategy using mountains on our 

ranch and on those of our neighbors. Border Patrol removes them at times—with 

difficulty—but the scouts or their replacements quickly return to a new mountaintop assignment. The scouts guide the movement of people and drugs right through 

this No Man’s Land. 

Drug packing groups are directed across the unsecured boundary and along hundreds of trails through ranch pastures from Mexico north to GPS’d sites. At those 

ever-changing sites, the ‘‘merchandise’’ being imported to the lucrative American addiction market will be picked up by cartel-connected operatives from Tucson or 

Phoenix. The imported drugs will undersell competing drugs made or grown in the 

United States because raw material costs in Mexico for ingredients for meth or 

other illegal drugs and taxes, security, licensing, and accountancy and reporting 

costs for marijuana will cause the ‘‘domestic product’’ to be more expensive than the 

illegally imported version. 

After depositing their loads, the packers become ‘‘south-bounders’’ headed back to 

Mexico. 

Some of these south-bounders commit assaults, home invasions and burglaries to 

acquire items they can carry back. We have been burglarized twice with major 

losses of irreplaceable items. 

11 

Why is it difficult for the Border Patrol to actually be at the border and close this 

well-known entry route? 

(1) Border Patrol has faced NEPA obstacles to upgrading the barely passable 

ranch roads leading south from Arivaca to the actual border. Recent declaration of 

critical habitat for the jaguar—a tropical cat—along this drug importation corridor 

by the USFWS created further barriers to road improvement and to installation of 

other facilities needed by the Border Patrol. 

Critical habitat for the jaguar is, in our opinion, a transparent ruse: the very few 

wandering jaguars reported anywhere in Arizona since the 1940s have been lone 

males exiled from their northern-most outpost 150 miles south of the border and 

thousands of miles from their core habitat. Not one female has been documented 

as present in 65 years. 

How does this critical habitat ruse affect border control? In December, we took 

Commander Beeson of the Tucson Sector Border Patrol to our border corrals in what 

the Border Patrol knows is an active entry zone and then drove over the ranch 

roads to our neighbor’s border ranch just about 5 air miles west of us—another very 

active entry zone; it took 3 hours to get from our corrals to theirs following the only 

road because there is no road paralleling the border along this drug importation 

route. Meanwhile, approval for road improvements the Border Patrol deems essential, would certainly trigger lawsuits supposedly on behalf of wildlife like the jaguar. 

The ‘‘wildlife’’ that would actually be delighted by their efforts is a criminal outfit 

headquartered in Sinaloa, Mexico. 

(2) Border Patrol has no forward operating bases in this cartel route so the time 

delay for reporting to the actual border on our ranch or that of our neighbors from 

either Nogales or Tucson is between 2 and 3 hours. We have taken numerous high 

ranking Border Patrol officers to our property at the border, shown them our private 

land with water, good sites for portable facilities and corrals for their horse patrol 

and offered them the use of this land for a one dollar ($1.00) lease per year so they 

can have a forward operating base at a known incursion point . . . my husband has 

offered to lend them the dollar if they can’t afford it . . .. Years have passed and 

there is no action of which we are aware on this offer. 

(3) In addition to the mobility limits of the lack of functional roads, Border Patrol 

officers do not have reliable communications when in this No Man’s Land so they 

cannot call for assistance when needed. Last week, after first taking two journalists 

to two lengthy unfenced rural sections of the boundary, we then took them to the 

west end of the wall in Nogales to see the difference. They needed to personally see 

where the city wall ends and where the unsecured 25 miles begins. An event occurred along the Nogales wall road right in front of us; we stopped our truck and 

watched as three Border Patrol vehicles, called in by the patrolling officer who spotted the suspicious incursion, came flying down the road in less than 5 minutes, 

stopped the vehicle and got the occupants out. That was possible because they have 

a wall in Nogales, excellent communications capability there, and full time patrolling along on the very functional road next to the wall . . . right up to the point 

where it abruptly ends and the little 25-mile four-strand wire fence begins. 

(4) Electronic devices and drone surveillance alone are totally inadequate because, 

as the just-retired Patrol Agent in Charge of the Tucson BP Station told us, ‘‘Even 

when I can see what is happening, I can’t get there.’’ 

What are some specific consequences to us of the failure of Federal agencies to 

prioritize and implement effective border control? 

Human impacts 

(1) Residents who live and work in this No Man’s Land are exposed to encounters 

with heavily armed, meth-intoxicated drug packers; in addition to the burglaries we 

have suffered, we have rancher friends who were held hostage and robbed and 

forced to drive the invader to the border just last year and neighbors whose 15-year 

old daughter was the target of home invading south-bounders in March of this year. 

Other neighbors, some of whose ranches had been in their family for more than 

a hundred years, gave up in the face of constant harassment by drug packing criminals and damage and thefts by south-bounders and sold out to the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service’s borderland refuge. The current failed ‘‘Defense in Depth’’ 

strategy—which essentially puts the Border Patrol 20 or more miles north of the 

boundary and the cartel at the line of scrimmage—effectively converted the formerly 

productive ranches into a taxpayer financed enlargement of the safe-passage zone 

for drugs. 

(2) Recreationists are confronted with road signs put up by the Forest Service 

warning them that they may encounter illegal activities and smuggling throughout 

the portions of this unsecured drug route within the Coronado National Forest; 

12 

Arizona Game and Fish publishes explicit warnings alerting hunters of dangers they 

may encounter while hunting near the border; many people are reticent to hunt, 

fish, bird-watch, or family camp on formerly popular Coronado National Forest sites 

in the open drug corridors. 

(3) Would-be workers from Mexico or other nations are forced to pay the cartel 

guides. Many of these poor people, especially women, suffer horrendous abuses, 

including deaths numbering over 2,000 bodies found in the Tucson Sector of the 

border since 1996, rape, murder, and mutilation. Additionally, some groups, after 

paying thousands of dollars to the cartel to be ‘‘guided’’ may be used as decoys to 

distract authorities and facilitate higher value drug packing. 

Just a few months ago, one individual—reportedly with a drug packing group— 

was incinerated 9 miles north of the border and just west of our ranch; the official— 

and highly improbable—story circulated about this death is that he was ‘‘trying to 

charge his cell phone by throwing a wire over a high power line.’’ This is another 

example of a known recent death directly connected to the failure to secure the border. The official story raises the question of whether it is also possibly an example 

of agency policy to attribute deaths to accident, suicide or the stupidity of the victim 

rather than to failure to secure the border. 

(4) Border Patrol officers working these areas face war-like risks. Rip crews setting out to hijack cartel contraband engage in fire fights with drug packers or 

Border Patrol agents pursuing them. One such situation to which the Border Patrol 

responded resulted in the murder of Officer Brian Terry. The canyon in which he 

was killed is a well-known cartel route in this No Man’s Land. It is just east of our 

pastures and on a neighboring ranch. 

Environmental impacts 

(1) Wildfires—some growing to hundreds of millions of dollars in damage to 

homes, ranch lands and businesses in border communities—are deliberately ignited 

by drug packers if they are pursued by Border Patrol; fire personnel reporting to 

a near-by fire which had begun spreading onto our home pasture told us they 

‘‘couldn’t stay there fighting the fire at night because the area was too dangerous.’’ 

My husband kept fighting it . . . Hotshot firefighters on some borderland fires have 

armed guards as part of their contingent. 

(2) Trash—an appalling amount has been dropped on the Coronado National 

Forest, the Buenos Aires Refuge, the Pajarito Wilderness, State School Trust lands 

and private ranch lands all in this open corridor and all crossed by trails from 

Mexico used by the cartel groups. A conservative total of trash dumped on this drug 

route to the United States is estimated at 12,750 tons between l992 and 2015 using 

the Border Patrol’s own figure of 8.5 pounds per entrant and multiplying only by 

the number of individuals reported as apprehended. This figure can easily be tripled 

since most experts and independent reports indicate that few south-bounders are 

apprehended and reliable figures are not available for the pre-2008 period when 

larger numbers of work-seekers used this route. 

(3) Cut water lines—we maintain many water lines and drinkers for both livestock and wildlife. These are essential since natural water is almost non-existent 

during the dry months of the year. We put escape ramps on the waters so wildlife 

does not drown and drinking fountains on many so people can drink—we don’t want 

anyone to die of thirst here. However, drug packers often cut the water lines which 

results in the loss of thousands of gallons of water and the dry-up of drinkers essential to both wildlife and livestock. This is an on-going maintenance cost and the lack 

of water if a tank is emptied can be fatal for cattle, wildlife or people. 

(4) Cut fences mean cattle from Mexico can walk into the United States and ours 

can wind up in Mexico or wander into pastures that are not the ones scheduled for 

that rotation. The grazing rotation is carefully designed in collaboration with the 

Forest Service and based on university range research to ensure the best re-growth 

and production of forage, quality riparian conditions, and habitat for our wildlife. 

The drug packers cause much loss of time and labor getting cattle back into the 

proper pasture and repairing the cut fences; additionally and importantly, they undermine the scientific research and monitoring that informs our grazing management and that of our neighbor ranchers. 

National impacts 

(1) Citizens across this Nation will continue to bear the increasing cost of cheap, 

wide-spread drug addiction resulting from the failure to control our borders, of 

drug-damaged babies born to meth-using mothers and of the growing impact of heroin and other drugs on the health and well-being of our communities; the human 

and civic damage is every bit as terrible as a bombing attack—it’s just not as explosive, concentrated and easily visually conveyed with photography. 

13 

(2) National Security—it is only a matter of time until would-be terrorists realize 

what the cartel has already realized: this un-walled, minimally patrolled section of 

the border is welcoming them. 

What do we know? We know the international boundary with Mexico is not secure 

and that drug packers are coming right through our property because we and others 

maintain hidden trail cameras that record reality; we—and the journalists to whom 

we show these photographic records of heavily laden drug packers and of southbounders tossing incendiary devices to create a fiery barrier as they are pursued— 

cannot be told that the ‘‘border is secure’’ nor can we feel safe when we or our loved 

ones are working in pastures near the border. 

What do we need? First, technology is NOT sufficient. We need: 

1. A good wall with full-time patrolling to replace the current open, unsecured 

25-mile gap between Nogales and Sasabe; 

2. Forward Operating Bases manned like fire stations 24/7; 

3. Functional roads to the border and along the new wall—a wall is of little use 

if the Border Patrol is no where around and can’t get to the incursion; 

4. Prompt waiving or constructive dealing with issues of ‘‘wildlife connectivity 

and endangered species’’ that are currently abused to supersede national 

security 

5. Better communications and quick response capability for the Border Patrol; 

6. A feasible worker permit program which adequately vets temporary laborers 

and provides them with documents, appropriate worker protections, the right 

to come and go, and a legal, safe alternative to trying to get to a job by paying 

the cartel and suffering horrible treatment at the hands of the criminal 

operation. 

These six essential requirements, supplemented by technology, would close this 

25-mile open door before more human tragedies and national security threats bring 

us to our senses. We thank you for understanding that the smokescreen of cost 

obscures the much greater cost of deciding NOT to secure the border. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO MS. SUE CHILTON, CO-OWNER, 

CHILTON RANCH, ARIVACA, ARIZONA

Questions Submitted by Representative Gohmert 

Question 1. Ms. Chilton, you state in your testimony that Border Patrol needs to 

operate closer to the border. What is preventing that from occurring? 

Answer. Mr. Chairman, many issues currently can be cited as reasons why the 

Border Patrol is not at the boundary in our area. 

First, executive policy at the top levels supports a ‘‘Defense in Depth’’ strategy 

that allocates agents to urban center headquarters and assigns them daily to positions in the Station that are often very distant from the actual boundary. Actually 

getting to the border in the rural areas can take 3 hours from, for example, the Tucson Station. The agents primarily patrol paved roads 10, 20, 30 or even 50 and 100 

miles from the boundary. The stated objective is to catch undocumented entrants 

and drug packers at ‘‘choke points’’ well north of the border. 

In our area, this strategy allows cartel operatives to select among hundreds of potential trails through hundreds of square miles of rural territory with the guidance 

and real-time assistance of cartel-paid scouts who move among the many high-point 

look-out sites they can occupy in the little-patrolled square miles between the 

boundary and the ‘‘patrol roads.’’ 

This strategy also consigns rural residents to a No Man’s Land with drug packing 

groups marching right through private property and dropping their loads at GPS’d 

sites for pickup by U.S.-based drug purveyor colleagues. We personally know two 

families—friends and neighbors—who were the victims of home invasions by southbounders in the 6 months before my April 28 testimony. In one of those cases the 

young teenage daughter grabbed a gun and defended the home until her parents 

could get back; in the other, the elderly rancher and his wife were robbed and kidnapped by the invader who forced them to drive him and his loot to the border in 

Nogales. These are not immigrants seeking work; they have work facilitated by the 

current border strategy. 

The ‘‘Defense in Depth’’ strategy is the first impediment that needs to be 

changed. 

14 

Second, if the strategy were changed tomorrow, other major impediments would 

need to be addressed: the first of these is the challenge of getting essential road improvements or road extensions so equipment, supplies for forward operating bases, 

technological aids and agents can move to or along the border. NEPA and other environmental laws are a major barrier to progress toward securing the border. Even 

if the NEPA process is scrupulously followed (years of work and delay during which 

the current open drug route stays wide open), legal challenges by open border 

advocates would follow on behalf of ‘‘wildlife connectivity with Mexico.’’ 

Third, Border Patrol contract/union arrangements need to be reformulated to facilitate effective staffing of forward operating bases. Agents need 

to be at the international boundary, not hours away. Horse patrol and any other 

necessary transportation-and-maneuvering means need to be enabled and funded. 

Station Chiefs need not to be bound by rules that limit his/her ability to staff these 

forward operating bases with the individuals deemed most competent and willing 

to negotiate boundary terrain and capable of using effective means to apprehend 

crossers. 

We understand that the present inability to offer overtime pay and current per 

diem limits to assignments greater than 50 miles from an agent’s reporting station 

are issues that need to be resolved. Agents who demonstrate ability and willingness 

to put in the extra physical labor that goes with patrolling in a more rugged 

environment need to be motivated to seek those assignments. 

Question 2. In terms of border security, what impacts can we expect to see from 

the jaguar critical habitat? 

Answer. Mr. Chairman, we already see impacts from jaguar critical habitat declaration. This declaration can be used as a ‘‘backstop’’ that has the effect of supporting the probability that cartel-favored rural segments of the boundary remain 

unimpeded by an effective wall and unpatrolled and inaccessible in terms of timely 

response. This ‘‘backstop’’ is, either intentionally or unintentionally, quite convenient for the cartel’s operations in the event that public pressure for a wall, forward 

operating bases, and roads to stop the flood of drugs from Mexico were to become 

stronger. The critical habitat declaration insures a basis for years of legal appeals 

against any action that could be asserted to have restricted ‘‘wildlife connectivity’’ 

with Mexico. 

Clearly, cartel operatives are not taking pains to avoid affecting or intimidating 

wildlife; they are merely tromping through specially-designated areas (wildlife 

refuges, national conservation areas, national forests, wilderness or wilderness 

study areas, parks, etc.) with greater freedom from pursuit due to the restraints 

faced by Federal authorities. Agency officials will say otherwise, (‘‘We have an 

MOU’’) but individual agents know they must follow special rules when operating 

in any of the nationally established preserves. Border Patrol agents face restrictions 

and prohibitions on vehicular access in wilderness areas and, in other federally 

managed border areas, are hampered by off-road pursuit limits, lengthy delays of 

multiple years to obtain permission to improve or construct roads, lack of reliable 

communication capability, and the difficulty of getting back-up assistance. All of 

these and endangered species regulations impede effective apprehension of entrants, 

especially cartel-guided drug packers who are often led by heavily armed individuals. These special Federal ‘‘wildlife connectivity’’ areas go right to the border and 

become preferred drug highways. A map of Arizona reveals that very little of the 

boundary area is private property; the vast majority is under one Federal designation or another. 

The total absence of verified female jaguars for more than half a century and the 

failure of the Fish and Wildlife Service to follow its own rules regarding the definition of ‘‘occupied habitat’’ (they ignored the biological requirement that you can’t 

preserve a species without females) are evidence that the habitat overlay is neither 

critical nor essential for the survival of the jaguar species; it is a barrier to securing the border and another layer of protection for cartel operations, whether so intended or not. 

Question 3. Obviously, wildfires have a devastating impact and can be especially 

damaging to cattle ranches. Wildfires can start from a number of sources, why do 

you believe some of them were caused by illegal border crossers? 

Answer. Why do we believe the costly border area wildfires are caused by persons 

entering southern Arizona illegally through rural sections of the boundary with 

Mexico? 

Yes, those ‘‘human caused fires’’ near the border are probably 100 percent caused 

by undocumented crossers—mostly drug packers. Some are ‘‘come rescue me’’ fires 

15 

while others are ‘‘decoy fires’’ set to draw response away from cartel actions or ‘‘fire 

barriers’’ intentionally set to hamper pursuit. 

We were told that the Forest Service actually apprehended some crossers who admitted starting a major fire (the Murphy Complex Fire), promptly turned them over 

to responsible authorities who . . . proceeded to return them to Mexico. They were 

not fined, charged, or jailed to our knowledge. If an American citizen were to be 

caught setting a similar fire, the legal consequences would be severe. 

This spring so far, one 4,000-acre border fire on our pasture southwest of the 

house was fought (at taxpayer expense in personnel and equipment) about a month 

ago; another is burning at this moment in a border pasture southeast of our house. 

Forest Service personnel, including our Coronado National Forest Range Conservationist, were at our home this morning (6-2-16) going over the maps of the area and 

discussing with my husband where best to set backfires and to create defensive 

lines for the current ‘‘human-caused’’ fire. Both of these fires began very near the 

border in the major crossing canyons used by the cartel. There has been no lightning—the sky is cloudless, it is not hunting season and no one (in his right mind 

and legally here) is camping in these areas which feature large road signs warning 

recreationists that ‘‘Illegal activities and smuggling may be encountered in this 

area.’’ 

The cost of NOT securing the border is never weighed against the muchdecried cost of effective action to stop illegal entry. We could probably build 

a lot of the international boundary fencing and do necessary road work with the 

same amount of funds allocated in the last few years to fighting the major undocumented entrant-caused Arizona border fires (the Horseshoe, the Monument, the 

Murphy Complex—this one came right up to our ranch eastern boundary fence). 

More fires in the last several years plus those of this spring continue to ring up 

ever more taxpayer cost to say nothing of placing firefighters, area residents and 

property at risk. The cost of pursuing, incarcerating and prosecuting cross-border 

drug packers, the social and economic cost of dealing with drug addiction and the 

flood of meth, heroin, cocaine, and marijuana entering the Nation, the cost of finding homes for children born addicted to drugs and needing special care, the cost of 

educating a growing number of children who have access to cheap drugs and whose 

ability to plan for the future has been negatively affected by early teen drug use— 

all of these social costs are causing monumental damage to the social fabric of the 

nation. ‘‘No problem,’’ say some, ‘‘let’s prioritize wildlife connectivity with Mexico.’’ 

We suggest that Congress request a GAO study to account for all of the 

aforementioned costs of NOT securing the international border at the 

boundary. 

