>> you are watching booktv on c-span2 with top nonfiction books and authors every weekend. booktv, television for serious readers. .. >> you have to lower costs to keep your margins good or find

new sources of revenue. i think they're attacking both of those things, but to focus on the revenue side. i think, one, looking for new ways to delight and hold consumers. so if you look at comcast and its investment in the x1 platform, if you can make video on demand more attractive, easier to use, the interfaces more weblike and more delightful, number one, don't lose what you have, right? innovate, keep what you have. you also see them taking advantage of broadband, right? that is a blessed source of new business opportunity for our industry. it is growing much faster. it still has a huge addressable market. it has good economics, and it's a good business. >> the rapid change in telecommunications, technology advances and the future of the cable industry with national cable and telecommunications association president michael powell tonight at 8 ian on "the communicators" on -- 8 eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> c-span, created by america's

cable companies 5 years ago -- 35 be years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. and michael powell of the national cable and telecommunications association, welcome back to "the communicators." >> guest: great to see you again. thank you. >> host: before we start on some of the issues that you're face, i want to start with a washington post article from this weekend that i'm sure you saw. it was an internet survey report that they did saying that well over half of people say they've abandoned their cable company -- they'd abandon their cable company if they could because of service. what's your response to that? >> guest: oh, is that a question? [laughter] look, i think the first thing i would say is i think infrastructure companies provide these services are well aware of their longstanding challenges with the consumer, and i think they have a duty and obligation to work very, very hard to improve services. but i think there is something

somewhat challenging which is increasingly digital services for consumers are software, they're in the cloud, they're seamless. we're still a business that still has to come into your home. we're still a business that has to install hardware. we're still a business that that hardware has to function properly, you know, virtually 24 hours a day or at least 310 hours a month which is what the average consumer is doing in watching television. it's the first point of entry for a consumer in the form of interface with remote controls which haven't evolved for many years. those problems need to be fixed. but i think those pain points lead to these kinds of results, and i also think we have a voracious appetite for technology. i think consumers have come to expect things to double in um improvement and triple in improvement in six month increments, in three month increments just like they expect their ios to update every few weeks and brand new device come

in every year. i think those same kind of consumer electronic expectations are being driven into the home, and i think people are sort of looking for that kind of exponential increase in speed. but on the other hand, if you actually looked at the data, you'd be looking at the fastest deploying technology in the history of the world. internet speeds, you know, essentially double every year n. the last ten years, they've increased 1500. these are pretty -- 1500%. these are exceptional paths of growth. when i was learning to drive, you go 80 miles an hour long enough, you think you're going 20. i think that's the reality of the market we're in. we should never be satisfied or happy with those numbers even though i think there are some explanation its for them. it's an industry that comets to invest $20-$50 billion ap yulely to solve that problem for consumers. >> host: how worried are you about cord cutters? cord cutting? >> guest: i personally am not

worried as much as i'm intrigued. i'm the father of two adult children who group digital natives who have known be no world but the internet and the world of interactivity and personalization. i'm curious whether they're really as describing them or not. be i do think the market is rightfully generating a set of complimentary opportunities that i think are both opportunities and risks depending who you are. i think for our industry they're not all positive, and they're not all negative. a lot of what we call cord cutting or at least more viewing happening over complimentary infrastructures drives a lot of broadband consumption too, a business that we're in. so, you know, these things aren't zero sum for our industry. some of those same things accrue to us as benefits. but there's also a lot of studies that pour cold water on this sort of overenthusiastic story of cord cutting. usually once a year the media

writes a story where they have to grudgingly anytime -- "the new york times" did it week before last -- that people seem to be watching the same favorite shows largely on the same favorite platforms and that cord cutting still remains much more of an idea than a cold reality, at least at scale. the reality, i think, that most consumers don't appreciate -- if i could say quickly is -- there would be nothing to watch on netflix. there would be nothing to watch on hulu if that content didn't first get monetizeed on cable in the fist place. i mean, over the top content and cable content are more mutually dependent than i think people recognize. you're not going to binge watch "breaking bad" if the costs to make it hadn't been recovered on the cable platform in the first place. so the two things, oddly enough, meet each other more than i think each would mutually acknowledge. and it's the reality of the content community and content creation. unless you're going to create

organic condition tent or it's going to be user-published content like youtube and other things, but if you're talking about "breaking bad" and "true detective," all those wonderful shows, they've got to go through a long table of monetization. there is no second half of that tale. and so that's an important reason why i don't worry about it. i think they need to be complements to each other, and i think if you really rook at the -- look at the behavior of consumers, they seem to be consuming them in that way. there's just more the to watch more ways, i think, than complete substitution. >> host: well, joining our conversation to talk about some of the issues that the cable industry faces is gautham nagesh of "the wall street journal." >> thanks if or having me, peter. mr. powell be, you mentioned that cord cutting is still more of an idea than a phenomenon, we believe something to the tune of only 5% of households do not subscribe to pay tv, but subscribe to broadband. but we do see increased

competition for cable and the pay tv sphere from telecom companies like at&t and verizon and then, the of course, the long standing competition from satellite. it would suggest pay tv is almost mature in the country. where do you see the growth in the industry, is it strictly in broadband? >> guest: it's actually a great question. if you look at the data, there's been about a hundred million multichannel video subscribers forever or for a very long time. and you have seen changes in market share. cable in the '90s did have over 90% of the market. today the cable industry only has a little over 50%, satellite has picked up a huge chunk of that, and the phone companies have picked up another huge chunk of it. so the second and third largest in the united states are the satellite companies, the fifth and sixth are the phone cane -- companies.

so the business has matured. you have to do two things, you have to lower costs, or you have to find new sources of revenue. i think they're attacking both of those things. but to focus on the revenue side, i think, one, looking for new ways to delight and hold consumers. if you look at comcast and its investment in the x1 platform, if you can make video on demand more attractive, easier to use, number one, don't lose what you have, right? innovate to keep that you have. you also see them taking advantage of broadband, right? that is a blessed source of new business opportunity for our industry. it is grewing much faster -- growing much faster. it still has a huge addressable market. it has good economics, and it's a good business. so that's a big part of what cable's become. i keep joking with people, i wish i could figure out a new word the call our industry, because cable misrepresents it. i think we're this big

communication platform, and then i think you'll continue to see them looking for new services; home security, all kinds of other services as the home becomes the internet of things. i think you can expect these companies to attempt to offer offerings and services along those lines as well. just like apple has a new platform for the -- everyone now understands you're chasing those internet of things opportunities within the home. i suspect these companies will be looking for opportunities like that as well, simultaneously trying to lower their costs, everything from programming costs to other expenses as well. so when you have a digital platform and be you have a relationship with the consumer in the home, you can look for new opportunity for revenue within the things that delight them, right? the next thermostat's going to sit on your wall, if, you know, other kinds of devices are going to be part of our lives, putting that infrastructure together in a workable way certainly is an opportunity in the service. >> should a consumer have to pay extra for, say, a security

system or a thermostat to their cable company, or should that service be facilitated by the existing broadband connection if they subscribe to one? >> guest: i think this is a good question because it's actually simpler than it often is made out. if something has a cost, it's going to get paid for somewhere. if there are incremental costs and expenses to offering that new business, somewhere that new business is going to get compensated for either as a new service or buried within the basic broadband subscription. i mean, you know, i see this also with the dispute with netflix, the argument that, you know, oh, it's already paid for. well, that's also an argument for saying that any additional costs should be pone by all broadband -- borne by all broadband subscribers. you can bury it in one fee and call it your broadband fee, but the reality is whether you pay for it as part of your broadband subscription, you're going to pay for it either way.

so while one might feel like, oh, i'm getting this for my one offering, you're still ultimately paying for the pieces. now, if you offer a security service, comcast builds, you know, thermostats, devices, input infrastructure, apps, monitoring services, all that is incremental expense to offer an incorrectal product service suite. so, you know, that's something you're selling. product you're selling the consumer. >> it's interesting you made that comparison, because the cable business model as such is one that sort of, the incremental expenses of whatever additional programming or channel are sort of borne as part of the general cable package. it sounds like you're saying that broadband should function differently, that perhaps there should be some flexibility explored or sorts of arrangements. of course, this is the subject of a rulemaking at the fcc right now and a lot of controversy. how do you feel about the idea of managed services or auxiliary availability for what we call edge providers right now?

