Introductory remarks have concluded
April 28th, 2008, 9:31 am · Post a Comment · posted by ksieff
The panels of congressmen and witnesses appear to be split when it comes to their positions on the fence–this should make the next few hours interesting.
Now it’s time for congressmen to ask questions of border patrol officials, among others…
Grijalva jumps right in. He asks why some areas along the border (like River Bend Country Club) have been exempted from fencing…
Vitello, the BP chief, says that the fence’s path was determined after evaluating where security concerns were present.
Now Bordallo asks questions–again of Vitello. It looks like it’s going to be a long afternoon for him.
She implies that the federal government did an inadequate job of meeting with communities along the border. The audience in SET-B is eating this up.
Vitello says there are 400 landowners who will be affected by the fence. Of those, he says, about 270 are ready to proceed. As far as the Herald knows, these are new numbers.
Now’s it Tancredo’s turn to ask questions…
He questions Ned Norris of the Tohono O’odham nation.
Norris’ tribe lives on the border in Arizona. He says environmental and archaelogical surveys have been inadequate. Tancredo wants to know if a fence won’t leave the tribe better off. He mentions intra-tribe drug problems.
Norris maintains that the only way to move forward is to be allowed to “come to the table with the federal government.”
Napolitano asks Norris “were you asked for input?”
“We had some impact to share thoughts and positions,” he said. Earlier, Norris mentioned that a tribal graveyard was destroyed by officials in charge of fence construction.
Napolitano wants Norris to discuss how his concerns have been ignored by DHS. Her own position on the fence is thinly veiled in the question’s language.
Hunter asks Norris almost the same as question as Tancredo did a few minutes ago. “What if the fence had points of entry?” Hunter asks. “Would that work for the tribe.”
“We didn’t cross the border, Norris tells Hunter. “The border crossed us.”
“We’ve had access to the river since time immemorial,” he said. “And we don’t think a fence is the answer.”
Cong. Reyes mentions his respect for BP agents, but says of Vitello:
“He’s going to toe the party line–he’s got to if he wants to maintain his job as chief of the sector.”
It might be the best line of the hearing so far. The crowd laughs. I can’t make out Vitello’s reaction.
Now it’s Cong. Faleomavaega of America Samoa’s turn. He asks the DOI rep. “If the fence is not built by the end of 2008, will all hell break lose?”
DOI rep: “Sir, I don’t have the answer to that question.”
Vitello responds with some more helpful numbers: of the 316 miles along the border in the RGV sector, there will only be 70 miles of fencing.
Now Ortiz’s turn.
“We have created a big funnel. WIth a 2,000 mile but 700 miles of fencing…they don’t think they can around those fences?” He asks the question to no one in particular. Now a question about the Canadian border.
Vitello: Might not be same kind of tactical infrastructure on the northern border, but it will be a part of the solution there, too.”
He reiterates: “The solution is not just walls and fences.”
Now Ortiz digresses, asking about OTMs (Other Than Mexicans) apprehended along the border.
Vitello: The policy of giving OTMs court dates (policy nicknamed “catch and release”) instead of detaining them has ended.
Ortiz’s point is that thousands of people came through during the life of the “catch and release” policy. In the fence, he says, politicians have mistakenly “seen the light.”