Such a study would provide a much-needed counter-balance to the cries that it 

is ‘‘too expensive’’ to secure the rural segments of the boundary with Mexico. 

Mr. Chairman, we know you, and some of your fine colleagues, understand the 

real problem of the current national policy of leaving open doors for Cartel ‘‘binational enterprises;’’ we only wish your recognition of this enormous issue were 

shared by all of your colleagues and by the current Administration. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva 

Question 1. Has the Border Patrol ever indicated to you why they have not taken 

you and your husband up on the offer of the use of your land to construct a forward 

operating base? 

Answer. We thank you for asking your very relevant question regarding the 

Border Patrol’s response to our offer of 10 acres of private land about 200 yards 

from the international boundary. The site has corrals, water and an area for modular units to establish a forward operating base at the south end of California Gulch 

at a lease rate of $1.00 per year. 

We are aware that the Tucson Station and Tucson Sector of the Border Patrol 

have been in the process of trying to obtain permission from the Forest Service to 

improve the roads leading from Arivaca to the border. We were told by the justretired Patrol Agent in Charge of the Tucson Station that the NEPA process had 

been underway for nearly 6 years. The need has been critical for that entire period 

and the result of this ‘‘process’’ is that some high priority approvals are still 

‘‘pending.’’ 

In order to begin establishing a forward operating base on the property we own 

at the boundary, the Border Patrol would need to be able to get facilities, supplies 

and personnel to the site—this would require improvement of Forest Road 217 and 

the spur connecting it to the border site. If you have been down these roads, you 

already know that even 5 to 10 miles an hour is a bone-jarring experience. 

Equipment and modular housing would not do well in transport without appropriate 

16 

road improvement. You are no doubt also aware that cell phone service is spotty 

and unreliable in border canyons and would require placement of equipment to ensure communication ability for the agents down California Gulch. 

Effective operation at a forward operating base would also require a functional 

road along the border east and west of the site, especially connecting (toward the 

west) to Tres Bellotas Road and on to Sasabe and then east (from the site we own) 

to connect with the road along the border in Nogales. Timely response to detected 

entry efforts without road improvement is exceedingly difficult. In spite of the lack 

of border roads at the present, a forward operating base would still improve response time if horse patrols and all-terrain vehicles could at least maintain some 

control until roads paralleling the border could be completed. We have been told by 

various higher level Tucson Border Patrol personnel that they are looking into the 

forward operating base offer. There are no doubt other sites in the vicinity that they 

may be considering near the international boundary perhaps on Forest Service land. 

We have no knowledge of what other options for a forward operating base in the 

area they may be evaluating. 

We are also aware that staffing and salary issues need to be dealt with so that 

agents who are stationed at forward operating bases are properly compensated for 

extended work periods (perhaps 3 consecutive days of 12-hour shifts with 12 hours 

off at the base, but they would not be wasting as much as 6 paid hours daily—that’s 

how much time they would use up of their shift if they drove in each day from 

Tucson). Additionally, Station chiefs would need the flexibility to staff the site on 

the basis of their judgment as to which agents are best suited for the assignment. 

If the Border Patrol were able to operate at the international boundary from this 

forward operating base location, it would greatly lessen three major existing 

problems: 

First, these routes between Nogales and Sasabe would become less favorable for 

cartel operations. Those operations result in terrible mistreatment of would-be 

workers who are sometimes robbed, raped and used as decoys for the more lucrative 

drug loads. The current strategy results in a flood of drugs entering through this 

area. Additionally, if drug packing groups can be stopped from passage through this 

very active sector, the number of ‘‘rip crew’’ operations coming out of Tucson and 

other cities to attempt to hijack the high value loads would likely be reduced. 

Second, we would have far fewer border fires—one 4,000-acre fire was set southwest of our home last month and put out at significant taxpayer expense—and one 

is ongoing southeast of our house at this very moment. My husband is there right 

now (6-2-16) to see where it is going and what action needs to be taken by the ranch 

to ensure the safety of the cattle and determine damage to essential waterlines and 

other infrastructure. The cost of personnel and equipment to fight these border fires 

would be saved if effective enforcement of the boundary were prioritized. These costs 

are, I believe, considered Forest Service costs when they are actually costs of the 

current Border Patrol strategy. 

Third, the enormous quantities of trash being left on the Coronado National 

Forest and private and State Trust lands near the border would be greatly reduced. 

The trash is mostly plastic and cans, none of which is biodegradable for decades so 

it just piles up and the problem grows each year. 

In the event one needs more reasons to secure the border and establish forward 

operating bases to accomplish that goal, we just today heard again a report of an 

Afghan entrant apprehended at the end of 2015 ‘‘crossing under a small fence’’ (like 

the 4-strand wire fence on the 25 miles of open boundary 5 miles of which is between our southern pasture and Mexico) along with a group of Pakistanis. The 

Afghani’s name was located in a terrorist database. 

Additionally we very recently heard from high level Border Patrol officials that 

Mexican fields formerly dedicated to raising marijuana are now being converted to 

opium poppies. 

We sincerely hope that you will try to determine what can be done to address the 

open border situation that so heavily impacts your congressional district. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Ms. Elbrock, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF TRICIA ELBROCK, ANIMAS, NEW MEXICO 

Ms. ELBROCK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the 

committee, for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is 

Tricia Elbrock, and I am here on behalf of my family, my neighVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:55 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\COMPLETE\04-28-16\99957.TXT
17 

bors, members of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association, and 

every American that is threatened by the lack of security along our 

international border with Mexico. 

My husband, Edward; my son, William Swift; and I own and operate Elbrock Water Service, Elbrock Drilling, and Elbrock Ranch, 

where we raise Beefmaster cattle and show lambs for youngsters 

in our region. 

Like most all ranches in southern New Mexico, our ranch contains Federal land. In our case, it is Bureau of Land Management. 

In 1978, we started our water and drilling companies based in 

Animas, New Mexico, which serves all southeast Arizona and 

southern New Mexico, from Tucson to El Paso. Animas is nestled 

in what is called the Bootheel because of the way the area fits into 

New Mexico. 

You may have heard recently about the kidnapping of one of our 

employees in December 2015 and, yes, this was a kidnapping, regardless of rumors to the contrary. Our man was working on one 

of the ranches we service that runs along the Mexican border. The 

event occurred over 2 days and involved an all-out man hunt before 

he was freed. The story sounds simple enough with an apparent 

happy ending, but it is not so. Our man is emotionally and mentally fragile. 

Clearly, the border is not secure. Our families and employees are 

at risk all day, every day. There is a huge emotional toll on everyone because we live in constant fear of our lives, our employees, 

our communities, and our livestock. The flow of illegal drugs and 

those running them is endless. U.S. Border Patrol statistics say the 

traffic across the border is down. That simply is not the case. What 

we are seeing are drug runners and illegals from all over the world 

coming in droves across a border that has no deterrent at all. 

There are thousands of backpacks and boxes coming across daily. 

The assumption is that they are filled with drugs. The reality is 

that they could be carrying anything from explosives to nuclear 

weapons. 

It is more costly to do any kind of business in our region. Our 

insurance was up for renewal in March. We could not find any 

other company that would even provide us a quote. Living and 

working near the border, we are labeled high risk. Nearly all of us 

in this area suffer break-ins almost routinely, with vehicles stolen 

many times. Many in our area have stopped reporting break-ins 

and theft to their insurance for fear of not being able to buy insurance at all. If we cannot buy insurance, we will probably have to 

go out of business. Without insurance, there will be no ranches and 

businesses to support our towns. 

This brings us to an entirely different subject, the inability of our 

government to protect us brings down the value of our land. If we 

were to be forced out, we would have to take pennies on the dollar 

of what our lands are really worth. 

Our lands, private, Federal, and state are strewn with litter, 

trash, human waste, and perhaps even drug drops that were not 

picked up. One neighbor had 20 head of cattle die last year from 

reasons that still have not been determined. They were not shot, 

they were not attacked by predators. There were no unusual plants 

that could have killed that many in one spot. They seemed to have 

18 

just fallen over dead. The prime theory is that they ingested illegal 

drugs. 

Our region, from Arizona to Texas, has a wide variety of federally owned lands, ranging from BLM and Forest Service to wildlife 

refuges and monuments. Many of these Federal designations do not 

allow for appropriate surveillance. Mountains near us have been 

burned to the ground due to fires started by illegals. Federal land 

use regulations need an overhaul to address the specific and special 

needs of the borderlands. Law enforcement agencies and the 

Border Patrol need access to every inch of Federal lands to be able 

to protect our families and communities. 

The agents are operating with at least one hand tied behind 

their backs. Instead of securing the border at the border, they are 

directed to patrol from 20 to 60 miles north of there. Those of us 

south of that arbitrary line are literally left in No Man’s Land. The 

Border Patrol needs access to the border, which is often denied on 

borderlands. 

We saw a 26 percent increase in our Federal land grazing fees 

this year and last. Our state land grazing fees went up by 

21 percent last year and 25 percent this year. These formuladriven fees do not take into account the additional cost of doing 

business in our area. 

In March, more than 600 people gathered in my small town of 

Animas, New Mexico, to plead to elected officials from Congress all 

the way down to county commissions and sheriffs to spend—I invited them, and I invite all of you—a few days with us to see firsthand what we deal with every day, from murder, to kidnapping, 

and property destruction. Come see what we put up with in our 

backyards. Would you all like that activity in your backyard? What 

other area of our Nation is sacrificed in this way? 

We are in a war with drug lords and an invasion from countries 

from around the world, friend and foe. It is time to address this 

war and invasion with our troops. This is the United States of 

America. We are American citizens. We should not be forced to live 

this way. The Bootheel is no less America, and the people are no 

less American, than anywhere else. Is it fair for our community to 

be providing food for the Nation while being left to fend for ourselves from smugglers and invaders? 

I thank you for this time and attention, and I will stand for 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Elbrock follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TRICIA ELBROCK, ANIMAS, NEW MEXICO ON BEHALF OF THE

NEW MEXICO CATTLE GROWERS’ ASSOCIATION

Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for the opportunity to 

speak to you today. My name is Tricia Elbrock and I am here on behalf of my family, my neighbors, members of the New Mexico Cattle Growers’ Association 

(NMCGA) and every American that is threatened by the lack of security along our 

international border with Mexico. 

My husband Edward, my son William (Bunch) Swift, and I own and operate 

Elbrock Water Service, Elbrock Drilling which includes a hardware store and 

Elbrock Ranch where we raise Beefmaster cattle and show lambs for youngsters in 

our region. Like most all ranches in southern New Mexico, our ranch contains 

Federal land. In our case it is Bureau of Land Management (BLM) lands. 

Our water and drilling companies based in Animas, New Mexico, serves southeast 

Arizona and southern New Mexico from Tucson to El Paso. The business was startVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:55 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\COMPLETE\04-28-16\99957.TXT
19 

ed in 1978 and we presently employee 20 individuals. Animas is nestled in what 

is called the Bootheel because of the way the area fits into New Mexico. 

You may have heard recently about the kidnapping of one of our employees in 

December 2015 and yes, it was a kidnapping regardless of rumors to the contrary. 

Our man was working on one of the ranches we service that runs along the Mexican 

border. 

Our truck that he was driving was commandeered and he was forced to drive that 

truck, after the cartel delivered their drugs, to Willcox, Arizona where he was 

dumped out. The event occurred over 2 days and involved an all-out man hunt before he was freed. His life and the lives of his family were threatened if he called 

the police. 

The story sounds simple enough with an apparent happy ending. Not so. Our man 

was roughed up physically and is emotionally and mentally fragile. All of our tools 

and materials were thrown out in the pasture, much of them destroyed, and we still 

don’t have our truck back or an insurance payment to replace it. 

Clearly the border is NOT secure. Our families and employees are at risk all day 

every day. There is a huge emotional toll on everyone because we live in constant 

fear for our lives, our employees, our communities and our livestock. 

The flow of illegal drugs and those running them is endless. U.S. Border Patrol 

statistics say the traffic across the border is down. That simply isn’t the case. 

It is true that we are not seeing as many of the people of Mexico crossing the 

border looking for work as we have in the past. What we are seeing is drug runners 

and illegals from all over the world coming in droves across a border that has no 

deterrent at all. 

There are thousands of backpacks and boxes coming across daily. The assumption 

is that they are filled with drugs. The reality is that they could be carrying anything 

from explosives to nuclear weapons. 

It is more costly to do any kind of business in our region. The financial burden 

we have endured since the kidnapping is alarming. We had to regroup and figure 

out how to try and keep our employees safe. There was lost revenue for 2 months 

of not being able to send employees to areas near the border. It is now our policy 

to send two employees at a time, doubling our cost of doing business. 

The value of the lost tools and materials was approximately $13,000. Insurance 

paid us half of that value. The insurance company has refused to total the truck 

and we are still fighting on what they will pay us on both the truck and the 

equipment. 

Our insurance was up for renewal in March. We could find no other company that 

would even provide us with a quote. Living and working near the border, we are 

labeled as HIGH RISK. Nearly all of us in the area suffer break-ins almost routinely 

with vehicles stolen many times. Livestock have been taken out of pens right near 

the house and butchered in the pasture. 

Many in our area have stopped reporting break-ins and theft to their insurance 

for fear of not being able to buy insurance at all. If we cannot buy insurance we 

will probably have to go out of business. In today’s world of lawyers, with no insurance and an injury of some kind, we would lose the business anyway. Our small 

towns are shrinking as it is with our young people leaving us to find work. Without 

insurance there will be no ranches and businesses to support our towns. Soon there 

will be no towns. 

This brings in an entirely different subject. The inability of our government to 

protect us brings down the value of our land. If we were to be forced out, we would 

have to take pennies on the dollar of the lands real worth. 

There is no insurance to cover the fences or water facilities and lines that are 

routinely destroyed in the border region. These damages occur even to the border 

fence, where there is one. 

Workers’ compensation insurance is a whole other subject. New Mexico’s workers’ 

comp system had no idea how to handle a kidnapping claim. How long will it take 

for our employee to recover from this trauma? Where does he go for treatment when 

you live 100 miles or more from medical care? 

Workers’ comp is mandatory in New Mexico. It is not cheap at this point in time. 

If insurance companies won’t cover us, we are thrown into a ‘‘pool’’ where rates are 

doubled or tripled. 

Our lands, private, Federal and state, are strewn with litter, trash, human waste 

and perhaps even drug drops that were not picked up. One neighbor had 20 head 

of cattle die last year from reasons that still haven’t been determined. They were 

not shot. They hadn’t been attached by predators. There were no unusual plants 

that could have caused death of so many in one spot. They seemed to just fall over 

dead. The prime theory is that they consumed illegal drugs. 

20 

Our region from Arizona to Texas has a wide variety of federally owned lands 

ranging from BLM and USFS Forest Service to wildlife refuges and monuments. 

Many of these Federal designations don’t allow for appropriate surveillance. 

Mountains near us have been burned to the ground due to fires started by illegals. 

Federal land use regulations need an overhaul to address the specific and special 

needs of the borderlands. Law enforcement agencies and the Border Patrol need access to every inch of Federal lands to be able to protect our families and communities. 

We saw a 26 percent increase in our Federal land grazing fees this year and last. 

Our state land grazing fees went up by 21 percent last year and 25 percent this 

year. These formula-driven fees do not take into account the additional costs of 

doing business where we are not provided the same protections that the rest of our 

Nation’s citizens enjoy. 

We all have had our differences with the Border Patrol from time to time, but 

our problems cannot be blamed on the folks on the ground trying to maintain the 

border. The agents are operating with at least one hand tied behind their backs. 

Instead of securing the border at the border, they are directed to patrol from 20 to 

60 miles north of the border. Those of us south of their arbitrary lines are literally 

left in No Man’s Land. The Border Patrol needs access to the border, which is often 

denied on Federal lands. 

Our county governments are going broke due to the impacts of illegal traffic within their jurisdiction. Residents of my county are struggling to keep an 8-mile stretch 

of road that provides access to the border for the Border Patrol. There are no county 

funds for maintenance and there seem to be no Federal funds available to address 

this critical area. Neighbors who will suffer additional traffic, bringing who knows 

what on to their land, are pitted against those who will have less traffic and 

hazards. 

On March 10, 2016 more than 600 people gathered in my small town of Animas, 

New Mexico to plead with elected officials from Congress all the way down to county 

commissions and sheriffs to demand Federal help to make us safe. I invited them 

and I invite each of you to come and spend a few days with us to see firsthand what 

we deal with every day ranging from murder, kidnapping and property destruction. 

Come see what we put up with in our backyards. Would you allow this kind of activity on your property? What other area of our Nation is sacrificed in this way? 

We are in a war with drug lords and an invasion from countries from around the 

world, friend and foe. It is time to address this war and invasion with our troops. 

It is time to focus border security on the border, not on New Mexico’s Highway 

9 or Interstate 10. We need more Border Patrol agents horseback in the hills and 

mountains. We appreciate the efforts of our elected officials since the March meeting, but it is going to take a grander approach to solve these issues. 

This is the United States of America. We are American citizens. We shouldn’t be 

forced to live this way. The Bootheel is no less America and the people are no less 

American than anywhere else. Is it fair for our community to be providing food for 

the Nation while being left to fend for ourselves from smugglers and invaders? 

Thank you for your time and attention. I will stand for questions. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE GOHMERT TO

TRICIA ELBROCK, ANIMAS, NEW MEXICO

Question 1. How does continual illegal activity coming across the border impact 

the long-term viability of your community? 

Answer. If border is not secure and drug cartel’s activities continue, we will see 

people moving out of our area, no one moving in, and our small community will dry 

up. No more schools, businesses, no more post office. We are a poor county and we 

cannot withstand loss of any more residents. 

Question 2. Ms. Elbrock, can you give us a sense of how the community is coping 

with the illegal activity crossing the border and coming into your neighborhoods? 

Answer. We all are scared, packing guns daily, installing alarm systems in homes 

if they can afford one, and making sure that you are in home before dark. Certain 

areas you do not travel alone or after dark. 

Question 3. We have heard from a variety of national leaders that the border ‘‘is 

more secure than it has ever been.’’ In your experience living and working in the 

border region, how does this statement measure up? 

21 

Answer. We are far from being secured. Maybe in certain areas, but not in southwest New Mexico and southeast Arizona. We have daily activities with drug smugglers in our area. I invite our national leaders down here to our border to stay 

awhile and see what we put up with on a daily basis. No secret service or security 

guards. I think our leaders are living in their own little world in DC. Come out to 

the real world. 

Question 4. In your testimony you described a recent meeting in Animas, New 

Mexico with a large number of ranchers and other community members. What did 

you take away from that gathering that needs to be conveyed to Congress? 

Answer. Our border is not secure. Put our Border Patrol on the border, not 40– 

50 miles north. We need more horse patrol on the border. Stop the illegal crossing 

at the border, not on Highway 9 or I–10. We feel that Washington only remembers 

us during election years and that we are expendable down here. We are U.S. citizens and we demand our government to step up and do their job all along the borders. If our government is not going to do their job, then shame on them and we 

citizens will do whatever we have to do to protect ourselves, our families, and our 

properties. We think this drug smuggling is greater than anyone can imagine and 

it will take a united America to slow it down or stop it, if possible. If we work together and become united we can do this, but we cannot do it alone. 