>> guest: a couple of things quickly. one, you know, if you lack at your cable product, we bundle it, but we don't collapse it. you don't get a bill that says, you know, you paid for one thing, and we hide what the thing is. you buy a phone service, you pie a broadband service, you buy a video service, you can buy them separately or together, but i think it's pretty well telegraphed that you're buying a set of services that you're getting a price efficiency for bundling. that's different than saying, you know, like lawyers used to do when i was young, we're not going to tell you what, but for services renders, here's a million dollar bill, you know? this is what you paid there for, this is what you paid for that. managed services, should we be able to offer other services over the proprietary infrastructure of our -- absolutely. that's what we're doing now. i mean, what is cable? we spent multiple decades building a private proprietary infrastructure, over 80 percent of which is dedicated right now

to delivering you a managed service that's called cable. and, you know, if i took our pipe and divided like a pie chart, the vast majority of that pipe is delivering you that managed, specialized service called cable. that's what this show comes over, that's what hbo comes over, and that's what the consumers pay for. for you to say we shouldn't be able to do that is, in essence, the confiscation of our business. you should demand as a matter of law that you take away our private service and put it in the public domain. and that, to us, is really way beyond the pale. that's a form of confiscation of private property, you know? we use a portion of that pipe for the public internet. but the majority of that is for the services that we build and develop, and, you know, the reason that your cable channel doesn't glitch or cash or pix late or can be high definition is because be it's highly prioritized and highly managed.

and so, look, unless you're willing to say cable service itself shouldn't exist as a private service, then i think you have to at least concede forms of managed services have consumer benefiting purposes x that's what we're all in the business to do. you know, we are not, you know, we are not government, you know, owned rights of way. we built our infrastructure with purely private capital to sell a service to the american public, and i think the government has to be careful not to suggest even for a public purpose that somehow you could remove those services and repurpose them for something that a regulator would prefer to see the use for. >> host: michael powell, one of the issues that the fcc is currently seeking comment on is the issue of a new net neutrality standard i guess you has proposed allowing companies to makegk contracts with cable providers, with the broadband

providers. some are calling this a fast lane. what do you think of that half of what the fcc is currently working on, and do you consider it a fast lane? >> guest: yeah. first of all, let me defend chairman wheeler for a second.bt i think it's a complete distortion to characterize what he's doing as he's proposing to have fast lane, you know? chairman wheeler's not proposing that we should have fast lanes. chairman wheeler is dealing with the boundaries of the law as interpreted by the court, and i think he personally is trying to create the strongest net neutrality rule he can within the parameter of what the law provides. and by the way, if the law does not provide for it, then it's the obligation of the united states congress to give him that authority or not. it is not his responsibility to make up that authority or pretend that he has something that he doesn't, or if he does, he's in violation of his own fiduciary responsibilities, and i would say even constitutional responsibilities. the fcc is not all powerful, full of plenary authority.

so i think he's gotten crosswise because people are acting like he's proposing this. i think he's proposing tough net neutrality rules that have to accommodate the boundaries of the court. so that's a fair description of what he's up to. fast lanes perplex me to a great degree because, i'll be perfectly honest with you, i've talked to virtually every ceo in my industry and other ip industries, i don't think we even know what a fast lane is, and i don't think anybody's contemplating doing one. i think this issue's blown beyond the proportion of our actual interests and incentives. you know, for 16 years there's not been a net neutrality rule, and our broadband businesses have grown substantially, and not one isp has ever endeavored to do, you know, even a quarter of the things that are hypothesized when we had every legal right and every opportunity to do. and that's because i don't think it makes that much sense. at&t wrote a blog the other day saying not doing fast lanes, not

doing primary access, no plans, no interest, never, no how. i don't think they'd even be remotely interested in saying that in a public forum if they weren't sure their business just doesn't involve that. think about how silly it is at a certain level. so i turn to google and say, by the way, if you don't pay me, i'm not going to deliver internet search results to my customers. first of all, i don't know how that's going to go over with your -- even if you could have enough leverage. why doesn't google just say i have a better idea, why don't you pay me? pay me or i'm not delivering search results to your consumers. how would you like that? who -- you know, look at retransmission consent fights in the united states and look how well blackout scenarios work out for cable companies when you try to tell cbs or espn, you know, oh, by the way, you should pay me. those power relationships actually have gone substantially in a different direction. they're probably more worried of

that scenario than the idea they have some massive business opportunity to charge. the other thing i think we forget is 90% of an isp's customers or capable company's customers -- cable company's customers 99% of the time are not doing anything that requires any enhanced capability, right? they're facebooking, tweeting, instagraming, all kinds of things, none of that stuff requires a substantial improvement in a fast lane. so there isn't much content or services that would even benefit from such a lane, and you would have to believe that i can charge so much to the very few companies that do to offset the degradation or the, quote, slow lane that i supposedly condemned the rest of my consumers to most of the time. i just don't think it make economic sense or logical sense, and i think we would be crazy if we did some of those things i think people are suggesting. which is why i think this fight

is not about net neutrality. take the cable industry, for example. we supported the last rules, i'm sure we'll support the next rules depending on how they come out. we didn't sue on them. one company did. you can is ask them about that. but i think we're willing to live with them. they are all in our terms of service even today. so only thing we care about is for one rule we're not going to support radically transforming the entire regulatory model to title ii. which is like reaching for a sledge hammer and a chain saw and, you know, and a bulldozer to tackle one rule. not even one rule, one piece of one rule. the punitive benefits of that are almost zero, and the risks are monumental. that's about the only thing we're in the mood to really be be fighting over. because i think that would be a radically disastrous step for the country. certainly damage our businesses,

and i think it would hurt consumers much worse than people generally understand. i also think it would hurt web companies more than they understand. because title ii reaches very far and wide, and i can easily conceptualize a whole range of services that web innovators that are involved in that could suddenly find themselves tangled up in that regime. look, i don't think we're doing a fast lane today, i don't even know what it means for the future, i don't think we have any plans to do one. i think we would live with a respectful rule in this regard that complies with the law, but we don't think changing us into public utilities is the right approach to that, and so we wish the chairman well in crafting a rule. i think he deserves everyone's support and assistance rather than criticism, and we'll see how it comes out. >> host: michael powell, in fact, or served as chairman of the fcc2001-2005. next question, gautham nagesh. >> as you referenced several times, one of the things that is open for comment as part of

chairman wheeler's proposal is whether or not broadband internet access should be considered a public utility and regulated under title ii of the telecommunications act. as you have articulated, your industry as a whole, i think, is very strongly against the prospect, but please convince us that the portion of the pipe that is dedicated to the broadband internet is not a utility in 2014. >> guest: first of all, i think we should -- let me start by saying thank you for the chance to convince you. we shouldn't accept that because something's important, it equals public utility. that's kind of the language going around. it's become so essential to our lives, it's not a luxury. thus, it should be a public utility. that seems to be the simplicity of the analysis. but what does that really mean? so, first of all, is making us a public utility going to make the internet go faster? is it going to reach more people? is it going to make it cheaper? what are the societal benefits about public utility transformation? and when you start to examine

it -- and, by the way, examine it against the amazing results that have already been achieved. generally accepted by all, this industry invested over $1.2 trillion of investment capital in the private sector to grow the internet. so is the regulatory model going to produce more capital for investment orless? so -- or less? first, it raises rates for consumers. why? under the telecommunications law, the telecom service, immediately, automatically as a matter of law those services have to be taxed to the universal service program. if you don't know what i mean, ask consumers to pull out their phone bills and their wireless phone bills and go through the details and tell me if you don't see a whole set of fees and requirements by the state and the federal government sometimes as high as 20% of -- 25% of your bill will be those fees. those fees are required by law if you're a telecom services provider.

secondly, i think consumers lose very critical consumer protection. how? if you're a title ii telecom service provider, the federal trade commission loses its jurisdiction, something people have forgotten about. so the agency that protect against fraud, false advertising and abuse be, those sorts of protections, privacy -- which is a critical part of the internet -- the agency that has the lead role in that would be disenfranchised. so whatever you gained, you also lost one of the most important p cops on the beat in terms of consumer protection, so the consumer doesn't come out better. i have companies in my industry, small cable companies don't even have lawyers on the staff. the cost of regulatory compliance with a regime like this are massive. okay, first of all every company needs a license. i could go on and on with thousands of pages of rules and responsibilities that would occur. but the costs would unquestionably arise for regulatory compliance, and that would come out of investing and broadband growth. so if you like your internet speed today, sadly, you might

have to get used to it because i think the investment needed to grow it will shrink. if you think people are bluffing, look at what the capital market reaction was when chairman genachowski proposed title ii. telecoms lost about 10-15% of market cap almost immediately, okay? telecom stocks in the most booming stock market in history right now are down. they're down because of the threat of title ii. and that overhang will depress capital infrastructure and capital investment x that means growth of the internet. so all the objectives that the president talked about, you know, reaching rural america, making broadband more accessible to more people, more affordable, building out high speed for schools and libraries, all of that, all of the money needed for that would particularly be threatened. states would suddenly have a regulatory hook on the internet that they do not have today. states could impose taxes and universal fees on the service. and then you say, well, what are

the benefits? oddly enough, it also doesn't fix the problem that the web community's complaining for. title ii does not allow you to band prior prioritization of acr deals. there's 80 years of precedent on that. you can't unreasonably discriminate, but you can discriminate. so you get no benefit that i can see as a manner of law. finally, i would say a word about the unintended consequences. if isps are offering a telecom service and so is kindle because it bundles telecommunications with contempt, because it offers -- content, because it offers a kindle device that has a 3g connection so you can download books. under the law that could easily be snared. skype, xbox live, there are all kinds of innovations that i think would become convoluted by this switch. all of a sudden all that stuff would become uncertain and confused.

the amount of time and energy that it would take to resolve this regime, easily a decade long, in my judgment. the court cases, the jurisdictional reordering of things, the questions that would come up. i think it would take this country and set it back in the information age where it's trying to accelerate and compete effectively to be a great empire in the information age. i think the country would regret it, i think consumers would regret it, and i even think advocates of the idea of changing would regret it. >> host: finally, mr. powell, want to ask you about a supreme court decision. if the supreme court decides favorably towards aereo, does that affect the cable industry? >> guest: you know, i don't think that significantly, quite honestly. number one, right now under the law we have an obligation to carry those channels anyway. people tend to forget that just because you might be able to offer a service which could capture them over the air, unless the law changes -- by the way, a law that we would like changed for other reasons -- we'd still have a legal

must-carry duty. by the way, most of these broadcasters are big, significant companies who in the course of negotiating absolutely insist on the terms of that kind of carriage. i don't know that it would be easy to escape them. but let's face it, technology is disruptive, and if it isn't aereo, it's going to be something else. these are powerful signals that are flying across the air open and not encrypted, and i think technology will be constantly trying to hack and figure out how to capture that content and deliver it to consumers. i think that's just the shape of more to come as innovators attempt to fund services and fill them with good content. >> host: could it affect retransmission costs or fees? >> guest: i think it's just really hard to say. i mean, i think the only way it would is if you thought that consumers have a really good, cost effective way of getting really valuable channels in a way that could be disconnected from the cable bill so that, you know, if you didn't want to pay the increases in retransmission

consent costs, you'd move to other services which provided you an they were. maybe that would bring costs down. i'm probably a little doubtful that that would be what occurred, because i think all these companies are pretty good at protecting their interests through the negotiating process. >> host: michael powell, president and ceo of the national cable and telecommunications association, and gautham nagesh of "the wall street journal." gentlemen, thanks for being on "the communicators." >> guest: thank you. >> c-span, created by america's cable companies 35 years ago and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. >> secretary of state john kerry is among the speakers this morning at the state department's conference on ocean conservation and climate change. our live coverage begins at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span2.

>> c-span2, providing live coverage to of the u.s. senate floor proceedings, and every weekend booktv. now for 15 years the only television network devoted to nonfiction books and authors. c-span2, created by the cable tv industry and brought to you as a public service by your local cable or satellite provider. watch us on hd, like us on facebook and follow us on twitter. >> the new head of the customs and border protection, gil kerlikowske, has prejudiced a more transparent and open agency. he spoke at the center for strategic and international studies calling the recent influx of unaccompanied children attempting to enter at the u.s. southern boarder a humanitarian -- border a humanitarian crisis. 3 could 60,000 by the end of the year, up 92% from this time last year. this discussion is one hour.

[inaudible conversations] >> good morning, everyone. welcome to csis. i'm kathleen hicks, i run the international security program here, and it's my great pleasure to be introducing our speaker today and our discussant along with him. first, of course, is the honorable dwil kerlikowske -- gil kerlikowske, sworn in in march. he has an extensive history within the law enforcement community and, of course, now he

runs the largest law enforcement, federal law enforcement agency in the country. and we're very much looking forward to his remarks this morning. customs and border protection has been very much in the news of late, and he's going to have some good questions put forth to him by adam isles who is the managing director at the chertoff group and has had plenty of husband own experience over -- his own experience over the years on homeland security. so without further ado, let me turn it over to commissioner kerlikowske and let him give his remarks. >> well, thank you very much, kathleen. the it's a great pleasure to be here. it's a great pleasure to be back at csis, especially to be in this beautiful new facility. i think well over a year ago i had the opportunity to deliver some remarks on another noncontroversial topic, drug policy, at csis. so to be back and have another

noncontroversial topic such as immigration, border security, etc. is just a delight. [laughter] so thank you again, and let me go ahead and start with a few things. i've had about a hundred days as cbp commissioner, so when you're thinking of all the tough questions, i've only had a hyundai, so i'll be -- hundred days, so i'll be able to dodge some of them if they're particularly difficult. i think it's a perfect time, though, to talk about an evolving vision for cbp and also to talk about some of the very pressing concerns that we face and also where our agency is headed. so let me first talk about the work force, because i think that's actually the premiere part. we have soon to have 62,000 employees in 40 countries, a wide range and diversity of people and skill sets. and as many of you know from the federal employees' survey, we

don't do particularly well when it comes to the morale in the department. and so working on that is particularly a critical item for me. i'm the first commissioner to be confirmed by the senate in now over five years, and i think it's helpful when you've gone through the confirmation process. the previous commissioners who are incredible people, i have the greatest respect and admiration for david aguilar and tom win kousky, and they did a tremendous job, and they certainly had the full support of the administration. but i think it's also critical that you have the support of senate in these issues. during the five years that i served president obama as his dug policy add -- drug policy adviser, i had that opportunity to work very closely with people on the hill. so communication, having the support of the administration, having the support of members of

congress, i think, is helpful to this large and diverse work force. you know, for most of the history our work force on the border was very much divided and very independent among federal agencies. borders, air operations, ports of entry were all served by different federal agencies. but since 2003 and since the 9/11 commission and the founding of the department of homeland security, we've had one unified border agency, and that's allowed us to really work and to try and craft a comprehensive border strategy. to not only secure those borders, but also to support our economy. and many of you know we have this dual mission with the facilitation of lawful trade and travel and the security of the borders, and they are not mutually exclusive. let me give you just some idea of the breadth and the depth of what the people at cbp do on a