Does our government want to secure the border? We are starting to believe that 

they do not want to and to hell with all of us who live on the border. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. We have time to get in one more 

statement before we have to go vote. So, Mr. Andrew, you have 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF JON ANDREW, INTERAGENCY BORDERLANDS 

COORDINATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ANDREW. Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, and 

members of the subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss activities of the Department of the 

Interior along our Nation’s borders. 

As the Department’s Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, I 

work to coordinate the activities of the Department and its land 

managing agencies with those of the Department of Homeland 

Security and, in particular, the U.S. Border Patrol, a component of 

Customs and Border Protection, to secure our international borders 

without undue damage to our Nation’s natural and cultural 

resources. 

We appreciate the attention that the subcommittee has given to 

the issue of securing our borders. DHS, including the CBP and 

Border Patrol, has been given the mandate to secure our international borders and deter illegal border-related activity. Interior 

has the responsibility for managing uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive lands along these borders. 

Interior’s land managing agencies, the Bureau of Land Management, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, take very seriously their 

responsibility to these lands on behalf of the American people. 

We also believe that these two objectives, securing our borders 

and conserving our Federal lands, are not mutually exclusive. We 

are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can and 

should do both together in unison. In my testimony today, I would 

like to share with you a few examples of the ways that our 

22 

departments are working together to achieve our separate and 

important missions. 

In March 2006, Interior, DHS, and USDA entered into a 

Memorandum of Understanding that provides the departments 

with guidance related to securing the borders, addressing emergencies involving human safety, and minimizing the environmental 

damage arising from illegal cross-border activities on Federal 

lands. The overall intent of the MOU is to provide the Border 

Patrol with the access it needs to secure the border, while providing for reasonable protection of natural and cultural resources. 

We believe the guidelines contained in the MOU have been effective in providing both Interior and CBP with the necessary framework to strike this important balance. 

For example, work at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in 

Arizona, using guidance in the MOU, has provided for the establishment of temporary infrastructure—in this case, roads—which 

will assure the Border Patrol access for routine patrol functions. 

Simultaneously, the Border Patrol was able to identify roads which 

were not needed and could be closed and sensitive habitat restored. 

This cooperation has benefited the missions of both departments, 

as improved border security has also enhanced protection of our 

natural and cultural resources. We are remaining in close contact 

with the Border Patrol to make adjustments to this plan as the 

need arises. 

In order to facilitate coordination with the Border Patrol, Interior 

established, at the headquarters level, the position I now hold. In 

addition, an Interior special agent is embedded with the Border 

Patrol in Tucson, Arizona, to assure coordination of law enforcement activities. The primary function of these positions is to coordinate and collaborate with Border Patrol sectors and Interior agency 

representatives on a regular basis. 

Interior, USDA, and DHS have also worked together to establish 

an environmental and cultural stewardship training program. This 

training has proven very effective in providing Border Patrol 

agents with the basic orientation on ways they can help to protect 

sensitive resources along the border. 

We have also worked to streamline the regulatory process 

wherever possible, a recent example being the expedited Section 

106 review process under the National Historic Preservation Act. 

The agreement for the Southwest border was signed in 2015, and 

a similar agreement is expected to be signed for the Northern 

border in the next few weeks. 

Furthermore, the Border Patrol, in cooperation with Interior and 

USDA, established the Public Lands Liaison Agent position for 

each of its 20 sectors. Interior land managers communicate and collaborate on issues of mutual interest or concern with these agents 

on a regular basis. Border Patrol agents frequently conduct joint 

patrols with Interior law enforcement personnel on Interiormanaged lands during anticipated peak periods of illegal activity. 

These are designed to reduce border-related crime and target alien 

smuggling and drug trafficking organizations operating on Federal 

lands. 

DOI has also authorized the placement of border security 

infrastructure on DOI lands. Examples include remote video 

23 

surveillance system towers, integrated fixed towers, rescue beacons, housing for Border Patrol agents, forward operating bases, 

equipment storage facilities, horse corrals, mobile surveillance systems, and tactical communication equipment. 

Chairman Gohmert and members of the subcommittee, thank 

you for your continued interest in the Administration’s efforts to 

secure and protect the border region and its natural and cultural 

resources. 

This concludes my statement, and I am happy to answer any 

questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Andrew follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JON ANDREW, INTERAGENCY BORDERLANDS COORDINATOR, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell and members of the subcommittee, 

thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss activities of the 

Department of the Interior along our Nation’s land borders. As the Department’s 

Interagency Borderlands Coordinator, I work to coordinate the activities of the 

Department of the Interior and its land managing agencies with those of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and in particular the U.S. Border Patrol 

(Border Patrol), a component of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), to secure our 

international borders without undue damage to our Nation’s natural and cultural 

resources. 

INTRODUCTION

We appreciate the attention that the subcommittee has given to the issue of securing our borders. DHS, including the CBP and Border Patrol, has been given the 

mandate to secure our international borders and deter illegal border related activity. 

The Department of the Interior (Interior) has the responsibility for managing 

uniquely beautiful and environmentally sensitive lands along these borders. As 

manager of 1 in every 5 acres of the United States, Interior’s land managing agencies, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the National Park Service (NPS), the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), take 

very seriously their responsibility to these lands on behalf of the American people. 

We also believe that these two objectives—securing our borders and conserving 

our Federal lands—are not mutually exclusive; we are not faced with a choice between the two. Instead, we can, and should, do both together in unison. 

We are proud of the strong working relationship—based on cooperation and a 

mutual commitment to accomplishing our important agency missions—among all of 

our partner agencies. 

In my testimony today, I would like to share with you the many ways that our 

Departments are working together to achieve our separate and important missions. 

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING

Federal agencies with law enforcement presence on Federal lands along the borders include Border Patrol, a component of CBP; Interior’s various Bureaus, the 

BLM, NPS, FWS, and, in certain circumstances, the BIA; and the U.S. Department 

of Agriculture (USDA) U.S. Forest Service (USFS). These agencies have developed 

a cohesive, cooperative approach to border security. 

In March 2006, Interior, DHS, and USDA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) entitled Cooperative National Security and Counterterrorism Efforts 

on Federal Lands along the United States’ Borders. This MOU provides the Departments with goals, principles, and guidance related to securing the borders, addressing emergencies involving human safety, and minimizing the environmental damage 

arising from illegal cross-border activities on Federal lands. The MOU contains 

provisions related to the development of an efficient means of communication, cooperative identification of patrol routes and operations, conduct of joint enforcement 

operations, cooperation in the development of environmental and cultural resources 

awareness training, access by Border Patrol agents to Federal lands along the border (including access in exigent circumstances), and guidance on construction and 

maintenance of tactical infrastructure. The MOU also addresses expedited completion of environmental compliance documents, including documents required by the 

National Environmental Policy Act and the Endangered Species Act. 

24 

Our goal is to provide flexibility and realistic options for patrol and infrastructure 

access to Interior lands by CBP while continuing to maintain an emphasis on protection of Federal trust resources such as endangered species, cultural resources, 

tribal interests, national wildlife refuges, national parks, public lands, and designated wilderness. We believe the guidelines contained in the MOU have been effective in providing both Interior and CBP with the necessary framework to strike 

this important balance. 

The MOU has been very useful in providing a framework for Interior agencies to 

work with the Border Patrol to help the Border Patrol fulfill its mission while mitigating impacts on sensitive resources managed by Interior agencies. For example, 

work at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument in Arizona using guidance in the 

MOU has provided for the establishment of temporary infrastructure, in this case 

roads, which will assure the Border Patrol access for routine patrol functions. 

Simultaneously, the Border Patrol was able to identify roads which were not needed 

and could be closed and the sensitive habitat restored. This cooperation has benefited the missions of both Departments, as improved border security has also enhanced protection of our natural and cultural resources. We are remaining in close 

contact with the Border Patrol to make adjustments to this plan as the need arises. 

Since entering into this MOU, the three Departments have continually and successfully collaborated to administer the tenets outlined in the MOU at both the 

Headquarters and the field levels. The Departments have also worked collaboratively to address concerns regarding coordination to continually improve our efforts to secure our borders while conserving the environment. For example, the 

Departments have entered into additional MOU/MOAs that address issues including 

road maintenance, secure radio communication, environmental coordination, and 

sharing of geospatial information, among others. Annual meetings are convened to 

discuss the need to revise the 2006 MOU but all participants have agreed that no 

revisions are currently needed. 

COORDINATED FEDERAL RESPONSES TO ILLEGAL ACTIVITY ON FEDERAL LANDS

Regular Management Collaboration 

In order to facilitate efforts with the Border Patrol to address the challenges presented by illegal cross-border activity on our lands, Interior has established at the 

headquarters level a department-wide coordination structure. This includes the establishment, within Interior’s Office of Law Enforcement and Security, of an 

Interagency Borderlands Coordinator for environmental coordination. In addition a 

Special Agent is embedded with the Border Patrol in Tucson, Arizona to assure coordination of law enforcement activities. The primary function of these positions is 

to coordinate and collaborate with Border Patrol Sectors and Interior agency representatives on a regular basis. 

Additionally, at the headquarters level, Interior, USDA, and DHS have worked together to establish training modules such as the Environmental and Cultural 

Stewardship Training program. This online module is now required training for all 

Border Patrol agents. It has proven very effective in providing Border Patrol agents 

with a basic orientation on ways they can help to protect sensitive resources along 

the border. 

Interior has also worked with DHS and the Forest Service to develop a streamlined process for evaluating impacts on cultural and historic resources that is required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. The agreement 

for the Southwest border was signed in 2015 and a similar agreement is expected 

to be signed for the Northern border in the next few weeks. 

On the Ground Collaboration 

Collaboration also takes place with the Border Patrol at the field level. The 

Border Patrol, in cooperation with Interior and USDA, established a Public Lands 

Liaison Agent (PLLA) position for each of its 20 Sectors. Interior land managers 

communicate and collaborate on issues of mutual interest or concern with these 

PLLAs on a regular basis. Meetings between the land managers and the PLLAs are 

held every few months, or more often if needed, to facilitate open and regular communication, cross-training, and sharing of intelligence. 

In addition, Border Patrol agents frequently conduct joint patrols with Interior 

law enforcement personnel on Interior-managed lands, including national parks, 

wildlife refuges, and public lands. This close coordination provides staff with training and orientation on each agency’s mission, while enhancing homeland security 

activities and resource-related investigations. 

Law enforcement patrol operations have been conducted during anticipated peak 

periods of illegal activity, through joint actions such as Operation Trident Surge in 

25 

Arizona or Operation Take it Outside in California. The operations included the 

BLM, NPS, FWS, USFS, and the Border Patrol, and consisted of intelligencesupported joint patrols on Interior and USFS managed lands. The operations were 

designed to reduce border-related crime and provide additional intelligence to 

Border Patrol to identify and target Alien Smuggling Organizations and Drug 

Trafficking Organizations operating on Federal lands. Interior law enforcement officers focused on resource mission-related violations during this operation. This effort 

served to deter illegal smuggling into the United States. 

These few examples typify the ongoing, collaborative dialogue and strong relationships that Interior agencies and personnel have developed with our colleagues in 

Border Patrol. As discussed in more detail below, the cooperation and collaboration 

evident in these operations across the border areas, including areas within national 

parks, wildlife refuges, and public lands, has led to reduced environmental impacts 

on Federal lands along the border. 

ADDRESSING THE IMPACTS

The deployment of CBP personnel, equipment and infrastructure along the Southwest border has led to significant improvements in border security. These improvements have both enhanced the security of our Nation, and lead to overall healthier 

conditions on Interior lands along the border. Many of the natural and cultural resources under Interior’s responsibility have been adversely affected by illegal activities due to accumulations of trash, establishment of illegal roads and trails, and 

overall degradation of the environment. By deploying personnel, equipment, and infrastructure, CBP operations have reduced cross-border illegal activity and the environmental impacts of this illegal activity in a number of areas. 

Examples of infrastructure put in place by CBP include: Remote Video 

Surveillance System towers, Integrated Fixed Towers, rescue beacons, housing for 

Border Patrol agents, Forward Operating Bases (FOB), equipment storage facilities, 

horse corrals and mobile surveillance systems such as the Ground Based 

Operational Surveillance System (GBOSS) used in Arizona. Tactical communication 

needs are critical to the security of Border Patrol agents and Interior personnel and 

we have worked closely to assure adjustments can be made in placement and maintenance of these facilities when they are present on Interior managed lands. 

Maintenance of roads and fences have also become more routine through issuance 

of permits and rights-of-way by Interior’s land managing agencies. 

During deployment of additional border security resources, Interior worked closely 

with the Border Patrol to avoid or mitigate impacts to the environment by coordinating border security work with local Federal land managers. These mitigation activities have had no impact on the ability of the Border Patrol to protect the border. 

We have made and are continuing to make significant progress and we recognize 

DHS’s leadership on these issues. 

CONCLUSION

As detailed in this testimony, we are committed to the collective efforts that 

Interior, DHS, and USDA have taken to meet the intent of the 2006 Interagency 

MOU and the shared commitment by our Departments to fulfill the mission of each 

agency. We believe that we have been and will continue to be successful in securing 

our borders and conserving our Federal lands. 

Chairman Gohmert, and the members of the subcommittee, thank you for your 

continued interest in the Administration’s efforts to secure and protect the border 

region and its natural and cultural resources. This concludes my statement, and I 

am happy to answer any questions that you might have. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO JON ANDREW, INTERAGENCY

BORDERLANDS COORDINATOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Questions Submitted by Representative Gohmert 

Question 1. In 2010, the CAO issued a report detailing delays encountered by 

Border Patrol when trying to do their jobs on Federal land. What specifically has 

been done to improve those delays? 

Answer. A wide variety of measures have been put in place to ensure that the 

U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) has the access it requires to provide border security. To 

enhance communication with the USBP, the Department of the Interior (DOI), including its bureaus, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the Bureau of Land 

26 

Management (BLM), the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), and the National Park 

Service (NPS), have instituted, with USBP, biweekly conference calls at the headquarters level, and regular conference calls at the field level on specific projects or 

issues such as the planned construction of Remote Video Surveillance towers in 

South Texas. DOI has also convened executive level annual meetings to review status of work under the 2006 MOU and exchange information among DOI Bureaus, 

USBP and the U.S. Forest Service. 

Additionally, at the field level, the maturation of the Borderland Management 

Task Force (BMTF) program and the deployment of USBP Public Lands Liaison 

Agents in each sector has helped communication and coordination on day-to-day 

operational activities. BMTFs meet on a regular basis to discuss issues and concerns 

related to the environment and border security. 

To facilitate access for the USBP, DOI bureaus have authorized the use of lands 

and facilities in many locations. For example, the FWS has authorized horse corrals 

and boat storage on national wildlife refuge lands in south Texas in close proximity 

to the border; NPS has authorized the occupancy of residential housing at Big Bend 

National Park and the construction and operation of forward operating bases on 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument; and FWS, NPS, and BLM have each variously authorized the placement of communication and surveillance equipment in 

national wildlife refuges, parks and public lands. 

DOI has developed, in cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and the USBP, 

wilderness management training for the USBP, and additional internal training to 

orient USBP agents on environmental concerns. 

A specific example where these measures have worked exceptionally well is at 

Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument. The NPS identified access requirements in 

wilderness with USBP to ensure that the agents had the access needed for security, 

while also identifying roads that could be closed and restored to their original 

condition. 

Question 2. When did the process of updating Border Patrol communications 

equipment at Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge commence? To your knowledge, why is that equipment important? Has the new equipment been installed? 

Answer. The Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) shares 56 miles of 

international border with Mexico and is a major travel corridor for illegal drug 

smuggling. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) Office of Information 

and Technology first began discussions with the Refuge in late 2008/early 2009 

regarding the upgrade of existing equipment and installation of new equipment. 

Lack of repeater towers created significant gaps in communication for law enforcement officials while in pursuit of cross border migrants and smugglers, posing a 

serious threat to the health and safety of visitors and government personnel, and 

mission critical operations. Discussions continued with the goal of finding ways to 

address these concerns, while minimizing disturbance of a protected landscape 

(wilderness area). The environmental planning process began in October 2012 with 

CBP’s preliminary draft environmental assessment. 

The Service and CBP believe the replacement of the existing Land Mobile Radio 

(LMR) equipment with ‘‘state-of-the-art’’ digital technology compliant with Project 

25 National Telecommunications and Information Administration standards at Buck 

Peak and the installation of new equipment at Granite Mountain and Christmas 

Pass would improve communications interoperability, over-the-air rekeying, and advanced encryption. The Service will co-locate LMR equipment at the CBP sites 

allowing for improved communications and coverage for both parties. LMR equipment was installed at Christmas Pass on May 18, 2016. It is anticipated that the 

other two sites, Buck Peak and Granite Mountain, will be installed in the fall of 

2016. 

Question 3. On a day-to-day basis how would you describe your responsibilities 

as Borderland Coordinator for Interior and to what extent do you communicate with 

the Border Patrol? 

Answer. The focus of the Borderland Coordinator for DOI is to coordinate and 

communicate with the USBP as needed to facilitate access to DOI-managed lands 

in such a way as to minimize impacts on DOI natural, cultural and trust resources. 

In this role, I have nearly daily contact with Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) and USBP personnel. I attend BMTF meetings, and assist with training and 

orientation of USBP agents. For specific projects of larger scope, I may become directly involved with monitoring progress of the project, attending meetings and participating in conference calls. I participate in a bi-weekly conference call with DHS 

and USBP personnel at the headquarters level to resolve issues and facilitate completion of projects. 

27 

Question 4. The BLM has insisted on issuance of right-of-way permits to authorize 

Border Patrol to maintain existing roads on BLM lands in New Mexico, Arizona, 

and California. This requirement has cost the taxpayers for onerous environmental 

compliance and delayed needed maintenance of critical roads for more than 3 years. 

What is preventing your office from directing BLM to issue Special Use Permits immediately to enable Border Patrol to maintain these existing roads in the same 

manner that BLM has issued Special Use Permits for road maintenance to other 

government entities? Now that the 2006 MOU is 10 years old, why do delays like 

this remain? 

Answer. We understand and share your interest in making sure that the U.S. 

Customs and Border Protection (CBP) maintains critical roads and access in order 

to protect our Nation’s borders. However, BLM does not have the authority to 

permit the type of road work sought by CBP under a special use permit or a memorandum of understanding. Instead, the BLM is working closely with the CBP to support this very important mission through a right-of-way permitting process. BLM 

is working diligently with CBP to get their right-of-way application processed, which 

by law requires environmental review and public involvement. 

Question 5. At Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument, the National Park Service 

insisted that no Border Patrol surveillance towers be constructed in designated wilderness. As a result, towers were placed as far as 20 miles north of the border. This 

limitation imposed by DOI has had a significant adverse effect on the capability of 

this technology to locate and interdict illegal traffic at the border. Would the 

Department support construction of surveillance towers in designated or proposed 

wilderness areas under minimum tool provisions? 

Answer. The towers now in place at Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument have 

been very helpful in preventing and interdicting illegal activity. DOI is ready to discuss placement of additional towers if DHS determines there is a need and a specific 

proposal is developed. We would seek to balance placement of this infrastructure to 

avoid or minimize impacts on endangered species and wilderness and to mitigate 

any remaining impacts on the environment. Specifically with regard to designated 

wilderness and in accordance with law, a minimum tool analysis would be required 

prior to construction. 