daily basis. they process a million passengers and pedestrians, 67,000 truck, rail and sea containers. they make a thousand apprehensions a day. this is all on a daily basis. they arrest 22 wanted criminals, they seize about 12,000 pounds of narcotics, about $900,000 in -- $300,000 in undeclares currency, about almost $5 million worth of products that violate intellectual property rights. in addition, 440 agricultural pests at the u.s. ports of entry, 4,379 -- i'm being a good fed by giving you all these numbers. 4,379 agriculture materials that require quarantine to protect our agriculture industry. if you want to knowdtn more abt capra beet be les later -- beetles, i'll be happy to discuss those in depth. to carry out that mission,

they've become, as kat mentioned, the largest law enforcement agency inoç the und states. but we rely on our employees for our success. and even when you look at our budget, the vast majority of our budget is in our salaries and our personnel costs. in order to fulfill that mission, it is absolutely vital that we do everything we can to support that work force. there are many ideas to enhance the work force that involve recognition, that involve support, but also a strong mention from every leader within cbp to that work force that people's health, taking care of their families, making sure that those things are premiere are the critical and important thing. and we're doing lots of experimentation, lots of experimentation in expanding telecommuting, changing the environment within the organization. but i think when that message

comes across from all of the leaders, many of whom are seated here in front of me today, when that message comes across from all of the leaders about the importance and the value that they place in employees, then i think that translates well. and you know what? the better that work force does, the more efficient they are, the less sick time, on and on. but many of you know this, and we're hoping that we're going to be able to improve the way we show on that federal employee work force survey. and this is also an important issue, as many of you know, with secretary johnson and also with our deputy secretary, ali. when we work with this mission, we're going to improve that productivity, and we're just better capable of carrying out our mission. carrying out our mission, though, really involves sharing information and creating community. partnerships and information sharing are the heart of all that we do. and the first hundred days i have worked very hard to travel

across the country, actually, in many places around the world to visit with our employees and to have town halls and also to enforce through relationships the important international relationships, particularly with places like mexico. our counterparts in law enforcement, customs, immigration, intelligence, security and foreign atears. and -- affairs. and in peru, i joined the directors general of customs of the western hemisphere to consider regional risk management strategy. so we do a better job here in the united states government on interagency collaboration. and in turn, we have to do a better job on international collaboration. i did the same thing in spain, meeting with members of the world customs organization. and a lot of this, of course, is not only to promote that lawful trade and travel, but also to make sure that the supply chain is secure and not vulnerable to

crime and corruption. and in the middle east, i spoke with our arab leaders, with arab leaders about building the capacity for more secure trade and travel. the unified border management system that is being replicated around the world is modeled on the good work that's been done by cbp here in the united states. and it's a truly collaborative approach. and when i listened, by the way, to all of these different -- my counterparts, whether it was in customs or border security forces, more and more and more you hear the talk from them that it's not just about the collection of revenue, it's not just about the trade and facilitation which is often at the heart of customs organizations in other countries who don't have the dual responsibility that we have. security concerns were absolutely preeminent. over and over they brought up increasing concerns about security. and we have models, and we have things that we can offer to other countries to help improve

that. we have to work with our industrial partners. we have an extensive interagency collaborative network. you know, in washington we have lots of interagency meetings, and everyone understands and appreciates the value of those relationships. and as a result, cbp and its network of partners, we have prevented -- we, meaning a collective we -- have prevented potentially dangerous individuals from coming into this country. those are often cases, of course, that we're not allowed or cannot talk about publicly. but i've seen it time and time and time again. we have private sector partnerships, so it's not just the interagency, and it's not just our international partnerships. when you think about our networking and sharing of information with government agencies, we have to include the industry as part of that. an example would be the air cargo advanced screening

program. after the christmas day attempted bomb, or after the -- excuse me, after the air traffic worldwide was disrupted in 2010 with the printer cartridges from yemen, things changed dramatically, and people really stepped up to the plate from the private sector along with the government to develop a system that is risk-based and makes so much more sense and, again, protecting the country. we needed to receive data in advance on air cargo and the industry stepped up. fedex, dhl, up s&t nt ups and tnt. they handle almost all of the air cargo independently. when we put the problem on the table as a result of what was discovered with those cartridges, those private sector partners came up with us to form a solution, and i think acas is

an example. the more information that cbpos have at a point of entry, the more information they have where they don't have to spend time doing data entry and typing into the computer, if they have that information because someone has already scanned their passport through that kiosk, then that's more information or more time that they can devote to processing people and to moving legitimate travelers through the system, but perhaps then spending more time where additional scrutiny is needed. so the automated password controls are important. you've read extensively about the syrian foreign fighter issue. we're actively engaged in that, again, with the interagency. it's certainly been no secrets in the remarks that director comey and others have made about concerns, and certainly the concerns just recently raised in

belgium and france were a highlight, highlighted this particular threat. and it's important that we are a part of that. the need for illuminating this and working more closely with our foreign partners is not only helpful to our safety and security here in the united states, it's certainly more helpful to the safety and security of our partner nations. that employee morale, and i want to get back to that with a little more in depth, is important because so much of what we do is also based upon those resources. so we have huge, significant improvements in technology, in training, etc. but so much of what we do is labor intense e. and some -- intensive. and some of it, when you look at all of the technology, and many of you travel so extensively, and you go through the ports. i hope you're a global entry member, by the way. and go through the ports, social

security sofas nate -- it's so fascinating to see all of the technology that's so helpful. but it's also so fascinating to see an experienced and knowledgeable cbpo that is there recognizing the importance of their mission to protect this country, but also recognizing -- but also having the skills to be able to identify. and every single day when i mention those significant seizures of cash and narcotics and others, the prohibiting of people that shouldn't come to the united states, a lot of that is actually based upon the work and the skill set that those people have. so the more we do to improve their training, their development, recognizing their performance and thanking them, the better off we all are. we're going to expandq3'm our ability within cbp, again with a very large organization, to let people know about career path opportunities. and perhaps additional training

and where we can also be a partner with the interagency and let people have an opportunity for a period of time to work in some other location and to learn other things. i've never been more impressed with the work force than i have been with cbp. when this job was being talked about within the white house and i was asked about it, in case i knew anybody, i raised my hand, what about me? [laughter] and i hadf that opportunity, because i've had the chance over the years serving the president to work on something called the southwest border counternarcoticsç strategy. every two years we update that. so during the time that i worked on three of those for the president, i was able to spend a lot of time with cbp. a lot of time on the southwest board beer meeting with them. -- border meeting with them, and i said i knew this was a place i wanted to go. not that i was anxious to leave the white house, but i was anxious to also get into

operations. let me talk about something that has been in the news a lot, the unaccompanied children. the number of children that cbp is encountering on the southwest border has increased by 92% over last year. numbers. many of them are girls, many more are under the age of 13. it has created a humanitarian crisis. secretary johnson, on may 12th, determined that this would be a level iv condition of readiness within the department of homeland security. that's a determination that the situation has exceeded the capacity of cbp and i.c.e. and that we needed additional dhs resources. he chose the deputy chief of the united states border patrol to be the dhs federal coordinator. i think it tells you the importance that he places on these individuals that are on the front lines, but also the

recognition that they were going to work closely with their counterparts. so making sure that these children are taken care of is a huge humanitarian act, and i've been down there several times. chief fisher on the front row and many others have been down a number of times to mcallen or into the rio grande valley to look at this, and i would tell you that those border control agents are going yeoman work. they've doing an incredible job. but also they're bringing together the interagency, having coast guard corpsman deal with these kids. many of whom, by the way-- in fact, most of whom, by the way, have never been treated by a doctor or a clinician until they've come into, until they've been encountered by us. fema has done an absolutely tremendous job. they know disasters, they know about coordination, they know about engaging the interagency, and they know about working closely with state and locals.