We are currently coordinating with DHS on construction of additional towers in 

Sonoita and Douglas, Arizona which were previously reviewed and approved. 

Planning is continuing for placement of towers on the Tohono O’odham Nation. We 

are not aware of any proposals for additional tower work in southwest Arizona. 

Question 6. In Idaho, Border Patrol has experienced more than 4 years of delay 

and costs exceeding $1 million for environmental compliance to enable maintenance 

and repair of 5.6 miles of existing road in Idaho Panhandle National Forest. The 

sole issue of any consequence is potential impacts to the listed grizzly bear. Given 

that there are already hundreds of miles of roads within the 1.4 million acre Selkirk 

Grizzly Bear Recovery Zone, and that the bear is already making steady progress 

toward recovery within the zone, does the Department have any data to support a 

conclusion that maintenance and repair of this additional 5.6 miles of road in marginal grizzly bear habitat or the subsequent use of the road exclusively by law enforcement personnel an estimated 30 times per year would have any significant 

impact on grizzly bear? 

Answer. The action described is one component of a larger management effort. In 

2013, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) and Forest Service (FS) completed 

the ESA consultation on the Land and Resource Management Plan for the Idaho 

Panhandle National Forest (IPNF) (Revised Plan). The purpose of the Revised Plan 

is to provide direction for the IPNF land management by guiding programs, practices, uses, and projects. The Revised Plan provides guidance for project and activity 

decision-making on the IPNF for approximately the next 15 years, including motorized access management within the Selkirk and Cabinet-Yaak Grizzly Bear 

Recovery Zones. Over the past few years, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) 

has sought to utilize the road for security purposes and has been engaged with the 

FWS and FS to identify a path forward that will allow all agencies to meet their 

respective missions and goals. The agencies continued to discuss this as the land 

management plan was revised. The action described impacts not only to threatened 

grizzly bears but endangered Woodland caribou as well. 

The FS and CBP are developing a draft joint EIS NEPA document. The draft EIS 

will lay out different alternatives that will facilitate CBP’s access along the 

Canadian border to meet the United States’ security interest, while enabling the FS 

to meet its forest management standards relative to grizzlies and caribou. Once the 

EIS is finalized and an alternative is selected, the FS and CBP will submit a joint 

28 

Biological Assessment and the FWS will conduct an ESA section 7 consultation on 

the proposed action. The upfront coordination should allow for the development of 

alternatives that minimize the negative impacts to grizzlies and caribou while meeting the goals of FS management and CBP’s security needs. 

Question 7. There have been periodic claims in the press that border fence construction has resulted in impacts to wildlife. Is the Department of the Interior 

aware of any peer-reviewed, scientific studies which document impacts of border 

fence construction or operations on native wildlife populations? 

Answer. Yes, DOI is aware of some peer-reviewed articles and other publications 

that have shown the impacts of border fence construction or operations on native 

wildlife populations, including the following articles: 

Atwood, T. (2011), Modeling connectivity of black bears in a desert sky island 

archipelago. Biological Conservation, Vol 144, Issue 12, December 2011, Pgs 

2851–2862. 

McCallum, TW, Rowcliffe, JM, Cuthill, IC. (2014), Conservation on 

International Boundaries: The Impact of Security Barriers on Selected 

Terrestrial Mammals in Four Protected Areas in Arizona, USA. PLoS ONE 9(4): 

e93679. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0093679. 

Lo ́pez-Hoffman, L (2009), Conservation of Shared Environments: Learning from 

the United States and Mexico. THE EDGE: Environmental Science, Law, and 

Policy. December 1, 2009. 

Parra Renteria, Carlos de la (2007), A Barrier to Our Shared Environment: The 

Border Fence Between the United States and Mexico. Secretariat of Environment and Natural Resources. ISBN 9687947640, 9789687947648. 

Pitt, J. (2011), Conservation of Shared Environments: Learning from the United 

States and Mexico. Restoration Ecology, 19: 290–291. doi: 10.1111/j.1526- 

100X.2010.00764.x. 

Flesch, A. (2011), Up Against the Wall: Border Fence Impacts on Wildlife. Life 

on the Line. Vol. 5, No. 4, The Wildlife professional: Winter 2011. P6. 

University of Arizona’s School of Natural Resources and the Environment. 

Abhat, D. (2011), Fenced Out: Wildlife Impacts of the U.S.-Mexico Border 

Fence. Vol. 5, No. 4, The Wildlife professional: Winter 2011. Pgs 22–27. 

Flesch, A. (2010), Potential Effects of the United States-Mexico Border Fence 

on Wildlife. Vol. 24, No. 1, 2010. Conservation Biology—Contributed Paper. 

Avian Science Center, Division of Biological Sciences, University of Montana, 

Missoula, MT. Pgs 171–181. 

McCallum, J. (2014), Conservation on International Boundaries: The Impact of 

Security Barriers on Selected Terrestrial Mammals in Four Protected Areas in 

Arizona. PLOS ONE/www.plosone.org 1 April 2014/Volume 9/Issue 4/e93679 

2014. Pgs 1–11. 

Wheelwright, J. (2014), Hemmed-in-Border Article on Corridors. Discover 

Magazine. Pgs 48–55. 

Rohrman, D. (2008), Chertoff’s Monster. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. Vol. 6, No. 4 (May 2008), p. 219 Published by: Wiley Stable URL: http:// 

www.jstor.org/stable/20440876 Accessed: 04-08-2016 21:05. 

Lo ́pez-Hoffman, L. (2010), Ecosystem services across borders: a framework for 

transboundary conservation policy. Source: Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment, Vol. 8, No. 2 (March 2010), pgs. 84–91 Published by: Wiley Stable 

URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20696434 Accessed: 04-08-2016 20:52 UTC. 

Cohn, J. (2007), The Environmental Impacts of a Border Fence. Source: BioScience, Vol. 57, No. 1 (January 2007), p. 96 Published by: Oxford University 

Press on behalf of the American Institute of Biological Sciences Stable URL: 

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1641/b570116 Accessed: 05-08-2016 16:19 UTC. 

Flesch, A. (2009), Potential Effects of the United States-Mexico Border Fence 

on Wildlife Efectos Potenciales de la Barda en la Frontera Estados UnidosMe ́xico sobre la Vida Silvestre. Journal. Conservation Biology. Published Date 

23 June 2009. DOI: 1O.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01277.x. 

Mumme, S. (2015), The Evolution of Natural Resource Conservation Capacity 

on the U.S.-Mexico Border: Bilateral and Trilateral Environmental Agreements 

since La Paz. RPR—Review of Policy Research. Published Date 8 January 2015. 

DOI: 10.1111/ropr.12109. 

29 

Question 8. Your testimony stated: ‘‘The deployment of CBP personnel, equipment 

and infrastructure along the southwest border has led to significant improvements 

in border security. These improvements have both enhanced the security of our 

Nation, and lead to overall healthier conditions on Interior lands along the border.’’ 

Do you agree that the best mitigation for border security activities is in fact a secure 

border? 

Answer. Mitigation activities consist of actions taken to offset the impacts of the 

placement or construction of border security infrastructure, including walls, vehicle 

barriers, and pedestrian barriers, on the landscape or on wildlife. In certain locations, placement of border security infrastructure has greatly curtailed illegal activities and has improved conditions for wildlife and habitat, e.g., Buenos Aires 

National Wildlife Refuge. In other locations, the construction of border security infrastructure would block or deter to movement of wildlife and would be considered 

to have negative impacts. Consequently, the placement of border security infrastructure itself would not be considered a mitigation measure. 

Question 9. Your written testimony states that ‘‘mitigation activities have had no 

impact on the ability of the Border Patrol to protect the border.’’ Would you please 

clarify that statement? The GAO has clearly documented through interviews and investigation that there has definitely been an impact. Are we to understand from 

your testimony that there have never been impacts, or that there haven’t been impacts lately? If there haven’t been any lately, please define ‘‘lately.’’ Your oral testimony seemed to contradict the very definitive ‘‘no impact’’ statement in the written 

testimony. When questioned by Mr. Labrador about whether Border Patrol had been 

hampered, you stated that you ‘‘hope not’’ and that conversations with your fellow 

witness Commissioner Pinkerton had been ‘‘educational’’ with regard to access on 

the Northern Border. The committee appreciates your candor, but would also like 

to provide you the opportunity to clarify your definitive ‘‘no impact’’ statement with 

your refreshingly honest response that you ‘‘hope’’ Interior activities haven’t hampered border security and that information gained from Commissioner Pinkerton 

was educational in such a way as to give you reason to question your written statement. Please respond with your updated and current understanding of whether or 

not there has been ‘‘no impact’’ to border security related to Interior activities, mitigation, prohibitions and delays. 

Answer. Mitigation activities consist of actions taken to offset the impacts of the 

placement or construction of border security infrastructure, including walls, vehicle 

barriers, and pedestrian barriers, on the landscape or on wildlife. In this context, 

a specific example of a mitigation activity would be the revegetation of a previously 

disturbed site or the adjustments in the proposed locations of security infrastructure. These mitigation activities are conducted in concert with the USBP to ensure 

that we are not impacting the ability of the USBP to accomplish its mission. 

With regard to access on the Northern border, the issue raised by Rep. Labrador 

is best addressed by the U.S. Forest Service, the agency with administrative jurisdiction of the land in question. DOI is available to assist in consultation under the 

Endangered Species Act, as appropriate. 

Questions Submitted by Representative Grijalva 

Question 1. In their hearing memorandum, the majority members cited a U.S. 

Fish & Wildlife Service announcement about the installation of radio repeaters at 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge on April 11, 2016. It appears that the 

Border Patrol notified the Refuge of their desire to install these radio repeaters in 

2013, yet the radio repeaters are just now being installed. Is the majority correct 

that the environmental review process for this equipment took 3 years to complete? 

Answer. Discussions between U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and the 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) began in late 2008/early 2009 regarding the 

potential installation of a Land Mobile Radio (LMR) communications system on 

Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge). Discussions were preliminary and 

required logistical decisions regarding where radio equipment would go and specific 

design features required to meet operational need and minimize visual disturbances 

that negatively impact wilderness values, as well as determining the footprint and 

required access to and from the sites for maintenance. 

In October 2012, the environmental review began when CBP issued a preliminary 

draft Environmental Assessment (EA) followed by a draft EA. This document was 

released for public review on May 29, 2013. At this time, CBP initiated Section 7 

consultation per the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The Service made a determination, in accordance with the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act 

30 

of 1997, that the project was compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and a 

Minimum Requirements Analysis in accordance with the Wilderness Act of 1964 

was completed. These documents were incorporated into the final EA and into the 

Finding of no Significant Impact (FONSI) issued by CBP in September 2013. The 

Service completed its own FONSI on December 3, 2013, thus completing the environmental review of this project. 

On September 12, 2013, CBP made a formal request for a right-of-way permit and 

in December 2013, the Service issued CBP a special use permit to conduct a geotechnical survey of three proposed sites in preparation for developing engineering 

drawings and to determine the appropriate grounding solution and foundation 

design parameters for each site. 

In January 2014, right-of-way paperwork was submitted to the Service. However, 

due to changes in personnel both at CBP and within the Service, the project was 

paused until January 2015, when CBP contacted the Service requesting status of 

the right-of-way (ROW) permit. The Service identified the information still needed 

from CBP to complete the ROW permit, including drawings and maps with precise 

locations for the LMR sites. The Service developed a draft ROW permit in December 

2015. Both parties signed and finalized the ROW permit in February 2016. 

The original FONSI developed by CBP called for deploying and testing the efficacy 

of the LMR repeaters at Buck Peak and Granite Mountain and then installing the 

Christmas Pass LMR repeater after a determination was made that it was needed. 

In October 2015, the local Yuma Sector Border Patrol requested that a temporary 

repeater be allowed on Christmas Pass rather than wait for the other repeaters to 

be installed. Because of the changes from the original proposal in the EA and 

FONSIs, both the CBP and Service developed a categorical exclusion document to 

comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Service completed a new Minimum Requirements Analysis per the Wilderness Act. The Service 

issued a special use permit to CBP on May 9, 2016, and CBP completed installation 

of the temporary LMR repeater at Christmas Pass on May 18, 2016. 

The CBP is currently obtaining equipment and material that will be staged in 

Tucson with the intent of beginning installation of a LMR repeater on Buck Peak 

in September or October, 2016. Per various environmental constraints, September 

through December is the only window open for installation. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. At this time we need to go vote. There 

are three votes scheduled. We will resume, hopefully, no later than 

30 minutes. We will try to get back sooner, if we can. Thank you. 

We are in recess. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. GOHMERT. The hearing is now called back into order. When 

we recessed, we had just finished with Mr. Andrew’s statement. 

At this time, Mr. Pinkerton, you are recognized for 5 minutes to 

make an oral statement to the committee. Thank you for being 

here. 

STATEMENT OF LEALAN PINKERTON, COMMISSIONER, 

BOUNDARY COUNTY, BONNERS FERRY, IDAHO 

Mr. PINKERTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is LeAlan 

L. Pinkerton, I am a Commissioner for Boundary County, Idaho. I 

thank you for inviting me here today. 

Today, I intend to give you an overview describing the consequences created in the management of our national forests, 

which are essentially impacted or directed by rulings from the 

bench, the Endangered Species Act, biological opinions, and the volumes of National Environmental Policy Act requirements. 

First, national security issues. The U.S. Border Patrol shoulders 

a daunting task, patrolling the rugged and remote land masses of 

the Selkirk, Purcell, and Cabinet mountain ranges, as well as all 

areas in between. The overwhelming majority of the area is mounVerDate Mar 15 2010 09:55 Jan 09, 2017 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 J:\114TH CONGRESS\OVERSIGHT & INVESTIGATIONS\COMPLETE\04-28-16\99957.TXT
31 

tainous and timbered. Access is vital to the success in securing the 

border and affords the Border Patrol the ability to secure these remote areas, maintain a secure border, and expand into adjoining 

areas. 

The Border Patrol has a number of tools available for patrol 

activities. However, none of them provide the advantages as well 

as a vehicle. Unabated, the existing road and trail system supports 

the operational requirements of patrol. Access restrictions create a 

debilitating effect, and vast areas of the border go infrequently 

monitored or go without patrol all together. Resource managers 

have placed these restrictions primarily because of ESA standards 

and biological opinions to limit motorized traffic into recovery zones 

of the grizzly bear. 

The Forest Service and the Fish and Wildlife Service categorize 

all motorized access as an administrative trip, albeit, the Border 

Patrol’s mission is not administrative in nature. Nevertheless, each 

patrol into the recovery zone is subject to the limits of the administrative trip cap being shared among all agencies. 

The land managers have put up gates on roads, have not provided keys, removed culverts, decommissioned roads, et cetera. 

They seldom give any notification or forewarning. All these agencies have been tasked with cooperating among one another through 

the Memorandum of Understanding signed by each agency’s 

Secretary in March of 2006. However, it is also my belief that this 

region’s Fish and Wildlife and U.S. Forest Service have deliberately 

ignored the spirit of this directive. 

An example of this is the Bald Creek Road closure. This closure 

can add up to 31⁄2 hours of travel in making responses, rendering 

about 25 miles of border unsecurable. This type of conflict is largely 

repetitive in many locations and jurisdictions along our Northern 

border. The security of our Nation’s borders and our citizens is 

paramount. Border security should not continue to be compromised 

because of wildlife and natural resource restrictions. 

Rural county issues—about 495,000 acres, or 61 percent, of 

Boundary County consists of Federal land. Roughly 90 percent of 

that is bound by restrictions. Only about 50,000 acres of Federal 

land remains available, with limited access for forest management 

to supply our natural resource-driven economy. Boundary County’s 

economic vitality is dependent upon the timber industry, as it has 

been for the last 100 years. There is no shortage of timber, and 

wildlife habitat is abundant. 

However, much of the timber is aging to the point of overmaturing, in need of harvest to control disease and loss. My county, 

at one time, had over seven saw mills in varying sizes, providing 

employees with a family wage job. We now are down to two, one 

medium and one large. Infrastructure is leaving. The volume of 

timber provided to these steadily decreased over the years that 

have gone by. The forest district, prior to 1990, averaged a harvest 

volume of 30.8 million board feet per year. During the time frame 

of 2001 to 2010, the district averaged 14.4 million board feet per 

year, and most of these projects were appealed and several were 

litigated. This is merely a snapshot of how much influence the 

courts have in forest management. Due to litigation, the courts essentially make critical forest management determinations. 

32 

Today, harvest targets are approximately 20 million board feet 

per year, or about 25 percent of our local timber supply. Timber 

growth volumes, however, continue to increase by several times beyond targeted harvest amounts. Aging timber is more and more 

susceptible to disease, insect damage, and weather damage, which 

increases the likelihood of catastrophic wildfire. 

The majority of the national forest in Boundary County has been 

identified by fire hazard assessments as being at high risk for wildfire. Annually, the Forest Service spends countless millions for 

wildfire suppression while habitat is suffering from the effects. My 

community does not hold any animosity toward the listing of any 

wildlife species, but they do take offense to the restrictions that 

come along with it. 

These restrictions have been created by agency rules, litigation, 

and antiquated science—science that has been tagged as the best 

science available. The counties of Idaho have continually tried to 

correct and protect our access to Federal lands. But, ultimately, 

any change must come from Congress. 

I could have bored you with statistics, but they cannot explain 

the whole story. Now is the time to really look at positive changes 

to the Acts that guide how Federal lands and wildlife are managed. 

I urge you to make the necessary changes for the sake of all our 

citizens. 

In conclusion, sir, I thank you for listening and for your consideration of these matters. It has been my distinct honor to be here 

before you to speak today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Pinkerton follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF LEALAN L. PINKERTON, BOUNDARY COUNTY

COMMISSIONER, DISTRICT 1, BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, BOUNDARY COUNTY, IDAHO

Please allow me to begin with thanking you for inviting me here today to offer 

my testimony regarding the Consequences of Federal Land Management along the 

U.S. Border to Rural Communities and National Security. 

My name is LeAlan L. Pinkerton. I am currently serving in my second term as 

Boundary County Commissioner, District 1, Board of Commissioners, Boundary 

County, Idaho. I have served in this capacity since January, 2013. 

Prior to being elected into office, I was employed by U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service and the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Border 

Patrol for over 23 years. The final 8 years of my career was concluded in Spokane, 

Washington, where I retired from the position of Assistant Chief Patrol Agent of the 

Spokane Sector in May, 2010. 

Today, I intend to give you an overview describing the consequences created in 

the management of our national forests, accepting that much of the management 

decisions are significantly impacted or directed by rulings from the bench, the 

Endangered Species Act (ESA), biological opinions, and the volumes of National 

Environmental Policy Act requirements. 

First, National Security Issues 

In Boundary County, Idaho the U.S. Border Patrol shoulders the daunting task 

of patrolling the rugged and remote land masses of the Selkirk, the Purcell, and the 

Cabinet Mountain ranges as well as all areas in between. The overwhelming majority of the area is largely mountainous and timbered with occasional valleys and 

farming districts. Unquestionably, access is vital to achieve any measure of success 

in securing the border. This access affords the Border Patrol the ability to secure 

these remote areas, the maintenance of a secure border and expansion into adjoining areas needing control. 

The Border Patrol has a number of tools available to support patrol activities, 

such as the use of ATV’s, horses, snowmobiles, sensors, etc. However, none of these 

tools provide the advantage, timeliness, communication ability, or officer safety, as 

a vehicle. Unabated, the established existing road and trail system can support the 

operational requirements for the patrol function. Conversely, access restrictions 

33 

placed by the resource managers: U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (USFWS); creates a debilitating effect on such activities. Largely, 

vast border areas are infrequently monitored or go without patrol all together. 

Resource managers have instituted these restrictions primarily as a result of ESA 

standards and biological opinions governing motorized traffic into the recovery zone 

of the Grizzly bear. Managers assert allowable ‘‘administrative trips’’ and ‘‘open road 

density standards.’’ Accordingly, in one Grizzly Bear recovery management area 

(Bog Creek), the maximum allowable annual ‘‘administrative trips’’ are capped at 

57 motorized trips per year. These trips are combined for the use of all agencies 

and jurisdictions, with no law enforcement exemption. The USFS and USFWS 

categorize the Border Patrol’s access as an ‘‘administrative trip,’’ albeit the Border 

Patrols mission is not ‘‘administrative’’ in nature. Never-the-less, each patrol into 

the recovery zone is subject to the limits of the ‘‘administrative trip’’ cap (57) being 

shared among all agencies. 

The USFS and USFWS managers have affected a number of measures to inhibit 

the Border Patrol’s ability to access the border areas. They have placed gates on 

roads not previously gated. They have not provided keys in a timely fashion. They 

have changed locks on gated roads currently in use without providing keys in advance. They have removed culverts, decommissioned roads, dug tank traps and 

placed large boulders in roadways, etc. The USFS seldom gives any notification or 

fore-warning that such measures were scheduled or taking place. 

All these agencies have been tasked with cooperating among one another as formalized through the Memorandum of Understanding titled ‘‘Cooperative National 

Security and Counter-Terrorism Efforts on Federal Lands along the United States 

Border’’, written and agreed upon in March of 2006 and signed by the Secretary of 

Interior, Secretary of Agriculture, and Secretary of Homeland Security. However, it 

is also my belief that this region’s USFS and USFWS have deliberately ignored the 

spirit of this directive. 

Simply put, the USFS and USFWS have placed the recovery of the Grizzly Bear, 

Caribou, Linx and other wildlife species as a priority above our Nation’s security. 

As an example, in 2006 while I was still employed as an Assistant Chief Patrol 

Agent of the Border Patrol in the Spokane Sector, I pushed for access along the border on the forest road in the Selkirk Mountains known as ‘‘Bog Creek.’’ This road 

intersects a number of roads in the border area providing approximately 25 miles 

of border coverage. It has been in existence for decades but was gated and closed 

to public traffic in the mid-1980s. Subsequently, as a result of the lack of maintenance, a culvert clogged up and a portion of the road caved away. The Border Patrol 

had routinely used this road for patrol purposes since its construction. But, since 

the area is within the Grizzly Bear Recovery area, the USFS and USFWS do not 

want to allow traffic on this road. Nor do they want to fund the repairs or maintenance needed to bring it back into serviceable condition for vehicular use. As a result the Border Patrol cannot use vehicles to patrol this entire length of border. In 

response to any incursion within this border area, the Border Patrol must traverse 

around the mountain range to the south then back to the north over distances that 

require a minimum of 3.5 hours of travel time. Throughout this particular area, no 

degree of security can be achieved without the use of Bog Creek Road. No level of 

deterrence to potential cross border illegal activity can be established, nor can any 

measure of control be obtainable. 

Although, this type of conflict is largely repetitive with regards to operations of 

the Border Patrol within the Spokane Sector and Boundary County, Idaho, it is not 

isolated to this agency or locality. It is an ongoing affair, or tactic, being used by 

the Federal land and wildlife management agencies in countless locations and jurisdictions along our Northern border. These same conflicts apply to our Local Sheriff’s 

Department, Emergency Medical Services, Wild fire Response, Search and Rescue 

units, just to name a few. 

I exclaim, as an elected official and a citizen, that the security of our Nation’s 

borders and our citizens is paramount. Border Security should not continue to be 

compromised merely to support the proliferation of any species of wildlife or natural 

resource. 

Rural Community Issues 

Boundary County consists of a total land area of approximately 810,572 acres 

comprised of 495,219 acres (61 percent) Federal land; 107,267 (13.2 percent) acres 

state land; and 208,056 acres (25.6 percent) privately owned land. Roughly 

90 percent of the Federal property within Boundary County is bound by numerous 

restrictions and road closures imposed upon it because of the Endangered Species 

Act (ESA), recommended wilderness/road-less rule, the lack funding for road maintenance, and the lack funding for timber harvest administration, etc. Approximately 

34 

50,000 acres of Federal land remains available with limited access for conventional 

forest management to supply our natural resource driven economy. 

Boundary County’s economic vitality is dependent upon the timber industry as it 

has been for the last 100 years. There is no shortage of timber resources as our forests continue to produce trees, and wildlife habitat is abundant. However, much of 

this timber is aging to the point of over-maturing. Please understand that even 

though the timber in our forest is renewable it still has a maximum life span. Much 

like a farmer’s crop, there comes the day that it is time for harvest. Delay will only 

promote loss and quality defects in the resource. The longer the delay, the more dramatic the damage will be. Vast areas of our forest suffer the effects of the lack of 

management through conscientious harvest. 

My county at one time had, at minimum, seven saw mills of varying sizes that 

provided employees with a family wage job. We are now down to two mills, one 

large and one medium. The volume of timber provided to these has steadily decreased as the years have gone by. 

The forest district prior to 1990 averaged a harvest volume of 38.8 mmbf per year. 

Then, 1991 through 2001, harvest volumes reduced to 19.8 mmbf per year and nearly all the planned projects were appealed by non-governmental special interest 

groups. During the time frame of 2001 to 2010 the district averaged 14.4 mmbf and 

most of the projects were appealed and several were litigated. This is merely a snapshot of how much influence the courts have in forest management. Due to litigation, 

the courts have essentially been placed into the position of making critical management determinations regarding our national forests. Special interest groups currently hold the health of our forest for ransom. 

In the current 5-year plan, within Boundary County the USFS has increased the 

harvest targets, from the levels of the recent past, to approximately 20 million board 

feet (mmbf) per year. Largely due to efforts of the state of Idaho, timber industry 

advocates, the Kootenai Tribe of Idaho, and local collaborative partners such as the 

Kootenai Valley Resource Initiative. The Community Forest Landscape Restoration 

Act designation (CFLRA) funding is also a significant attributing factor. This volume of harvest also represents less than 25 percent of the harvested timber supplying our local mills. However, the forest growth volumes continue to increase by 

several times beyond the targeted harvest amount. 

Areas of blown down timber consisting of millions of board feet of timber are 

being left to waste. Ageing timber is becoming more and more susceptible to disease, 

insect infestation and weather damage. All of these contribute to the overwhelming 

threat and likelihood of catastrophic wild fire. The overwhelming majority of the 

National Forest in Boundary County is identified by the Idaho Department of 

Lands, fire hazards assessment as being at a high risk of wildfire. See attached 

maps. Simply put, instead of benefiting from timber harvest, the USFS spends 

countless millions for wild fire suppression while the habitat is suffering from the 

effects. 

35 

BOUNDARY COUNTY, IDAHO 

Most of the roads that I drove in years past have been closed or gated. My community does not hold any animosity toward the listing of any wildlife species, but, 

they do take offense to the restrictions that come with it. These restrictions have 

been created by agency rules, litigation through the courts, the threats of litigation 

or from antiquated science—science that is tagged as the ‘‘best science available.’’ 

The counties of the state of Idaho have continually tried to correct and protect 

access to our Federal Lands, but ultimately any change in the Federal Land management must come from Congress. The agencies that have responsibility to manage 

land and animals are simply applying what has been handed to them by the rules 

and processes that are currently in place. Court actions have also added to the inability to manage our lands. 

I could have bored you with statistics, but they cannot explain the whole story. 

Now is the time to really look at positive changes to the Acts that guide how the 

Federal lands and wildlife are managed. I urge you to take the bull by the horns 

and make the necessary changes, for the sake of the citizens of my county, my state, 

and our country. 

In conclusion, I thank you for listening and for your consideration of these 

matters. It has been my distinct honor to be here and to speak before you today. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE GOHMERT TO LEALAN

PINKERTON, COMMISSIONER, BOUNDARY COUNTY, IDAHO

Question 1. What are some of the challenges on the Northern border that you 

believe are generally misunderstood by the public? 

Answer. Generally, the most prevalent misunderstanding by the public is the fact 

that the Border Patrol has statutory authority to enter onto and pass through private lands within 25 miles of the border, without warrant, for the purposes of 

patrolling the border. 

Also, the public believes that the Border Patrol has unfettered access to the 

border area throughout the National Forest. Yet, the Federal land and wildlife 

management agencies are currently restricting or eliminating public access along 

the Northern border. 

Another misconception by the public is that the Border Patrol wants roads in the 

National Forest closed to the public. To my knowledge, that has never been true. 

36 

The public has always been a cherished force multiplier for law enforcement efforts. 

With more public use of an area, the more opportunity there is that someone will 

witness a cross border criminal event and report it to the authorities. However, recently the public has been hearing that since the Bog Creek road (5 to 6 miles) is 

being reopened by the Border Patrol, there will be closures of an additional 25 miles 

of roads in the National Forest to meet road density standards of the grizzly bear 

recovery. 

Question 2. Mr. Pinkerton, the 2006 Memorandum of Understanding provides for 

access to Federal lands, including wilderness, when agents are in ‘‘hot pursuit.’’ 

However, if you are unable to patrol an area, due to wilderness or endangered species restrictions aren’t we giving cartels a head start? Is there a more reasonable 

way to approach this? 

Answer. Yes, by removing patrol from the tool kit, the criminal element absolutely 

has the advantage, both strategically and tactically. With a small amount of 

counter-intelligence gathering, a criminal organization can make very effective 

movements with little fear of an encounter with law enforcement. They can stage 

caches of equipment, scout routes, and plan activities during hours with low law enforcement presence. Just to name a few. 

It is important to remember that ‘‘Wilderness’’ and a ‘‘Multiple Use Forest’’ are 

significantly different. Wilderness in general is primitive, lacking roads and void of 

infrastructure. Motorized or mechanical access is most often impossible and strictly 

prohibited. Routine patrolling in a wilderness area is not authorized by the 2006 

memorandum. Along the Northern border it is mountainous and mostly timbered. 

If there is no road, there is no effective means to pursue via a vehicle. In rare cases, 

there are possibilities to continue a hot pursuit on an ATV or motorcycle, but even 

those modes of transportation would be capable in very few instances. 

In a Multiple Use Forest, roads are prevalent and vehicular access can be made 

with ease. However, with road closures due to the sensitive wildlife recovery efforts, 

vast areas of the border cannot be effectively patrolled, once again giving advantage 

to the criminal element. 

Therefore, the most practical approach is to give law enforcement agents the access they need to perform their mandatory function using the existing roads within 

close proximities to the border—without trip restriction restraints. 

Question 3. How have regulations on timber harvest impacted your county’s 

ability to provide critical services? 

Answer. With the reduction of timber harvest volumes our county has experienced 

the loss of numerous saw mills over the past couple of decades. As a result many 

family wage jobs no longer exist in the county job market. Young people most often 

leave the area after graduation from high school in search of jobs that can provide 

them with financial opportunities. 

Our county does not have any public transportation. All the fire and ambulance 

services operate as volunteer or on call entities. Even our county jail has been unable to expand to keep up with the needs of the community. 

Question 4. If your community were allowed to resume responsible timber harvest, 

would you need forest funds from the Federal Government? What does the unpredictability of Federal funds do to your ability to strategically budget in your county? 

Answer. With an ample amount of timber harvest, our county would eventually 

be able to do without forest funds from the Federal Government. Unfortunately, it 

would take some time before that would be possible. Most of the needed infrastructure that once existed here is gone. As saw mills were closed, the equipment was 

sold off and moved from the area. It would take years for the market to drive the 

return of the costly modern specialized equipment, and even more time to get these 

large industrial establishments built. 

The unpredictability of Federal funds has a significant adverse effect on our county being able to budget accordingly. Many of our departments must continue to consider how they would operate if the funds come late or do not come at all. Numerous 

times employee positions have gone unfilled or delayed for extended periods since 

the funding could not be counted on in a timely fashion. County road construction 

projects have been pushed back or eliminated because of the budgeting restraints. 

These are just a few examples of a long list of budgeting predicaments created by 

the unpredictability of the Federal funding. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Commissioner, thank you very much. 

37 

At this time, Ms. Walden, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF NAN STOCKHOLM WALDEN, VICE PRESIDENT 

AND COUNSEL, FARMERS INVESTMENT COMPANY AND 

GREEN VALLEY PECAN COMPANY, SAHUARITA, ARIZONA 

Ms. WALDEN. Thank you, Chairman Gohmert, Ranking Member 

Dingell, and committee members. On behalf of Farmers Investment 

Company (FICO) and the Green Valley Pecan Company, I appreciate the opportunity to address you today on public lands issues 

in the vicinity of the border. 

I am happy to be associated with the hard-working farmers and 

ranchers that are here with me at the table. Thanks to them and 

us, I might add, we have the cheapest and safest food supply in the 

world, and we work hard at it. 

FICO is a major agricultural enterprise founded by my husband’s 

father, Keith Walden, almost 75 years ago. Today my husband, 

Dick, is President and CEO. I am General Counsel, and both our 

children, the third generation of Waldens, are active in the company. We employ 260 permanent workers, many of whom are also 

second- and third-generation employees for us, mostly of MexicanAmerican descent. Spanish is the chosen language in our plant and 

on our farm; and we do hire some additional workers during the 

harvest season, usually 50 to 60, which are integral to our 

operation. 

We are the largest integrated grower and processor of pecans in 

the world. Our pecans are known worldwide for their quality. The 

FICO headquarters is located just over 40 miles north of the border, and our home ranch is just less than 30 miles from the border. 

We have a horse and cattle operation with 160 acres of private 

land and a 6,000-acre state grazing lease. Our proximity to the border gives us firsthand experience with border security challenges, 

and we know the difficult job the Border Patrol and other agencies 

are tasked to undertake. 

Like many Arizonans, we also have a special relationship with 

our land. Both our business and ranch are located near the 

Coronado National Forest, a major recreation venue for the residents of Tucson, Green Valley, and the surrounding areas. I had 

some brochures passed out so you could see how beautiful this land 

is, and how historic. 

I want to point out that, in our West, our public lands are significant economy drivers. Current Border Patrol strategies, particularly permanent checkpoints, are adversely impacting rural 

communities and public lands. 

I agree with the Chiltons, that we would like to see the border 

secured at the international border, but border security legislation 

should not compromise the protection of civil rights and quality of 

life for those living in the border region. After all, Mexico is our 

third-largest trading partner. We buy pecans, for example, from 

growers in Mexico; our employees travel back and forth to do this, 

my husband travels back and forth to do this. This is good for 

Mexico and it is good for the United States. 

And finally, comprehensive immigration reform is essential and 

inexorably linked to border security. 

38 

I think that any examination of border security issues related to 

public lands must consider the economic value that it adds. For example, in our area, tourism spending generates $3.6 billion in economic activity annually, and employs over 30,000 individuals in 

southern Arizona. Wildlife activities, including hunting and fishing 

alone, generate over $1 billion annually. While public safety is a 

paramount concern, we must also consider the economic consequences of legislation addressing border security. As you know, 

all too well, these are very complex, multi-layered issues. 

I mentioned our concern about permanent fixed checkpoints, 

which drive traffic into our farms, ranches, and communities. I 

have personally witnessed high-speed chases right through my 

front lawn—except we have gravel in Arizona, we don’t have 

lawns—and it really is questionable, some of these chases and tactics undertaken by the Border Patrol in areas that are populated. 

That is not to say that we do not appreciate their efforts, but I 

think the rapid staffing up and, sometimes, lack of training for people have caused situations where we have Border Patrol lost on our 

property within a quarter-mile of the major freeway, or asking us 

for directions. So that needs to be considered, as well. 

My understanding and my experience is that we have an excellent ranch liaison, and that the relationship between the Border 

Patrol and public land managers has evolved into a very constructive and well-coordinated one, as Mr. Andrew described. 

I realize there is a perception by some that the Border Patrol is 

locked out of public lands. But I tell you, people who spend time 

on public lands in our area find this assertion amazing, because we 

see the Border Patrol everywhere on a daily basis, and in our 

communities. 

I also want to say that the Homeland Security enjoys what is 

characterized as ‘‘the broadest waiver of law in American history,’’ 

that Congresswoman Dingell referred to. We are very concerned 

about some of the pending bills in the House that would unilaterally waive laws, and deny those living in the border region protections of those laws. And our employees have suffered, as a result 

of some of those laws. 

I would be happy to answer any additional questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Walden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NAN STOCKHOLM WALDEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND COUNSEL

FOR FARMERS INVESTMENT CO. (FICO), FARMERS WATER CO. (FWC), AND THE

GREEN VALLEY PECAN COMPANY, SAHUARITA, ARIZONA

I. INTRODUCTION

Chair Gohmert, Ranking Member Dingell, members of the committee, I am Nan 

Stockholm Walden, Vice President and Counsel for Farmers Investment Co. (FICO), 

Farmers Water Co. (FWC) and The Green Valley Pecan Company in Sahuarita, 

Arizona. I appreciate the opportunity to address the committee on public lands 

issues in the vicinity of the U.S./Mexico border. 

FICO is a major agricultural enterprise founded by my husband’s father R. Keith 

Walden almost 75 years ago. Today, my husband, Dick Walden, who is the President and CEO of the company, and the third generation of Waldens, including 

daughter Deborah and son Rich, are active in the company. 

We employ 260 permanent workers, many of whom also are second and third generation FICO employees, whom we consider family, as well. During harvest season, 

we hire an additional 50 to 60 workers, making us one of the larger employers in 

Pima County. 

39 

1 Arizona Travel Impacts 1998–2014p. (2015, June). Retrieved from https://tourism.az.gov/ 

sites/default/files/documents/files/AZImp14pFinal_1.pdf. Report prepared by Dean Runyon & 

Associates. 2DeRaad, B. (2/2014). Visit Tucson Memo To Larry Hecker, Chairman, Pima County Bond 

Advisory Committee. (Memorandum). Tucson, AZ. http://webcms.pima.gov/common/pages/ 

UserFile.aspx?fileId=78818. 3Tucson Audubon Society: The Economic Contributions of Wildlife Viewing to the Arizona 

Economy: A County-Level Analysis. 2013. Southwick Associates /Arizona Game & Fish Department. http://www.tucsonaudubon.org/images/stories/News/TAS-AZ-WildlifeWatching-Analysis2011-130718.pdf. 4Silberman, J., Ph.D. (n.d.). Economic Importance of Hunting and Fishing (Arizona Game and 

Fish Department/Arizona State University). https://www.azgfd.com/PortalImages/files/wildlife/ 

FISHING_HUNTING%20Report.pdf. 