so director, or administrator fugate and the men and women of fema have dope a great job on -- have done a great job on this. and as you know from secretary johnson's remarks yesterday but also his visit on mother's day to mcallen, that he also takes this very personally, and it's very high on his radar screen as it is among every member of the obama administration. this group, they're all working together to insure that these children are transferred out of our border patrol facilities quickly, that they go to health and human services and that they can provide from the moment we encounter them, from the moment we encounter them with nutrition, education, medical care, etc. and then we expand that later through hhs and others to include housing, to include mental health care, etc., because many of these kids have been tremendously traumatized. the vast majority, as you well

know, are from central america. they're fleeing hardships, they're fleeing economic conditions, they're fleeing violence within their own countries, and many are also seeking reunification with their families. while these children await the immigration proceedings that they are then under, hhs is working with these children and relatives to place them here in the united states into longer-term facilities. the cbf -- the cbp custody, the dhs office of health affairs, the coast card, many others i've talked about -- coast guard and many others i've talked about. and is so many volunteers. the texas baptists' organization, many ngos that are helping to provide food, clean clothing, shower facilities, etc. it's a tremendous operation. we're working hard now to launch a public affairs campaign in these other countries to talk

about, one, not only the dangers that these kids face by being placed in the hands of coyotes who are involved in smuggling them, not only those dangers, but also the dangers they face in other ways. but also the clear recognition that regardless of what is being considered now in congress for come prehenceoff immigration -- comprehensive immigration review, that they would not be entitled to a path to citizenship as a result of entering the country now at point. cbp along with our partner law enforcement agencies has surged criminal investigators to break the backs of smuggling organizations that are involved in this. oftentimes for large amounts of money. and often times they could care less about the safety of those children in their care. so we're working hard to make sure that those people are apprehended, and the department of justice is working hard to make sure that they are prosecuted. so we've responded to the needs

of these children. our border patrol agents have brought in -- and our cbpos at the bolters of industry -- bolters of entry -- ports of entry, they've brought in their own clothing, they've done so many other things that is beyond any skill set that they have and certainly something they didn't sign up for. use of force is another issue, so i'll change topics dramatically. the use of force is particularly by the border patrol has received a lot of attention in the media. cbp has been criticized for its lack of transparency regarding our policies and procedures. about two weeks ago we gap to change that -- we began to change that. even earlier, chief fisher began working very hard to make sure that the policy changes and the training changes that are needed because you can't just issue a piece of paper that all of this

was being done too. so we're working within cbp and within cbp's leadership to be more transparent, to be more open, to improve policy, to improve training, and i think you'll see more to come in that particular, in that particular area. so let me just say that

. >> those are a few small things of an organization and a work force that i'm extremely proud of, andc i couldn't be more honored than to have been nominated, confirmed and now leading that organization. so, adam, i think i'm ready. [applause] >> thank you all. >> so i'm going to moderate the

following discussion here by starting off with a couple of questions of my own, and then i'm going to look to the audience to follow up with questions. and what i'd ask folks to do when we take questions from the audience is raise your hand, and when i call on you, identify yourself and your affiliation before stating question. so, commissioner, first of all, thanks so much for the remarks you made both in depth and breadth. i want to touch on a couple of topics that you raised by way of kicking the discussion off. you talked about a problem that's on everyone's minds right now, that of the tremendous increase in unaccompanied minors that are being apprehended on the southwest border, and we talked about kind of the humanitarian focus, the government-wide humanitarian response effort, and you touched a little bit on what the government's doing to try and deter these journeys from being undertaken in the first place. i'm wondering if you can kind of talk more about whether you're

seeing any impact from those kind of deterrence-related activities and how you're going to be monitoring that and thinking about whether additional measures are required. >> well, some of you are familiar with the department of state and the department of homeland security prior programs to get messages out. at that time a few years ago, they were concentrated more on mexico, but certainly in the central american countries and, actually, that's where our concentration is now. to say that it is an incredibly dangerous thing, it's dangerous to try and attempt particularly in the summer months to come into this country and traverse really rugged locations. every day, every single day i get reports from the border patrol and our air and marine operations on rescues of people; dehydration, etc. you can't carry enough water physically to get across any of that terrain. but we also need to make sure

that in this new round of messaging it's not only the danger to themselves, placing children in the hands of coyotes is incredibly, incredibly difficult. there has been a lot of discussion and a lot of looking at our facilities which actually are -- although not as much now, but have been overwhelmed by the number of people. i disease we need to actually -- i guess we need to actually show the same level of concern by many organizations about the danger these kids were in before they ever encountered somebody from the border patrol or customs and border protection who, actually, is a safe and secure individual for them. but the last part of that message has to be that this is not pathway to citizenship. >> what kind of an impact is this surge having on kind of the underlying enforcement interdiction mission particularly along the southwest border?

>> well, it's taken away resource within border control to concentrate on caring for these individuals that would normally be doing other enforcement duties. and we have to look at alleviating that. chief fisher and others have changen on a temporary detail -- taken on a temporary detail, about 115 border patrol agents from other sections where they were less busy. and i don't know any place on the border where they're not busy, but where they were a little less busy and surged them into this area. but the sooner they can get back to doing those other duties, i think the better. >> you talked about the use of force policy and the modification that had been made. can you talk about how it's being received in the field? >> well, i think that the message that i've tried to make sure is that, one, to the people that are scrutinizing the use of force by any law enforcement a agency but particularly the

border patrol right now, is that a written policy is a great first start, but it has to be backed up with training. we've made changes in the training curriculum, we've made changes in the physical layout of the border patrol academies so that they have more of a real-life situation for training on use of force. it has to to be to be reinforced through supervision, and people have to be held accountable if force is used improperly. i don't know any law enforcement officer that opposes these ideas. and the message that i've given in all of the town halls with the border patrol is that there is no apprehension of an individual, there is no seizure of any amount of narcotics, and there is no vehicle pursuit that is worth being injured over. we will have another day, and law enforcement officers all across the country recognize this. so we do a very good job.

we're going to work very hard, but we have to temper that attempt to apprehend with recognizing the risks not only to ourselves, not only to these agents, but the risks to others. >> let me turn it over to the audience. and, again, if you could identify yourself and your affiliation, i'd appreciate it. >> hi. thank you for your remarks today. marisa leno with northrup grumman association but also a dhs alum. i wonder -- i have a two-part question. i wonder if you might discuss a bit what collaboration there has been with mexico for working on its southern border. and the second part of the question is what collaboration there has been with canada for the northern border.

.. that has a direct impact on mexico. the united states know something about the technology and the training and the skill set needed for border security, and we continue to offer and work with the government of mexico to help them with that issue. that's important. canada, we also when i was at the office of national drug control policy, rewrite the

northern border strategy, a very different 4000-mile border that is easily accessed. and i think what i would say about both of these things is that it's not about the sheer number of people or the amount of technology. it's about intelligence and information sharing and focusing your finite resources on the risk. >> the lady in the pink shirt in the back. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. [inaudible] i'm from kenya. i'm working in d.c. thank you so much for your presentation. looking at the part of security, i think i want to ask if you can talk something about africa. this problem is everywhere.

you can see it in somalia. how do we do it? internationally important for this to be international, my question -- migration, security. this would prevent terrorism. take another passport, then it's all confusion. how do you look at that as an impact and how can we collaborate in africa and all over the world because the problem is all over the world? >> i think that one thing that i would offer is that customs and border protection has personnel. we have added shape and i think 22 countries. we have personnel in about 40 countries -- attaché. we have advanced ring centers and others, and working with our partners at the department of state we are very happy and have done it many times in many countries. we are very happy to share our lessons learned.