FICO is the largest integrated grower and processor of pecans in the world. We 

are also the largest producer of organic pecans. Research has shown that pecans are 

rich in antioxidants, can lower harmful LDL cholesterol, and contain 19 essential 

vitamins and minerals, as well as being an excellent source of protein. FICO sells 

pecans to food manufacturers including makers of cereals, health bars, ice creams, 

candies and bakery goods, to retail chains that package our nuts under their label, 

and directly to customers—both here and abroad. We also buy pecans from other 

growers in the United States and Mexico. 

FICO owns approximately 11,000 acres in southern Arizona, of which about 7,500 

acres are irrigated and under cultivation for pecan nuts, a tree native to North 

America. 

The FICO headquarters is located just over 40 miles north of the border, and our 

home ranch is just less than 30 miles. Our property in Amado is a horse and cattle 

operation that includes 160 acres of private land and a 6,000-acre state grazing 

lease. We are well aware of the importance of public lands to agriculture and 

ranching. 

Consequently, we have the firsthand experience with border security challenges, 

and we know the difficult job the Border Patrol is tasked to undertake. The Border 

Patrol has responded to calls on both our farm and our ranch. I might add that our 

Border Patrol Tucson Sector Ranch Liaison, Jake Stukenberg, does an excellent job 

helping us cooperate with Border Patrol. 

Like many Arizonans, we have a special relationship with our public lands. Both 

our business and ranch are located near the Coronado National Forest, a major 

recreation venue for residents of Tucson, Green Valley, and the surrounding area. 

I have ridden horses, and hiked on the Coronado and have visited many of the other 

public lands in southern Arizona under the management of the National Park 

Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Bureau of Land Management. 

I also serve on the Board of Directors of the National Immigration Forum, a nonpartisan organization that works with diverse constituencies especially business, 

faith and law enforcement leaders advocating for immigrants and responsible immigration policy. This policy must reflect immigrants’ contributions to our Nation’s 

history, culture and growth, and their continuing contributions to our country’s 

economy, especially in the agriculture and ranching sectors in rural communities. 

The views I am offering today are informed by this context. 

II. ECONOMIC CONTRIBUTION OF PUBLIC LANDS

Any examination of border security issues related to public lands must consider 

their economic value to rural communities. In southern Arizona, our public lands 

are significant regional economic contributors. For example, according to the 

Arizona Office of Tourism, tourism spending generates $3.6 billion in economic activity annually and employs over 30,000 individuals in southern Arizona.1 In 2012, 

a local tourism agency found that our natural environment is the number one 

reason visitors come to our community.2

Public land uses related to wildlife activity are also significant in our region. In 

2011, watchable wildlife recreation activities, such as birding, generated over $702 

million in economic activity and supports in excess of 3,300 jobs in the four county 

border region.3 According to the most recent data available from the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department, hunting and fish add over $324 million in economic activity 

and almost 2,300 jobs in this same four county border region.4

Moreover, southern Arizona has a legacy of ranchers working collaboratively with 

other stakeholders to address common challenges. These examples include collaborative efforts such as the Malpai Borderlands Group and the Altar Valley Conservation Alliance. Both of these groups work with land management agencies and the 

Border Patrol to maintain working landscapes, including improving grazing lands, 

40 

5 United States, Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2009). Checkpoints Contribute to 

Border Patrol’s Mission, but More Consistent Data Collection and Performance Measurement 

Could Improve Effectiveness (GAO–09–824). Washington, District of Columbia. 

while also protecting wildlife, managing fire to benefit the landscape, dealing with 

drought and erosion control and other challenges. 

While public safety is of paramount concern, we must also consider the economic 

consequences of our actions. 

III. IMPACT OF PERMANENT BORDER CHECKPOINTS ON RURAL COMMUNITIES AND

PUBLIC LANDS

FICO has long-standing concerns about the effectiveness of permanent Border 

Patrol checkpoints and their impacts on the surrounding community including nearby public lands. We met often with former Rep. Jim Kolbe, and I served on Rep. 

Gabrielle Giffords’ Citizens’ Advisory Committee on Checkpoints. 

Those of us that live in areas surrounding the checkpoint have, for years, been 

exposed to the degradation of our public safety because of them—high-speed car 

chases through our neighborhoods, gunshot victims and the like. I have experienced 

a high-speed chase by Border Patrol through my front driveway in Sahuarita, AZ 

that I am sure would have killed an employee or me had I not been in my home 

office at the time. The result was that a couple and two young terrified kids were 

apprehended, but there were no weapons or drugs found in their car. 

My neighbor at the Agua Linda Ranch was pushed down on the ground by Border 

Patrol agents around 10 p.m. one night when he was near his ranch house, changing the irrigation set on his vegetables, dressed in his pajamas, despite the fact that 

he identified himself as the owner of the property. 

Our neighbors and ourselves have had many similar experiences of livestock 

buzzed by helicopters flying too low over pastures, gates left open, fences cut and 

crossers asked to dump all their belongings on our property, which were left there, 

not confiscated. We have had numerous examples of Border Patrol agents being unfamiliar or lost on our ranch property, which is within a quarter mile of the major 

North/South Interstate, I–19. 

A senior member of our team who happens to be Mexican-American was stopped 

by the Border Patrol 40 miles north of the border on her way from her home to 

work. She was driving a late model SUV with two young daughters in the back in 

car seats. When she asked why she was stopped, the Border Patrol Officer replied, 

‘‘You fit the profile.’’ 

‘‘What profile is that? ’’ she asked. 

‘‘Driving a late model SUV and obeying the traffic laws and speed limit,’’ was the 

reply. 

Sharing these stories with you does not at all mean we do not appreciate the efforts of the Border Patrol. Rather, proper training is crucial to Border Patrol agents 

working successfully with rural communities. We have noted that because Border 

Patrol has significantly increased staffing levels in recent years, there is a lot of 

transferring agents from one sector to another, high rates of turnover, and lack of 

uniform training. 

The Border Patrol strategy, ‘‘Defense in Depth,’’ calls for retreating 30 or so miles 

from the border with fixed checkpoints. This strategy has us living in a No Man’s 

Land and underestimates the intelligence of the enemy we are fighting—the drug 

and human smugglers. The assumption that these criminals will not circumvent 

fixed checkpoints and traverse through our neighborhoods, our ranches, our communities and our public lands is not based in reality. 

There have been several in-depth examinations of the effectiveness and impacts 

of the Border Patrols checkpoint strategy. 

GAO, August 2009 5—This GAO report confirmed that the Border Patrol was 

proceeding without adequate information on the effectiveness of fixed checkpoints and their adverse impacts on the public safety and quality of life of 

southern Arizona. GAO found that there were ‘‘information gaps and reporting 

issues’’ because of insufficient data, the agency was unable to compare the cost 

effectiveness of checkpoints to other strategies, and the Border Patrol had misrepresented its checkpoint performance. It also found that of all the apprehensions of illegal immigrants in the vicinity of the I–19 checkpoint in a certain 

fiscal year, ‘‘94 percent occurred in the areas surrounding the checkpoint, while 

only 6 percent took place at the checkpoint itself.’’ In other words, these statistics make it clear that the checkpoint was driving criminal activities into the 

areas surrounding the checkpoint. 

41 

6Gans, J., M.S., M.P. (December 2012). The Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate 19 in 

Southern Arizona: A Case Study of Impacts on Residential Real Estate (Rep.). Udall Center for 

Studies in Public Policy, The University of Arizona. 7Government Accountability Office (GAO). (2012). Key Elements of New Strategic Plan Not Yet 

in Place to Inform Border Security Status and Resource Needs (GAO–13–25). Washington, 

District of Columbia. 8 ‘‘Southwest Border: Border Patrol Operations on Federal Lands,’’ Statement of Anu K. 

Mittal, Director, Natural Resources and Environment, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

April 15, 2011, p. 16. 9 Id. P. 17. 

Udall Center for Studies in Public Policy, the University of Arizona, December 

2012 6—After undertaking a detailed statistical analysis this study found that 

the I–19 checkpoint is having a significant impact on the property values of the 

community surrounding this facility. This means that rural communities in the 

vicinity of the checkpoint, like Tubac, Arizona, are bearing a disproportionate 

economic burden for this border security tactic. 

Tubac is in a rural area 20 miles from the border. It has become a major draw 

for tourists and businesses due to its historical, cultural, artistic and recreational facilities. Yet we know of many visitors and potential residents who 

have canceled vacations or real estate purchases due to concerns about the permanent checkpoint and appearance of extreme militarism in the area. 

GAO, December 2012 7—This report found, among other things, that because of 

data limitations the Border Patrol is unable to compare the effectiveness how 

resources are deployed among sectors. Each sector collects and reports the data 

differently thus precluding comparison. Policymakers and Border Patrol leadership are unable to effectively assess the effectiveness of tactics such as the 

checkpoint. 

FICO believes that fixed permanent checkpoints threaten public safety in addition 

to resulting in significant economic consequences. It is clear in our view that they 

drive illegal activities away from the checkpoint into surrounding areas including 

Federal public lands. Any policy review of border security issues related to public 

lands must consider the impacts of these checkpoints. 

IV. LEGISLATION REGARDING BORDER SECURITY AND PUBLIC LANDS

I would now like to turn to legislative efforts to address border security issues 

related to public lands. We are blessed in Arizona with magnificent national forests, 

national monuments, national wildlife refuges and historic sites at or near the U.S.- 

Mexico border. As noted earlier, these public lands are vitally important to our quality of life, recreation, and the local economy. 

The very significant increase in Border Patrol agents assigned to the Southwest 

has led to many Border Patrol agents now working and even living on these public 

lands. 

My understanding is that the relationship between the Border Patrol and the 

public land management agencies has evolved into a very constructive and wellcoordinated relationship. The public land agencies have law enforcement staff with 

a deep knowledge of the landscape routinely work with Border Patrol agents. Land 

managers acknowledge the need for Border Patrol presence to patrol these lands 

and have developed both national and local procedures and processes that respect 

the Border Patrol’s needs. Border Patrol agents may always use motorized vehicles 

in the interests of assuring public safety and national security. 

The General Accountability Office (GAO) has undertaken studies that have examined the intersection of border security and environmental law. Not surprisingly and 

especially in the earlier years of increased Border Patrol presence, these reports documented some delays in border security infrastructure projects as the result of 

working with land management agencies. However, despite such incidents, ‘‘most 

patrol agents-in-charge told us that border security status of their jurisdictions had 

not been affected by land management laws. Instead, factors other than access 

delays or restrictions, such as the remoteness and ruggedness of the terrain or 

dense vegetation, have had the greatest effect on their abilities to achieve or maintain operational control.’’ 8 For example, GAO testimony presented in 2011, relying 

on two 2010 GAO reports, noted that patrol agents-in-charge at 22 of the 26 stations 

on the Southwest border with Federal lands in their areas reported that no portions 

of these stations’ jurisdictions have had their border security status . . . downgraded as a result of land management laws.’’ 9

GAO also noted examples of Federal interagency coordination, which they found 

strengthened border security. Some examples of this include the placement of the 

42 

10 ‘‘Border Security: Additional Actions Needed to Better Ensure a Coordinated Federal 

Response to Illegal Activity on Federal Lands,’’ November 18, 2010. Memorandum from Stephen 

R. Vin ̃ a & Todd Tatelman, Legislative Attorneys, Am. Law Division, Cong. Research Serv., on 

Section 102 of H.R. 418, Waiver of Laws Necessary for Improvement of Barriers at Borders, 

(Feb. 9, 2005). 11This includes wilderness areas. ‘‘Per the 2006 MOU [Memorandum of Understanding], 

Border Patrol agents have the authority at any time to conduct motorized off-road pursuit in 

the event of exigency/emergency involving human life, health, safety of persons within the area, 

or posing a threat to national security.’’ Statement for the Record, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection, before the House Committee on Natural Resources, Subcommittee on National 

Parks, Forests, and Public Lands, ‘National Security and Federal Lands Protection Act,’ ’’ Department of Homeland Security, July 8, 2011. 12 ‘‘Wilderness impact on border security debated,’’ Las Cruces Sun News, May 11, 2010. 13Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee, Hearing on Border Fencing, 

Infrastructure and Force Multipliers, May 13, 2015; at http://www.hsgac.senate.gov/hearings/ 

securing-the-border-fencing-infrastructure-and-technology-force-multipliers, 1:25:55–1:28-:30. 14Memorandum from Stephen R. Vin ̃ a & Todd Tatelman, Legislative Attorneys, Am. Law 

Division, Cong. Research Serv., on Section 102 of H.R. 418, Waiver of Laws Necessary for 

Improvement of Barriers at Borders, (Feb. 9, 2005). 

forward operating bases on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument and Cabeza 

Prieta National Wildlife Refuge and improvements to Forest Service roads to facilitate border security operations on the Coronado National Forest.10

I realize that there is a perception by some that the Border Patrol is ‘‘locked out’’ 

of public lands. People who spend time on public lands in southern Arizona find this 

assertion rather amazing, as there is considerable evidence of the Border Patrol’s 

presence, including regular patrols and law enforcement actions. It is a fact that 

CBP already has access on all Federal lands.11 Several thousand Border Patrol 

agents currently patrol public lands, the Tohono O’odham Nation, and the Barry 

Goldwater range in southern Arizona. There are Forward Operating Bases where 

agents live and work on Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument (95 percent wilderness) and Cabeza Prieta National Wildlife Refuge (93 percent wilderness). Here are 

some of the statements Border Patrol agents have made in relationship to this 

issue: 

‘‘But claiming agents would have to stop at wilderness designated areas or go 

around them is completely wrong,’’ said Border Patrol spokesman Ramiro 

Cordero. ‘‘Border Patrol is already permitted to monitor and enforce within 

wilderness areas,’’ Cordero confirmed Tuesday. 

‘‘We’re still allowed to patrol anywhere . . . if there’s any danger or pursuit; 

we’re not going to stop. There’s no truth that we cannot go in (to wilderness 

areas). The Federal authority gives us the authority to go anywhere,’’ Cordero 

said.12

Or more recently, the then Deputy Chief of the Border Patrol (now Acting Chief) 

had this to say in response to questions posed in the Senate Homeland Security and 

Government Affairs Committee: 

Senator Tester: Does the Border Patrol have access all along the border—on 

public and private lands? 

Deputy Chief Vitiello: We’re on the border everywhere—both private and public 

lands. 

Senator Tester: What about Glacier National Park? 

Deputy Chief Vitiello: Same answer, no particular problems. 

Senator Tester: I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but I do want to ask— 

do you need anything special to work in these areas? Any special tools? 13

Deputy Chief Vitiello: No, no additional tools. 

I also want to remind the subcommittee that the Department of Homeland 

Security currently enjoys what the Congressional Research Service has characterized as the ‘‘broadest waiver of law in American history.’’ 14 That authority is still 

in effect and is still being used in Arizona. That provision has no sunset provision. 

However, despite the Border Patrol’s statements and their lack of advocacy for additional authority to waive laws, there are two bills pending in the House that 

would unilaterally waive laws. H.R. 1412, the misnamed Arizona Borderlands 

Protection and Preservation Act (which, among other things, applies to a portion of 

southeast California and all of Nevada), eliminates the rule of law for all actions 

of Customs and Border Protection on public lands. The bill’s stated purpose is to 

‘‘give’’ access to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) on Federal lands ‘‘notwithstanding any other provision of law.’’ In other words, these law enforcement 

43 

15 American Immigration Lawyers Association, What’s Going on with Immigration 

Enforcement? Fewer Border Crossers, More Asylum Seekers, 23 December 2015. 16 U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Fiscal Year 2015 CBP Border Security Report. 22 

December 2015. https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/CBP%20FY15%20Border%20 

Security%20Report_12-21_0.pdf. 17Government Accountability Office (GAO). Southwest Border Security: Additional Actions 

Needed to Assess Resource Deployment and Progress. GAO–16–465T. 1 March 2016. http:// 

www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-465T. 18 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations 

Report Fiscal Year 2015. 22 December 2015. https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ 

Report/2016/fy2015removalStats.pdf. 19O’Toole, Molly. ‘‘Analysis: Obama Deportations Raise Immigration Policy Questions.’’ 

Reuters. Thomson Reuters, 20 Sept. 2011. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/20/us-obamaimmigration-idUSTRE78J05720110920. 

agencies will be given unprecedented police powers to stop ‘‘all’’ illegal entries. The 

bill exempts state and private lands, which would still enjoy implementation of the 

full panoply of laws while public lands would be relegated to a secondary position 

in which Americans living hundreds of miles from the border would not have the 

same Federal protection of their civil rights and quality of life that exist elsewhere 

in the country. 

H.R. 399, also pending in the House, similarly waives laws—in this case, specifically, the Administrative Procedures Act, the National Environmental Policy Act, 

the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act, the National Park Service Organic 

Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Antiquities Act, the Arizona Desert 

Wilderness Act, the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and several other laws—on public lands within 100 miles of the U.S. borders with Mexico 

and Canada. Again, this proposal is ill advised, unwarranted and not sought by the 

very agency it purports to assist. Rather, it appears to be a very specific assault 

on public lands and environmental laws. 

While waiver of laws to protect our Nation’s citizens, public lands, wildlife, and 

historic and cultural treasures could, in my view, seldom if ever be justified, it is 

especially inappropriate at this point when the number of apprehensions of unlawful 

border crossers has declined to the lowest level in 40 years.15 The Fiscal Year 2015 

Customs and Border Protection Border Report found Southwest border apprehensions had declined 30 percent in the last year and almost 80 percent below its peak 

in Fiscal Year 2000.16 A March 2016 GAO study also found that the overall effectiveness rate of the Border Patrol increased in eight of the nine sectors on the 

Southwest border—including a 20 percentage overall effectiveness rate increase in 

the Tucson sector—between Fiscal Years 2006 and 2011.17

DHS continues to deport individuals at significant levels following several recordbreaking years. In Fiscal Year 2015, ICE announced it had deported 235,435 individuals. As of September 2015, the Obama administration had deported more than 

2.1 million individuals.18 This pace far surpasses the 1.57 million individuals 

deported during the 8 years President George W. Bush was in office.19

In this body, H.R. 4303, the Border Security and Accountability Act of 2015, 

appears to be a more comprehensive approach. Among other things, this legislation 

requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to develop and implement a comprehensive border security strategy and plan to implement this strategy, invest in 

our ports of entries, consult with border communities as well as local and state law 

enforcement agencies from Southern border localities, and work with Mexico. It 

would also restore the full rule of law to our borderlands. This more comprehensive 

approach is worthy of consideration. 

V. COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM

As longtime business owners who live and work within 30 to 40 miles of the border, I cannot emphasize enough the inexorable link between border security and 

comprehensive immigration reform. 

We understand the gravity of the border situation—the drug-associated violence, 

human smuggling, and environmental impacts—as well as the impacts of some 

enforcement activities on our commerce and property values. 

We also know the effects of poorly crafted or implemented Federal or state policies 

that create a climate of fear and discrimination among the civilian population— 

business and commerce decline and families suffer. 

That makes your job all the more challenging and important—and we thank you 

for hearing from the people like us who live this situation daily, and for those of 

you who have visited the border and talked to residents and those who work and 

travel on both sides of the line. 