and, frankly, it isn't the united states coming in saying this is the way you must do it and this is the way it should be done. i think we are pretty happy to say, there are all the mistakes that we have made. perhaps you can benefit from those mistakes. we are better at this now. when we leave those partnerships and when we leave from the strength sessions which we do quite often. we are more knowledgeable and we have almost always walked away from the sessions having learned more than perhaps we have imported but we have developed relationships. we would be happy to follow up with you later and help in any way that we can. >> in the front row here. the lady in the purple. >> lower oxford with rich robel -- ridge global. he talked about newport technology but how do you feel about the 9/11 commission 100%

scanning policy and the pushback has come from the? there is new technology out there that is effective, passive so it has no effect on those around or the cargo inside and again detect contraband. what you feel about that? >> i think many people in the audience know that the law requires 100% scanning. it also provides the secretary of homeland security with the ability every two years to say that whether or not that can be achieved. 100% scanning based upon the technology that has existed somewhat in the past would have left cargo and trade stacked up either in the air or stacked up in ships. quite a ways out from our ports. with that being said, technology has changed pretty dramatically and we are exploring a variety of ways to continue to look at

this. and, of course, as you know radiation monitoring exist with everything coming into the united states, or almost everything coming into the united states. there are a variety of risk-based approaches that we are using, and to we also tried to make sure that we have not just at the border the security screening, but then further inland what are the security measures and that kind of layered defense that we can take. so i think we are very hopeful that we can, we will continue to look at the technology that's available to continue to move toward a that scanning. >> the gentleman in the blue shirt. >> thank you. you previously mentioned that it's not about the number, sheer number of people on the border or the technology but it's about information sharing. can you elaborate a little bit

more about how you can become more effective with information sharing? >> first of all we have developed those trusted relationships go with other law enforcement organizations and those law enforcement organs nations such as interpol or euro poll or others could be particularly helpful. we have also done a better job and continue to move in this direction with something called preclearance. so pushing the borders outcome expanding the borders beyond our borders so when we look at being able to click people coming in to the united states and entering through customs 3000 miles away such as in abu dhabi, it makes an awful lot of sense. so those are the kinds of things that we want to be able to continue to work with. very much my law enforcement colleagues around the world, you know, we have very much come to the conclusion and we're all in this together, the more that we can support and work with each

other the better off we all are. >> the gentleman in the yellow shirt in the back. >> good morning. thank you. i am with nbc news. over the years border security measure push a lot of migrants to go through more the rugged, let's see the focused areas. where are we seeing the highest concentration of them coming to? >> the highest concentration has been the rio grande valley. it is the shortest distance traveling from central american countries through mexico. so it is clearly in that particular area that we have seen the largest number of kids. as you know, apprehensions along the border have been decreasing, but this is a particularly difficult situation because of the terrain in that area, but

also because these are children. apprehensions is probably the wrong word. encounters is a much better word. these are kids that are saying, you know, i want you to take care of me. >> is there less focus being caught by border patrol? >> i'm sorry? >> because they are less -- they are openly putting themselves out there? >> very openly. very much so. it isn't through great detective work. >> the gentleman in the jacket. spent on international advisor. i just arrived from paris two days ago. thank you for the global entry. it's very effective.

[laughter] my question is, on the process and the children going across the border, some of them, as you mentioned, are coming in for reunification for the family. i was born in morocco. i went through the system, and i understand how long it takes. can it take less time for the children or for the paper process to the embassies or whatever to make it a little bit easier or faster? it can take years to get the paperwork done properly or legally. >> i mean, your point is excellent. if there is -- a legitimate lawful way to enter the country going through the embassy and going through that system, and that is so something that the department of state is well aware of. but we also know that even the numbers of people that wish to

come to this country, and to remain in this country, is an overwhelming amount. i think the question is probably better answered by the department of state, but i'm glad you raised that issue. >> the lady in the third row. >> thank you for speaking today. i worked for former assistant secretary bobby charles. i have a question. in a recent csis even on a posture of the army national guard it was hypothesized that more guardsmen might be utilized on the southwest border. be too constraining budgets all around but i wish is one if you could comment what's -- eventually going to happen. i know there are partnerships in place. and if not the guard, maybe who else might be utilized? >> it was part of the administration when the surge of

national guard, i think about 1200 guardsmen were deployed a few years ago, when secretary gates and secretary napolitano were involved in that. i don't know of any plans involving the national guard now but i know that customs and border protection has had a long and rich and fruitful really history with the guard, particularly in the areas of intelligence analytics, gathering information, et cetera. i would tell you that we have no better partner than the department of defense and secretary hagel in particular. he and the relationship that secretary johnson have is tremendous. the amount of technology that is being returned as a result of the drawdown in afghanistan is very helpful, and a lot of that technology can very much be used

by us on the border. we have seen it transition very quickly to that. so there are some very good relationships going on and improvements there, thanks. >> the lady and kind of the 10 jacket four rows back. >> i'm with navistar. image of the transition of equipment. we are -- a vehicle manufacturer now that the army has seen many of those access and we were just informed this week that dhs has requested 350. we've talked to the border previously and they didn't elect a needed armored vehicles and i just wonder was the intent for those to go to border patrol, or are you aware of that request the? >> i'd like to pretend that actually know the answer to that, but actually i'm very much unaware of it. i'm so happy to look into it and try to get back to you.

>> thank you. >> the gentleman five rows back in the jacket. >> yesterday at the press conference you acknowledged complaints that a been made about border patrol officers. and use of those complaints would be investigated. could you give a timeframe for those investigations? and can you say when the names of the officers involved in those complaints will be made public? >> sure. i went to a couple of things. one is that i think i pretty much demonstrated my commitment to having complaints investigated. my commitment to making the information as a result of those investigations known. i would tell you in reading a few of the complaints, the lack of specificity, particularly when, where, what station, let alone the names of any individual is extremely troubling. the vagueness of the complaints

is very concerning. that means that it will take longer and we'll have to look at that. the other part that i did mentioned he is that kind extremely troubled by the difference in come in what -- i'm extremely troubled by the fact that i've been down there a lot, spent a lot of time and i've seen these agents doing incredible things, taking care of these kids who are in a dangerous situation. i've watched them do everything from change diapers the heat formula. by the way, they don't have very good skills in some of these things. having two children of my known -- of my own i know some of these things. many of these are single men who are not particularly could've happened to getting better. i've watched them bring in their own clothing. i saw the pictures of a birthday cake for an 11 year old who have never had a birthday cake. i'm not quite -- i have not

placing the kinds of complex i'm hearing about, and i'm a bit troubled because these men and women need our support. >> you have a timeframe? >> i don't have a timeframe only because the complaints are so vague and lack specificity, so that it will take a while to drill down into what is actually being talked about. >> the gentleman with the red tie in the back. >> you had mentioned earlier about the apprehension of potentially dangerous individuals trying to answer the country. i was just wondering if you could maybe detail our touch on the process which must be undertaken to either bar a foreign national or at least bring them to the attention of cbp or dhs.