44 

20 In U.S., 65% Favor Path to Citizenship for Illegal Immigrants. (2015, August 12). Retrieved 

April 26, 2016, from http://www.gallup.com/poll/184577/favor-path-citizenship-illegalimmigrants.aspx. 21Molnar, P. (2013, April 8). Panetta Lecture Series: Border security experts say immigration 

reform is vital. Retrieved April 26, 2016, from http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/article/zz/ 

20130408/NEWS/130408557. 

In 2008, I testified before the House Subcommittee on Homeland Security, regarding the importance of comprehensive immigration reform. Much of what we told you 

in 2008 remains a problem today. 

We must remember and appreciate the contributions of our legal immigrants and 

those in our area who are of Mexican-American descent, without whom agriculture 

and ranching could not flourish in the United States. The health care industry, 

restaurant and hospitality industry, construction, mining and many other sectors 

depend on continued renewal of both entry level and skilled labor from other 

countries. 

Mexico is our third-largest trading partner, behind Canada and China. The U.S. 

and Mexican economies are interdependent. As Mexico strengthens its institutions 

and economy, the benefits flow into our country, and there is less pressure for illegal 

migration. 

In our experience, the paths for both permanent and temporary legal workers in 

the United States are long, crooked and in some cases dead-ends. Since 1986 we 

have not uniformly enforced immigration laws, nor have we adequately dealt with 

ways to efficiently permit temporary workers, and provide a timely path to citizenship for those who merit it. Agricultural and other visa programs are impractical 

and unworkable. 

Polls show that most Americans favor comprehensive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship and that these levels of support have remained constant 

for more than a decade.20

National security experts under both Republican and Democratic administrations,21 assert that the most effective border security strategy is comprehensive immigration reform. We must fix the immigration system by providing legal avenues 

for workers to enter the United States when needed and allow families to reunify. 

The 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which resolved the status of most 

undocumented immigrants at the time, did not adequately address the demand for 

legal immigrant labor. Because there continues to be a demand for immigrant labor, 

individuals from other countries who seek a better life are drawn to our Nation that 

is full of opportunity. 

By providing more avenues for these individuals to come to the United States 

through legal means, law enforcement and border officials will be able to spend 

fewer resources toward immigrants migrating for economic reasons and more 

resources toward genuine criminal and terrorist threats that could harm our communities. Smart enforcement and border security, coupled with comprehensive 

immigration reforms, can improve security at the border. 

VI. CONCLUSION

We appreciate the professional efforts of the Border Patrol and we certainly believe in securing our Nation’s borders, preferably at the border or in the immediate 

vicinity. 

We also value our Nation’s public lands and understand the significant contribution they make to our local and national economy as well as to quality of life. 

Protection of our public lands is part of protecting our national security; the two are 

certainly not in conflict. 

We urge Congress to stop trying to achieve the infeasible—100 percent apprehension of all border crossers—and to cease blaming public land managers and environmental laws for border security problems. 

Rather, Congress should enact comprehensive immigration reform that addresses 

our society’s need for lawful immigrants, and, at the same time protects and enhances the public lands our growing population needs for recreational, economic and 

spiritual needs. 

45 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY REPRESENTATIVE GRIJALVA TO NAN

STOCKHOLM WALDEN, VICE PRESIDENT AND COUNSEL, FARMERS INVESTMENT

COMPANY, AND GREEN VALLEY PECAN COMPANY

Question 1. In your testimonies, both you and Mrs. Chilton were quite critical of 

the Border Patrol’s ‘‘Defense in Depth’’ strategy and you both cite personal testimony. However, Mrs. Chilton appears to believe that a significant part of the reason 

for the ‘‘Defense in Depth’’ strategy, as opposed to a ‘‘protect the border at the border’’ strategy, is that the presence of public lands and environmental laws hinders 

the Border Patrol’s ability to work at or near the border. 

You appear to have a good relationship with the Border Patrol Ranch Liaison in 

your area and have clearly talked with other Border Patrol agents. In conversations 

with them, have you ever heard it suggested that the reason they are not focusing 

their resources and personnel at the border is because of public lands and associated 

laws? 

Answer. In numerous conversations with Border Patrol agents they have never 

suggested to me that laws regarding public lands hinder their access. 

Moreover, the 2009 GAO study I refer to in my testimony documents that Border 

Patrol has major ‘‘information gaps and reporting issues’’ which causes Border 

Patrol to misrepresent the effectiveness of checkpoint performance compared to 

other strategies. 

Question 2. Can you give a specific example of how the I–19 checkpoint has 

adversely affected the local economy in your area? 

Answer. I know from talking to realtors and merchants in the Tubac area, south 

of the checkpoint that visitors and potential buyers of homes and ranches complain 

about having to traverse the checkpoint daily. There are often traffic backups there. 

One realtor told me that a number of his buyers have actually signed a contract 

to purchase a house, then rescinded it when they discovered the checkpoint was a 

permanent fixture they would have to drive through from Tubac or points south to 

reach the nearest hospital, drugstore or dry cleaners. 

Other economic impacts on property values and businesses have been documented 

in the Udall Center/University of Arizona study by J. Gans, (December 2012) The 

Border Patrol Checkpoint on Interstate 19 in Sourthern Arizona: A Case Study of 

Impacts on Residential Real Estate. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Ms. Walden. At this time we will 

begin questioning. And I will hold my questions and first recognize 

the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the 

witnesses for being here today. 

The balancing of interests between the mission of our Federal 

land management agencies and the critical mission of the Department of Homeland Security in securing our borders is a topic that 

is all-too-often ignored. In fact, it is something that some people do 

not even think about. 

I have to be honest. I practiced immigration law for over 10 

years. When I first came to Congress, somebody told me that we 

were having a problem at the border with allowing Border Patrol 

agents from pursuing suspects on Federal land and that, in fact, 

many people would go through the Federal land because they knew 

the Border Patrol agents would not follow them; I laughed out 

loud, literally laughed out loud. I said, ‘‘That is impossible.’’ After 

having practiced law for so many years, I had not even heard of 

this issue. 

There is no doubt that our borders are porous, and there is no 

doubt that Customs and Border Protection, and specifically the 

U.S. Border Patrol, is on the front line in harm’s way. They are trying to keep watch over our Nation. This is not the appropriate 

46 

setting to debate immigration policy, but we must remember that 

border security goes way beyond just illegal entrants. 

At the Northern border, in the state where I live, we have a lot 

of issues with trafficking of children, child pornography, and many 

other issues. It is not just about illegal immigration. It is our duty 

to ensure that the drugs, weapons, people, and materials that 

threaten our national security are intercepted and repealed. 

So, Commissioner Pinkerton, based on your experience, how 

secure is the Northern border today? 

Mr. PINKERTON. I would not consider it secure in any fashion. As 

a matter of fact, if you date back to the 1970s, it is probably somewhere in the same realm, as far as being secure. It is not secure, 

to answer. 

Mr. LABRADOR. In his testimony, Mr. Andrew spoke about agency 

collaboration and Memorandums of Understanding. Are you familiar with any MOUs between the Department of Homeland Security 

and the Department of the Interior agencies? 

Mr. PINKERTON. Yes, sir. It was signed in 2006 by all three 

agency secretaries. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And have those MOUs provided better 

coordination? 

Mr. PINKERTON. No, sir, not in my opinion. As a matter of fact, 

I believe it has been damaging to the mission of the Border Patrol. 

It has put the position of the Border Patrol in somewhat of a compromise, and—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. How? How has it compromised the mission of the 

Border Patrol? 

Mr. PINKERTON. Well, sir, the Border Patrol is a law enforcement 

faction, and they have to run their operations based on law enforcement needs. The land management agencies, for the most part, are 

not. Sometimes the Border Patrol has to share sensitive law enforcement information with a biologist, so to speak, because of the 

restrictions on a road that may be back there. 

The cooperation among the agencies has been somewhat onesided against the Border Patrol, in my experience. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Your testimony references administrative, motorized trips through a grizzly bear recovery zone in northern Idaho. 

How is Border Patrol affected by the caps in administrative trips? 

Mr. PINKERTON. Well, I think the term itself is something that 

should bring your attention—‘‘administrative.’’ The trips behind 

these gates for the Border Patrol are not administrative in nature. 

An administrative trip would be for—let’s say a biologist to go back 

there and check on a collar that fell off of a bear, or put batteries 

into something that they are using to gauge traffic for the animals, 

or something of that sort—that is an administrative trip. For the 

Forest Service, to do a timber scale, or timber sale stand exam, so 

to speak. But for the Border Patrol, it is a matter of a tactic that 

they are needing. It is not administrative in nature. It could be a 

life and death situation of a matter of a few seconds. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. I am troubled, Mr. Andrew, by your 

statement that, ‘‘Mitigation activities aimed at protecting the environment during border security deployment has had no impact on 

Border Patrol’s ability to protect the border.’’ Are you referring to 

47 

the entire border when you make such a statement, or just the 

Southern border? 

Mr. ANDREW. I think I was referring to it in general. There are, 

obviously, some issues that Mr. Pinkerton has pointed out that we 

need to work on. But in other areas, implementation of the MOU 

has been very—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. What statistics or data can you provide to 

support that general claim? 

Mr. ANDREW. Statistic? Well, I would use an example such an 

Organ Pipe, where we used the MOU to provide Border Patrol with 

road access. We met with them and asked them where they needed 

access. They mapped it out, and we marked the road so they would 

have that; and that includes in wilderness. 

So, it has worked well in some places. At Bog Creek in Idaho, 

it has been a challenge, to be honest. We are getting better at it. 

I think we are on the right track now. We have had some discussions here with Mr. Pinkerton that have been very educational for 

me. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you think Border Patrol agents are hampered 

by denied access to certain areas? 

Mr. ANDREW. I hope not. It is not my intention. I work to assure 

that the Border Patrol has the access they need when they need 

it. I can’t say that we are perfect with it, but I am very willing to 

work on making that better, wherever needed. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. At this time the 

gentlelady from Michigan, Mrs. Dingell, is recognized for 

5 minutes. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Walden, as a representative of a border state, myself, I am 

sympathetic to the concerns that our witnesses have raised about 

ensuring safety and security along the border. However, important 

environmental laws do not need to be sacrificed in order to have 

Customs and Border Protection do its job. 

Unfortunately, they have been sacrificed in order to build a 

fence, and there have been consequences. Wildlife almost always 

migrate north to south when climates change, in order to find a 

more suitable environment depending on the climate shift. In an 

era of climate change, particularly in the U.S. Southwest, where 

temperatures are rising and droughts are increasing, blocking off 

the entire northerly route for migrating species will devastate their 

ability to move, adapt, and survive. 

You alluded to some of the ways that fences hurt wildlife in your 

testimony. Can you go into further detail on this issue for us? 

Ms. WALDEN. Yes, I will. I think that we are seeing examples of 

migrating wildlife. We are in a major biological diversity area in 

this valley. You are correct, that they do migrate north and south 

and south to north. And, as I pointed out in my testimony, it brings 

a great deal of economic activity to our region, which is important 

as well—from hunting, bird watching, wildlife watching, photography, et cetera. 

Building more walls and more roads—many ranchers like ourselves are concerned about this, because when you build more access areas like roads, the smugglers use them, too. This is an 

48 

example of what is so complicated about walls and roads. I think 

our former governor said, ‘‘When you build a 12-foot wall, we will 

find a 14-foot ladder.’’ And, literally, when you cross over at the 

ports, you see big trucks with extension ladders on the top of them 

going all through parts of town. 

So, I would just say that the simple answers are not always so 

simple. I live daily with the consequences that my neighbors here 

describe, and I am concerned, too. But we have to work together 

so that we do not destroy the most important resources our country 

has for future generations. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. Mr. Andrew, it is important to say 

that no amount of crime is acceptable, and it is not. I would be terrified if I had been kidnapped. As we try to reduce these instances, 

we have to look at the big picture. 

One of the questions that the core of the Majority claims about 

crime along the border is whether the crime rate has improved 

since the Bush years. The Majority has cited an example from a 

GAO study on public lands and Border Patrol access to try to demonstrate that the Memorandum of Understanding is not working, 

and that CBP is still held back from doing its job. But the GAO 

study was written back in 2010. Can you tell me whether each recommendation from that GAO report has been implemented? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes, thank you for that question. There were two 

recommendations. One had to do with preparing programmatic documents, and we have prepared a number of those. There was a 

Northern border EIS that we cooperated with Homeland Security 

on; there was a Section 106 programmatic agreement that we negotiated with the DHS and the Forest Service for the Northern and 

Southern border that expedited reviews under the Historic Preservation Act; and there have been a number of smaller ones on individual units where we provided rights-of-way or special use permits 

for road maintenance and access. 

The other recommended action, I believe—and this is 1138, the 

report from 2010—was an environmental cultural stewardship 

training that was called for, and we completed that 3 years ago, 

and that has worked quite well. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you. Ms. Walden, I am going to try to ask 

a question fast. Since then, the GAO has taken another look at 

crime along the Southern border. In a 2013 report, they found that 

GAO’s analysis of data for the Southwest border counties with sufficiently complete data show that, generally, both violent and property crimes were lower in 2011 than in 2004. 

For example, the violent crime rate in three states’ border 

counties was lower by at least 26 percent in 2011 than in 2004; and 

in another state, lower by 8 percent in 2011 than in 2005. Is that 

consistent with your experience as a resident and business owner? 

Ms. WALDEN. Absolutely. We are never going to eliminate crime 

100 percent; but we have seen a sharp decline in crime and 

violence, particularly in the last 5 years. 

Mrs. DINGELL. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mrs. Dingell. At this time the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Hice, for 5 minutes. 

49 

Dr. HICE. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 

having this hearing, and to each of our panelists, we appreciate you 

being here. 

I must say that I am disappointed that the Department of 

Homeland Security declined to provide a witness for us today. I 

serve on Oversight and Government Reform, and the Subcommittee 

on National Security. Last month, we had a hearing there in which 

Ronald Vitiello, who is the Acting Director of Customs and Border 

Patrol, was there. I have a clip. I wanted you to see a little bit of 

my questioning to him, which is very applicable to today’s hearing. 

[Video shown.] 

Dr. HICE. All right. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the staff for 

providing that clip. His answers were extremely vague. In fact, 

they were not answers to the question. When we are dealing with 

border security, answers like, ‘‘As soon as possible’’ doesn’t cut it. 

It just doesn’t cut through it. 

So, Mr. Andrew, I would like to come back to you with some of 

the same questions that I asked Mr. Vitiello last month. What is 

a reasonable time for the Border Patrol to wait for a permit from 

Interior? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, it is a difficult question to answer in a general way. Some of the activities that Border Patrol would request, 

such as placement of a mobile surveillance vehicle, it could be very 

quickly; in a day or two, we could have pre-approved sites—— 

Dr. HICE. What is a reasonable time for a permit? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, it depends on the degree of what is being 

proposed. If it was something like a—— 

Dr. HICE. OK. What about, say, a radio tower, a communications 

tower? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, in south Texas we, have remote video surveillance towers that we are working with Border Patrol right now, 

about 30 for the first wave. 

Dr. HICE. What is a reasonable time? 

Mr. ANDREW. To give you the time frame, they began their planning for it probably a year ago, something like that. And they have 

engineering work to do, contracting work, and so on. So, we are 

trying to run the environmental reviews for that, and we are successful so far with running those in parallel. 

Dr. HICE. All right. These are simple questions. I am wanting 

yes/no type answers. What is a reasonable time to expect? What 

about for road maintenance? What is a reasonable time? 

Mr. ANDREW. Well, with road maintenance we have dealt with 

right-of-way permits, so they can do that as needed now in most 

locations. 

Dr. HICE. OK. What about the mobile surveillance system? You 

referred to that. 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes. For example, Organ Pipe again. The G-BOSS 

antennas that came from Afghanistan were deployed within days 

of the request. 

Dr. HICE. What about forward operating bases? 

Mr. ANDREW. I was going to mention that one. There was one I 

was involved in about 3 years ago, the boundary camp on Cabeza 

Prieta, between Cabeza Prieta and Organ Pipe. We received word 

that this needed to be built in about March of that year. It was in 

50 

place by the end of the fiscal year; so that was about 6 to 8 months, 

I think. 

Dr. HICE. You have mentioned yourself—and, Mr. Chairman, I 

will yield back. Obviously, my time has expired. But the environmental issue—it seems clear to me that we are placing environmental priorities over our national security with all of this; and it 

is inexcusable, when permitting and some of these other requests 

take so long that what is needed for border security is no longer 

applicable. 

With that, I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Hice. At this time the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And just for the 

record, I agree with my colleague that it is unfortunate that 

Homeland Security could not have a representative here at this 

hearing. Maybe they are overwhelmed with all the other hearings 

that are going on that they are required to be at. 

But, let me read this part from their written testimony, ‘‘CBP 

and, by extension, the Department of Homeland Security, enjoy a 

close working relationship with the Department of the Interior and 

the Department of Agriculture that allows us to fulfill our border 

enforcement responsibilities while respecting and enhancing the 

environment.’’ It goes on to explain what that relationship is and 

what the Memorandum of Understanding is. 

As was mentioned by Mr. Andrew, the pursuit issue is a nonissue, because that is not impeded at all by any regulation or any 

impediment by Interior or the Department of Agriculture. I think 

that is important, and I wish they would have been here to validate those comments in their written testimony, so that we could 

ask the questions that my colleague was asking and that I 

intended to ask him, as well. 

At this point, if I may, Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent 

to enter some documents into the record. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Without objection. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I will use part of my time for that. I submit the 

following documents: a January 2007 brief documenting the environmental impacts of the border fence; a May 2011 study documenting how barriers along the border would increase the number 

of species at risk; a 2014 study on the unintended environmental 

consequences of border fencing and immigration reform; a 2007 

New York Times article, ‘‘Environmental Consequences of the 

Border Wall in South Texas’’; a 2016 article on how a border wall 

would hurt the U.S. economy; a July 2013 report on why the U.S.- 

Mexico border is critical for the U.S. economy; a June 2011 study 

documenting the cost of border security; a May 2013 report on the 

importance of an economic relationship of Mexico and the United 

States; a May 2013 report on the fallacy of enforcement only; a 

December 2014 report documenting CBP programs that do not 

achieve intended results or recognize all the cost of operations; an 

October 2011 report on why immigration enforcement without reform wastes taxpayer dollars; a May 2010 report on why immigration enforcement without immigration reform will not work; a 

September 2013 report on widespread Border Patrol abuses in the 

Southwest border; a May 2013 report on family separation and 

51 

immigration enforcement; an April 2014 report on reconciling 

tough and human enforcement; a December 2015 report on documented and lengthy detention, deplorable conditions, and abuse 

and for-profit holding detention centers; a July 4, 2014 report on 

humanitarian challenge at the border; and a report that discusses 

immigration and border politics throughout the history of this 

Nation. 

I mention that because Ms. Walden—and thank you for being 

here—talked about the multi-layered complexity of this issue that 

we are dealing with. And simplistic solutions are not going to do 

the job. 

Ms. Walden, you worked on the border and your family has been 

there for generations. As you look at the economic benefit to a 

good, vibrant economy in the region, and also the issue of enforcement, people want to make those mutually exclusive items. Are 

they? 

Ms. WALDEN. We have to work together. I just want to stress 

that. Our economies along the border are dependent on each other, 

Mexico and America. We could not do our farming and ranching 

without the labor, again, that mainly is of Mexican-American descent. They have the skills, they have the work ethic, and they 

have the ability to work hard on the farm; and, as we all know, 

that is hard work. 

So, it is very important that we respect the culture, economy, 

trade, and inter-relationship between these two countries, and also 

to realize the climate of fear that some of these policies create 

among our workers when they are stopped and harassed unnecessarily by Border Patrol, for example. I could provide many examples of this, some of which I put in my testimony. But that does 

not do anyone any good. It detracts from our mutual goal, which 

is to lift up the economy of Mexico and to create a thriving economy 

and opportunities here in the United States. 

Mr. GRIJALVA. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Grijalva. At this time the Chair 

recognizes the gentlelady from American Samoa, Mrs. Radewagen, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and the 

Ranking Member. I, too, would like to welcome the panel. Thank 

you for appearing today. 

Mr. Andrew, going all the way back to the 2010 GAO report on 

Border Patrol access to Federal land, the agents in charge of four 

separate stations reported that land management laws are impacting the security status of their jurisdiction. What have you done to 

work with these stations to ensure that environmental restrictions 

are not endangering the country? 

Mr. ANDREW. Thank you for the question. There are a number 

of things that have happened since that report was prepared. One 

example, in cooperation with Border Patrol, was the establishment 

of public lands liaison agents in each sector and borderland management task forces that meet periodically in each of the sectors. 

That has helped to build relationships between us and the Border 

Patrol, and to better understand what their mission is and what 

their concerns and needs are. And, frankly, we have just gotten 

52 

better at knowing each other and understanding what the needs 

are, and figuring out ways to get that work done quicker. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Ms. Chilton, in your conversations with 

Border Patrol, how do they explain leaving vast areas, such as your 

ranch, unprotected? 

Ms. CHILTON. Mr. Chairman and ma’am, thank you for that 

question. I cannot explain why they have made the decision to secure the line so far from the boundary. I can tell you what difficulties they have faced, which is that, what we see on the ground, in 

terms of permit time, for the actions that they have told us they 

need to take in order to carry out their mission—that means road 

improvement, a road paralleling the actual border. Right now, the 

road paralleling the border is 20 miles from it. It is in no way functional. 

They need forward operating bases. Those discussions have been 

ongoing with the Forest Service and perhaps with Fish and 

Wildlife, because part of this is Fish and Wildlife property, part of 

it is Forest Service, and part of it is private land. On private land, 

they have the go-ahead. On Federal land, it has been more than 

5 years, and those roads are not one tiny bit improved over what 

they were 5 years ago. 

There is no forward operating base, although we made that offer 

of our private property years ago. We have taken high-level Border 

Patrol officials to that site and shown them. One thing one said to 

us was, ‘‘My, it looks different down here from what it looks like 

from the air.’’ It was his first visit to the actual border in a section 

that they know is very actively used for drug traffic. 

The issues of wildlife, plants, and biological opinions are being 

allowed to be a smoke screen that covers up the fact that we have 

decided, nationally, not to secure the border. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Ms. Chilton. My time is short. 

Commissioner Pinkerton, as someone with decades of experience 

in border security, particularly on Federal land, how do environmental restrictions hamper border security operations, and how 

has this problem become better or worse? 

Mr. PINKERTON. Well, I would echo that the Memorandum of 

Understanding has been put in place to solve some of these problems. To be able to improve upon border security, the access is of 

the utmost importance. 

Where these roads exist, I don’t believe you should have to go 

through and get another environmental impact statement put on it 

before you can drive a vehicle across it again. I don’t believe your 

law enforcement should be hampered by having to stop every 4 or 

5 miles to open another locked gate, which is quite difficult, especially when there is a foot or two of snow. 

All of these elements add to eliminating the ability for the 

Border Patrol agents to respond to a corresponding area at an appropriate time. To improve it, make these short little hurdles go 

away and put the Border Patrol back in a place of patrolling. 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentlelady. At this time the Chair 

recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Gallego, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you, Mr. Chair. This question is for 

Ms. Walden. 

53 

I have to say, I am a little puzzled by this gathering. This is supposed to be a hearing about public lands at the border, but one of 

the witnesses barely mentions public land and the testimony is 

mostly about other problems with border management. Another 

witness talked about an incident, a scary incident, no doubt, but 

an incident that did not appear to happen on public lands. Half of 

the testimony of the third witness has nothing to do with being 

close to the border, but just about how we should be cutting down 

our national forests. So, it does make me wonder, ‘‘What is the 

agenda here? ’’ But we will try to work together on that. 

Ms. Walden, in your testimony you describe some of the effects 

of the existing 700 miles of fence and wall. Some on the other side 

of the aisle have expressed support for a bigger wall, a 35- to 50- 

foot wall along the entire Southern border. But would a bigger wall 

actually stop these unauthorized border crossings? 

Ms. WALDEN. In my opinion, no. As our former Governor 

Napolitano said, ‘‘When you build a 12-foot wall, they will find a 

14-foot ladder, or they will tunnel under it, or they will find other 

ways to get around, if we don’t have a comprehensive system of 

identifying who is valid to be in this country and who should not 

be.’’ 

Mr. GALLEGO. Thank you. 

Mr. Andrew, I have seen estimates that constructing a wall could 

cost upwards of $25 billion. Since my colleagues on the other side 

of the aisle cannot seem to find money to help ease some of the humanitarian crises among, for example, our people in Puerto Rico; 

they cannot find $1.9 billion just to fight Zika, which is clearly a 

problem that is coming over the border; and cannot pass a budget 

even when the top-line budget number was already settled last 

year, I am going to guess that they would not be able to find over 

$25 billion for a 2,000-mile wall. So, that leaves Mexico, as we keep 

hearing in the Presidential election. 

In all the interactions you have had with CBP, who could not be 

here today because the Republicans have slashed their funding, according to the letter they sent to the Chairman in response to the 

invitation to testify, have you ever heard anyone from the agency 

or from DHS talk about how they are going to pay for that wall? 

Mr. ANDREW. No, I have not. 

Mr. GALLEGO. OK. Well, I hope the next time we have a scattershot hearing like this, we can at least invite Mexico, so that we can 

hear them describe why they want to build a wall around their border, or how they will fund it. Or we could invite Mr. Trump. And 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman. At this time I yield to 

Mr. Gosar from Arizona for 5 minutes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Well, I should attend this hearing more often to be 

entertained by the other side. Wow, interesting. 

Hey, Sue, how are you doing? 

Ms. CHILTON. I am doing just fine. 

Dr. GOSAR. Good seeing you again. I am very appreciative of you 

and your husband taking my staff and I down there to the border, 

and on your property. I certainly appreciate it. 

54 

So, you know, Sue, I was taken back when we came down there, 

how—we went to the fence, and we saw this barbed wire fence 

that, if I wasn’t a decrepit old guy, I could just jump right on over. 

Ms. CHILTON. Yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. I am taken back by that. In your opinion, is the 

border secure? 

Ms. CHILTON. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Gosar, of course not. And on 

the subject of the wall, of course you could find a 14-foot ladder to 

get over a 12-foot wall, if no one is there patrolling it. But that is 

the issue. You have to have the combination that makes the border 

secure. That means—yes, the wall; yes, a road patrolling it; yes, 

better communications for the Border Patrol; and yes, forward operating bases. 

You cannot do half of a medical recipe to solve a problem and 

hope you are going to get the patient cured. You have to do the 

whole thing, and that is the case on our border, too. 

Dr. GOSAR. That is exactly right. And it is also about enforcing 

the rule of law. And if we were here at the expense of the taxpayer 

to empower Mexico’s economy—I don’t find that in my Constitution 

here, and that is what I thought I heard, is that we are here to 

build the economy of Mexico. I hope that is not the case. The case 

is we should be caring about this country; and if you are not supposed to be here, you are supposed to enforce the border aspects. 

Now, the other thing I was taken back by is the amount of trash. 

Is that good stewardship of our Federal lands, Sue? 

Ms. CHILTON. Most definitely, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Gosar, 

trash is an issue; it is an environmental issue. The Border Patrol 

itself has told us that the persons crossing leave an average of 8.5 

pounds per person. My husband multiplied that times the number 

of people that were reported to be apprehended in the area, and I 

might have to consult with him about how many tons of trash it 

was. By the time he multiplied it, it was, I think, 12,000 tons of 

trash, just in our sector. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. I want to make sure I didn’t miss anything. So, 

for the drug cartels, we have a sensitivity training in regards to 

conservation and endangered species. Are you familiar with any of 

that? 

Ms. CHILTON. I understand your question very well. No. The 

wall, or whatever protection we have from the Border Patrol, also 

protects the species. Right now the species are laid open to the 

traffic that comes through. The Sinaloa Cartel is not saying, ‘‘Oh, 

no, let’s not go there, that is a wilderness area.’’ They are saying, 

‘‘Oh, yes, let’s go there, that is the part they can’t patrol.’’ 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes. It is a sad quandary. And last time I looked, you 

were a citizen of the United States, right? 

Ms. CHILTON. Oh, most definitely. 

Dr. GOSAR. And your property was in the defined parameters of 

the United States of America, right? 

Ms. CHILTON. Yes, sir. 

Dr. GOSAR. And you are entitled to the same protections as somebody, let’s say, in Glendale, Arizona or in Springfield, Illinois? 

Ms. CHILTON. It looks like we are entitled to it, but don’t have 

it. 

Dr. GOSAR. Yes, that is unfortunate. 

55 

Mr. Andrew, I have just a short amount of time. In your testimony, you state and I quote, ‘‘We believe that we have been and 

will continue to be successful in securing our borders and conserving our Federal lands.’’ Massive numbers of aliens are crossing 

our borders illegally and damaging our Federal lands. You find 

that as a term of success? 

Mr. ANDREW. Not when it is put that way. I was referring to the 

Department of the Interior lands that I am responsible for that 

have improved in recent years, in terms of traffic and trash 

and—— 

Dr. GOSAR. You still counted that as success. 

Mr. ANDREW. I count it as an improvement. It is a work in 

progress, for sure. 

Dr. GOSAR. And would you say that more empowerment of local 

and Border Patrol actually facilitates that? 

Mr. ANDREW. Oh, I would agree. We have seen great benefits 

from the Border Patrol’s—— 

Dr. GOSAR. And would you also say that enforcement of the 

current laws by U.S. attorneys, let’s say down in Tucson, would actually help, too, instead of allowing people to just go free? 

Mr. ANDREW. Increased border security benefits public lands, for 

sure, yes. 

Dr. GOSAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I thank the gentleman and I will recognize myself 

for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Walden, you pointed out a couple of times that this Administration, including Secretary Napolitano, has said if you build a 12- 

foot wall, people will use a 14-foot ladder. I want to applaud the 

Obama administration in their new jobs program that was announced this morning. Obviously, it is a jobs program in the ladder 

market, because they announced this morning that they want to increase the height of the fence around the White House by 5 feet. 

Obviously, that is a jobs program to build taller ladders for the 

Washington, DC area. And hopefully there will be plenty of people 

employed both to raise the height 5 feet around the White House, 

and then also to construct the ladders. 

As I have mentioned to the Secret Service head before in another 

hearing in another committee, either the fence around the White 

House does not work and needs to be completely removed; or it is 

true that fences actually do work, when constructed appropriately, 

and we should have one to protect ourselves on the border. 

Ms. Walden, you had also mentioned that you see the Border 

Patrol everywhere. And I would humbly submit, that is part of the 

problem. They can be seen in areas where the public can go. The 

problem is the drug traffickers go in the area where you cannot 

readily go without getting arrested or getting in trouble. And those 

are the areas the drug traffickers are the only ones that get to use. 

That is why we see the footage from the Chiltons’ cameras showing 

drug traffickers just having free access back and forth. 

Mr. Andrew, I wanted to ask you, last year I made a request 

from both the DHS and the Department of the Interior for documents and communications related to Border Patrol access to 

Federal land and cooperation on the declaration of the Organ 

56 

Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument in 2014. Were you 

aware of that request? 

Mr. ANDREW. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you know how many of your own personal 

documents were supplied by the Department of the Interior? 

Mr. ANDREW. I don’t know the page number. Not a lot—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Basically, there were two. That seems rather improbable; but as I mentioned, we made a request for the same type 

documents from the Department of Homeland Security, and it was 

the same document request that the Interior Department got, and 

they provided a vast number of documents to you, from you. 

So, I just wanted to ask. Are you aware that the possibility exists 

in the next administration that people who refused or obstructed 

legitimate production requests could be answering with their jobs, 

if not more? You realize that is a possibility when you get a 

request, right? 

Mr. ANDREW. I didn’t know that, no. But I do now. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes. Well, let me ask you this. When did Interior 

notify the Border Patrol that the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks 

National Monument would be created? 

Mr. ANDREW. I don’t think I could answer that. I was not really 

involved in the designation, so—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, our document from the day of the proclamation shows that you were unable to supply the proclamation to the 

Border Patrol because it was being—and I am quoting—‘‘held 

close.’’ But ultimately, the Border Patrol did not get to have input, 

as the memorandum suggested that there would be. 

I know everybody keeps talking about the Memorandum of 

Understanding. But when a national monument is just about to be 

declared by executive action, it really seems that if border security, 

national security, or people like the Chiltons’ security is being considered, that Border Patrol would be asked for input. And apparently, that did not happen until it was too late. 

I enforce the rules of time on myself, and my time has expired. 

The witnesses have been gracious. We had to go through a vote, 

you were gracious to wait for us to come back. I know that there 

are additional questions that some of us may have, and I would ask 

that questions be submitted within 10 days and provided to the 

witnesses. Any requests for questions that there may be, I would 

ask and require those be answered within 10 days after they are 

received by the witnesses. 

Anybody have a problem with that, of our witnesses? 

Mr. ANDREW. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mrs. Radewagen, I understood you had a 

question. Is that something you could submit to the witnesses in 

writing? 

Mrs. RADEWAGEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT. OK. Let’s do that. I have some questions, too, that 

I would like to submit. We will combine our questions and submit 

to the appropriate witnesses. 

We appreciate everyone’s patience today. Once again, I want to 

thank the witnesses for coming. We know you do not do this because of the pay you get, since you do not get paid; but we know 

57 

you care about your country, and that is why you are here. Thank 

you very much. 

At this time, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:33 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[LIST OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD RETAINED IN THE

COMMITTEE’S OFFICIAL FILES]

1. Written Statement from U.S. Customs and Border Protection 

at the Department of Homeland Security in regards to the 

hearing. 

2. Letter from the Department of Homeland Security addressed 

to Chairman Gohmert declining invitation to testify at the 

hearing, and directing U.S. Customs and Border Patrol to 

assist the subcommittee. 

3. Written Statement from Roger McManus, Tucson, Arizona, in 

response to the hearing. 

4. Video Clip from Rep. Jody Hice, showing his questioning of a 

Mr. Vitiello from DHS regarding permitting delays on Federal 

lands. 

Submissions by the Hon. Rau ́l M. Grijalva 

5. American Civil Liberties Union, Regional Center for Border 

Rights—Report: Guilty Until Proven Innocent: Living in 

Mexico’s 100-Mile Zone (May 2015). 

6. American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona—Statement of 

James Duff Lyall, Staff Attorney, at Congressional Ad-Hoc 

Hearing: Redefining Border Security: Border Communities 

Demand to be Heard in the Comprehensive Immigration 

Debate (Sept. 2013). 

7. American Immigration Council—Special Report: Children in 

Danger: A Guide to the Humanitarian Challenge at the 

Border (July 2014). 

8. American Immigration Council—Special Report: Hieleras 

(Iceboxes) in the Rio Grande Valley Sector: Lengthy 

Detention, Deplorable Conditions, and Abuse in CBP Holding 

Cells (Dec. 2015). 

9. Diversity and Distributions—Academic Journal Article: 

Conservation biogeography of the US-Mexico border: a transcontinental risk assessment of barriers to animal dispersal 

(2011). 

10. The Desert Sun—Editorial: How a Border Fence Destroyed a 

Tight Community: An Existing U.S.-Mexico Border Fence 

Split Two Neighboring Rural Towns, Cutting Ties and 

Dividing Families (2016). 

11. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector 

General—Report: CBP’s Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems 

in the Nations Border Security (May 2012). 

58 

12. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector 

General—Report: U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s 

Unmanned Aircraft System Program Does Not Achieve 

Intended Results or Recognize All Cost of Operations (Dec. 

2014). 

13. BioBriefs—Academic Journal Article: The Environmental 

Impacts of a Border Fence (January 2007). 

14. AS/COA, Get the Facts—Fact Sheet: Our Border & the 

Economy (July 2013). 

15. American Immigration Council—Immigration Impact—Editorial: How a Border Wall Would Hurt the U.S. Economy 

(March 2016). 

16. American Immigration Lawyers Association—Report: Border 

Security: Moving Beyond Past Benchmarks (January 2013). 

17. Immigration Policy Center—Report: Perspectives: Back to the 

Border, A Historical Comparison of U.S. Border Politics (Sept. 

2010). 

18. Immigration Policy Center—Report: The Fallacy of ‘‘Enforcement First’’: Immigration Enforcement Without Immigration 

Reform Has Been Failing for Decades (May 2013). 

19. Immigration Policy Center—Report: Fiscally Irresponsible: 

Immigration Enforcement without Reform Wastes Taxpayer 

Dollars (Oct. 2011). 

20. Immigration Policy Center—Report: Lost in the Shadow of the 

Fence: The Important Economic Relationship of Mexico and 

the United States (May 2013). 

21. Immigration Policy Center—Report: Perspectives: Is More 

Getting Us Less? Real Solutions for Securing Our Border 

(Feb. 2011). 

22. Immigration Policy Center—Report: Throwing Good Money 

After Bad: Immigration Enforcement without Immigration 

Reform Doesn’t Work (May 2010). 

23. International Policy Report—Report: Policy on the Edge: 

Failures of Border Security and New Directions for Border 

Control (June 2011). 

24. International Organization for Migration—Report: Fatal 

Journeys: Tracking Lives Lost during Migration (2014). 

25. Journal on Migration and Human Security—Academic 

Journal Article: In Harm’s Way: Family Separation, Immigration Enforcement Programs and Security on the US-Mexico 

Border (2015). 

26. Migration Policy Institute—Report: The Deportation Dilemma: 

Reconciling Tough and Humane Enforcement (April 2014). 

27. The New York Times—Editorial: Border Fence Work Raises 

Environmental Concerns (Nov. 2007). 

28. Politico—Editorial: The Green Monster: How the Border 

Patrol became America’s most out-of-control law enforcement 

agency (2016). 

59 

29. Texas Law—Editorial: The Texas-Mexico Border Wall— 

Affected Communities (2016). 

30. The Center for Latin American Studies, University of 

Arizona—Report: In the Shadow of the Wall: Family Separation, Immigration Enforcement and Security, Preliminary 

Data from the Migrant Border Crossing Study (March 2013). 

31. Arizona Journal of Environmental Law & Policy—Academic 

Journal Article: Unintended Consequences: The Environmental Impact of Border Fencing and Immigration Reform 

(2014). 

Æ