>> we have interagency agreements, and the agency relationships so that information about individuals in the united states that may be prohibited or barred, whether it's on the no fly list or other databases, that day, by law, would not receive admittance to the united states. and so we work with these other agencies. because we are actually the gateway or the entry point that, we are kind of the enforcer often times of those regulations. >> the lady in the front row. >> thank you. i'm the congressional correspondent for the hispanic outlook. you said that many of the kids

are girls, and many are under the age of 12, but many is a vague term. we are hearing that the vast majority are young males under the age of 18, but between 14 14-18. so i wonder if you could give more specific statistics? and the other thing is, if they don't have family here, which already is kind of strange because the family by definition are here illegally, so if our mission is to put kids who come in illegally with the parents who are illegally, that's one thing. but what if they have no family? they just come in, they're under 18, we consider them miners. what happens to them than? will they be deported? is there any talk at all about deportation? >> so the issue of ground specifically around the numbers has been a bit difficult. because we have a number of

border patrol stations where these encounters occur. we have a number of ports of entry. and we have at times some definitional issues, a family unit versus individuals but with lots and lots of information. i think that what the secretary and i and others have stressed so clear is that we recognize that this is an overwhelming number of young people in need of care and in need of protection. including as you said many under the age of 18, the fast maturing of these kids needing our services, meeting our support. i would tell you that health and human services is doing an admirable job under the circumstances to take these the children after, within 72 hours so that they can either be reunited with a family member or

placed in foster care. and i would not comment on the deportation issue. >> the gentleman in the front. >> i'm one of president obama's, founding members of -- businessmen in vietnam. anyway, wonderful presentation, but my question is this. one of -- the president has done such a wonderful job in trying to push for immigration reform. and one of the ways he's been blocked politically by people who are in the congress, against immigration reform, has been raising, you know, false questions, questions about border security. we will be for immigration reform when the border is

properly secured. obviously,, you know, that's not legitimate. so my question is, is there somebody in the administration with whom you would be in contact or somebody who can explain this or is chartered to work swing this to the american people? because not everybody can come and listen to your wonderful presentation. that's really my question. because he has spokespeople for climate change issues and something like that but how about immigration? >> i think that the person is most knowledgeable and has been the spokesperson for the administration on the immigration issue is the head of the domestic policy council, cecilia munoz, who is incredibly knowledgeable about so many of the details. the border security issue is an important one. oftentimes we would talk about border security and metrics, it's often discussed that often

is discuss with the eye of the beholder. there's no question there is more resources, more technology, more time, effort and focus devoted to border security over these last numbers of years than at any time in our nation's history. but i think we all have to recognize that we have finite resources and that we are going to continue to work very hard, and men and women of cbp will continue to work very hard to uphold that responsibility. >> the gentleman in the gray suit. >> andrew mosier, homeland security and studied at the nelson institute. just wondered, you are talking about manpower and technology and border patrol. could you discuss what role i manned systems aboard begun to play and sort of we see that

going into future? >> the technologies systems that are already in place, is that -- i think the things that are most helpful that i've seen in listening to people on the border would be things like a tethered arrow staff, the technology as you know we have unmanned aircraft also along the southern border. we have remote video systems that can be deployed that are also, expand kind of the eyes. the infrared systems that are a part of that also. all of those things i think are value-added to the people that are working on the border. >> we've got time for two more questions. >> commissioner, nice to see you

again. my name is ed fox. i'm a private consultant but a former dhs personnel. i was astounded by your comment that the increase in the number of children in this category from last year, i think he said 92%? >> yes. >> that's an unbelievable statistic. i don't know what the actual numbers represent, but normally it is in increase of this nature it's due to some factor. it's not just things as normal. since the economy is not, the draw that we had in past, is there an effort to identify what specifically, you know, by in giving these children or elsewhere, what exactly is the spark here? is there an individual? are there groups of people? is there a cabal working to take advantage of something? do we know anything? you are left with a result of it but the real problem is going to be what started this and how can

we deal with that issue? >> i mean, i think no one in the administration, particularly the secretary, has tried to couch this about the reason in terms other than exactly what we see and exactly what we are hearing. so this increase didn't happen overnight. about 47, 48,000 right now. that has already double the number from the last fiscal year, and the fiscal year before that was an increase. but nothing quite to the extent that we are seeing this year. we've seen surveys from the united states conference of catholic bishops. we've seen other surveys, and it goes back to the issues because there's always been a pull factor for people coming into the united states. but as we know, honduras has the highest homicide rate of any country in the world. so gang violence, other kinds of

violence within those countries, el salvador, guatemala, honduras come are certainly a concern. the quest for an education, the quest for a better economy, the quest for safety and security are there, and so his family reunification a part of all allf that. that's why we're trying to address in our comprehensive message to be broadcast in many nodes to those countries the fact that it's not only dangerous, but the fact that this will not lead to a path to citizenship. >> last question, the lady in the black. >> could you talk about what is your take on implementing exit, biometric exit given to work on the southwest border, and giving technology now like smart phones and biometric software? >> the biometric exit issue is

extremely important and it has a lot of value, too. woman look at how can we decrease wait times are in the united states for people entering the country, so our continued study of biometrics is important. i think at the end of this month they will be opening up a kind of extreme edition center on biometric technologies. we will continue to explore that, but, of course, it's not just the biometrics that they will be helpful. we know that they have to be put into an infrastructure. of course, our airports really are not designed for biometric exit. all of that has to put into an infrastructure and we also have to be very aware of the privacy and the personally identifiable information. it's a pretty complex set of things, but i would tell you we are exploring with a number of people and a number of very smart people in a very open way with members of, or

congressional staff, biometric exit programs and technology. >> well, commissioner, thank you so much for your time. i think, i'm not sure that many people in this country appreciate what a complex mission cbp has. you talk about processing a million travelers a day, and part of that is trying to find very few high-risk travelers in the midst of a great number of mostly legitimate travel. one of the things that csis has been done for number of years is being an interface between government and stakeholders in the private sector, the commute in general, and bridging the gap and getting kind of greater visibility into the challenges that we're facing as a country. so thank you for partnering with csis to provide the kind of picture of cbp and the topics you're facing today. >> thank you all very much. [applause] [inaudible

conversations] >> table in the '90s, when a lot of the current regular environment, we did it over 90%. today, the cable industry only as a little over 50%. said the business has matured. and i think you either have to do two things if it's lower cost, keep the margins good. i think they're attacking both of those. but to focus on the revenue side i think, one, looking for new ways to delight and hold consumers. to look at comcast and its

investment in the excellent platform. if you can a video on demand more attractive, easier to use, the interface is a weblike and more delightful. therefore, don't lose what you have. if you can innovate, keep which a. you also see them taking advantage of broadband. that is a different operative our industry. it is going much faster. it still has a huge a just to the market. it is good economics and it's a good assist. >> the rapid change in telecommunications, technology advances and the future of the cable industry with national cable and telecommunications associate president michael powell tonight at eight eastern on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> secretary of state john kerry is kicking off the state department's 2014 our ocean conference highlighting current and future actions involving the protection of ocean ecosystem's big event scheduled to get away at mojo to the open session today will include remarks by

the president of, whose country is desperate under the sea due to climate change. we will also a panel discussion on ocean conservation. we expect this to get started in just a moment. live coverage here on c-span2. [inaudible conversations] >> welcome to the our ocean conference hosted by the u.s. department of state. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the secretary of state

of the united states of america, the president of the republic, and undersecretary for economic growth, energy and the environment. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. president, secretary kerry, ministers, ambassadors and other distinguished guests, both here and join us online. i am delighted to welcome you all to washington, and to thank you for all the work that you're doing to advance the cause of ocean conservation. participants from more than 80 countries are here today representing foreign, economic and osha ministries, nongovernmental organizations, foundation, private companies, the scientific and research community and ordinary citizens.

this diversity reflects one of the central tenets of this conference that the solutions to the challenges threatening our ocean require commitments and contributions from everyone. we chose the title our ocean for this event to communicate a fact ocean scientist understand well. the water, covering two-thirds of the earth's surface, is really a single interconnected global ocean. because there is only one interconnected and interdependent ocean, pollution or unsustainable fishing in one quarter of the ocean matters even to those of us livings thousands of miles away. and while they see age of ocean water me very slightly from one place to another, rising levels of ocean acidification threaten ocean ecology everywhere. along with the atmosphere, our ocean is the greatest of all of our shared assets. it performs the critical role of

cycling water, carbon and nutrients throughout our planet. millions of people depend on it for their livelihoods. but our ocean is also uniquely vulnerable to collective damage from the behavior of billions of individuals, each of whom may be acting rationally from his or her point of view. over the next two days we will examine three critical issues for ocean health, sustainable fisheries, marine pollution and ocean acidification. we will review the science of the challenges we face and the way they have impacted communities around the world. despite the real and growing challenges facing our ocean, practical and effective solutions exist at every level of our society. there's a role for government, and we expect some impressive announcements and new initiatives over the next few days. but are equally important roles for civil society, private companies, philanthropic organizations and individuals. and most importantly for

collaboration between these groups. collective action is critical, and so is individual action. for the end of the day it is individuals have the power to change their behavior and the behavior of their government. as we plan to this comment over the last few months we have been overwhelmed by the enthusiastic support from our partners and individuals around the world. this support has bloomed online. just a few minutes ago the department of state heard thunderclap or coordinate social media burst reached over 5.3 million people. all from individuals and organizations adding their voices to this cause. i encourage everyone here to reach out to networks and spread the news about this conference. we look at this conference as more than a two-day event. we are committed to working together with all of you to catalyze new initiatives, raise awareness of the oceans challenges, and step-by-step

advance a concrete plant on the stuff at the steps we must all take to conserve the ocean. it is now my great pleasure to introduce the inspiration and host of this conference, the 68th second of state john kerry. [applause] >> i have to add a little more before he talks. said it has been a passionate advocate for ocean conservation since his childhood in massachusetts, 328 years in the u.s. senate and during his 18 months as secretary of state. he has integrated oceans, climate, energy, and other cutting edge environmental issues into the mainstream of u.s. foreign policy like no other secretary of state before him. with great pleasure, secretary kerry, the floor is yours. [applause]

>> kathy, thank you very, very much. welcome, everybody. distinguished guests, all, many government leader, many people as cathy mentioned from foundations from ngos, from various interested entities. we are really delighted to have such an extraordinary expert, concerned group come together to discuss this really critical issue. and i am personally very, very grateful to the leadership of our terrific undersecretary for economic growth, energy and the environment. it's a big package obviously, who has been working diligently to put this together. you can tell from the surroundings this will be interactive. there will be a lot of visual input to digest, and a great

deal of science to document what we are talking about here over the course of these next couple of days. but i'm really grateful to my team here at the state department that has worked overtime under cathy's leadership to help bring everybody together here today. and i thank you all for coming. i welcome you to the state department, to the conference room, particularly those of you who are representing countries from around the world, the private sector, civil society, academia, as well as many people joining us online via live stream through state.gov. and i hope many more people will join us over the course of the next two days. as many of you know, convening a conference like this has been a priority of mine for some period of time. i really started thinking about this when i was still in the

senate and we want to try to pull together, and last year we did, and as you know we had a political moment here in washington, apply, telematic, which prevented us from going forward at that time. but candidly i think it's worked for the better because it gave us more time to think about how to make this conference proud even more effective and how to maximize what we're doing here. a commitment to protecting the ocean which we all share has really been a priority of mine for a long time, as cathy mentioned a moment ago. letter late from the time i was growing up as a child in massachusetts when i first dipped my toes into the mud off woods hole oceanographic, in the area of the buzzards bay,

indicate. was introduced to planning and fishing and all of those great joys of the ocean. i've had this enormous love and respect for the ocean means to us. i went into the navy partly through that and i had the pleasure of crossing the pacific both ways on a ship, and passing through many different parts of the pacific ocean, region. it's sort of in my dna, my mother's son was involved way, way, way back in the early days of trade through the oceans. and, indeed, my father was a passionate sailor who come in his retirement, founded the way to sail across the ocean several times. so i learned very early on to appreciate this vast expanse of the ocean. so vast that three quarters of our planet is really ocean. someone might have called our planet ocean, not earth, if it was based on that but obviously

it is not. stewardship of our ocean is not a one person event. it's a nation event. it's a country that. it's a universal requirement all across this planet. and i tried very hard when i was in the senate as chairman of the senate oceans and fisheries subcommittee where we rewrote our fishing laws on several different occasions, created a still black and bank sanctuary, the coastal zone management act enforcement, flood insurance, rethinking it. all these things that have to do with development, runoff and all of the things that concern us as we come here today. and that is the concern that i bring to this effort as secretary of state now. the reason for that is really very, very simple. and for anyone who questions why are we here when there are so

many areas of conflict on some issues of vital concern as there are, and regrettably because of that i will not be at every part of this conference because we have much to do with respect to iraq, and other emergencies that we face. but no one should mistake that the protection of our oceans is a vital international security issue. it's a vital security issue involving the movement of people, the livelihood of people, the capacity of people to exist and live, where they live today. the ocean today supports the livelihoods of up to 12% of the world's population, but it is also essential to maintaining the environment in which we all have. it's responsible for recycling things like water, carbon, nutrients throughout our planet, proud of the ecosystem. system is an important word.

so we have air to breathe, water to drink. and it is home to literally millions of species. protecting our ocean is also a great necessity for global food security, given that more than 3 billion people, 50% of the people on this planet, in every corner of the world depend on fish as a significant source of protein. the connection between a healthy ocean and life itself for every single person on earth cannot be overstated. and we will hear scientists who will talk about that relationship in the course of the next hours and days. the fact is we as human beings share nothing so completely as the ocean that covers nearly three quarters of our planet. and i remember the first time i really grasped that notion but it was an early 1970s when the first color pictures of earth

from space were released. the famous blue marble photographs. and when you look at those images, you don't see borders or markers separating one nation from another. you just see big masses of green, and sometimes brown, surrounded by blue. for me, that image shaped the realization that what has become cliché and perhaps even, you know, taken for granted, perhaps is taken for granted, is the degree to which we all share one planet, one ocean. and because we share nothing so completely as our ocean, each of us also shares the responsibility to protect it. and you can look at any scripture of any religion, any life philosophy, and you will draw from it that sense of

responsibility. i think most people want their children and their grandchildren to benefit from a healthy ocean the same way that we have been privileged to. and they want to do their part to be able to ensure that that isn't the case. but here's the problem. when anybody looks out at the ocean, you know, we're all guilty of at one time or another, when you stand on the beach and you look out at the tide rolling in, you feel somehow that the ocean is larger than life, that it's an endless resource, impossible to destroy. so most people underestimate the enormous damage that we as human beings are inflicting on our ocean every single day. when people order seafood from a restaurant, most of the time they don't realize that a third of the world fish stocks are overexploited, too much money

chasing too few fish. and nearly all the rest are being fished at or near their absolute maximum sustainable level on a planet that is six putting people today, and will rise to nine over the next 30, 40, 50 years. most people aren't aware of something called by catch, or up to half or two-thirds of the fish any particular catch are not actually what the fisher was looking for, and they are simply thrown overboard. and when people go swimming or surfing along the coast, often they don't realize that pollution has led to more than 500 dead zones in the ocean, areas where life simply cannot exist. ..

>> the bottom line is that most pee don't realize that if the entire worldú doesn't come together to try to change course and protect the ocean from unsustainable fishing practices, unprecedented pollution or the devastating effects of climate change, that we run the risk of fundamentally breaking entire ecosystems. and as you know here throughout the course of this conference, that will translate into a serious consequence for the health and the economies and the future of all of us. the good news is that at this

point we know what we need to do to address the threats facing the ocean. it's not a mystery. it's not beyond our capacity. everyone in this room is aware of the effective steps that people are taking already, both large and small around the world. in latin america, ngos are helping fishers to improve their sustainability by engaging them both in monitoring their catches and in the process of selecting new marine-protected areas. in africa local volunteers -- volunteers -- take it on themselves to collect the trash that floods from the streets to the peaches during the periods of -- to the beaches during the periods of intense rain. there's an amazing group of volunteers in guinea who call themselves after the blue trash bags that they use to collect

the garbage, an incredible self, you know, spontaneous combustion effort to be responsible. in the asia-pacific, half a dozen nations have come together with u.s. support to protect the coral triangle, a part of the ocean that has been called the amazon of the seas because of its incredible biodiversity. the coral triangle initiative has led to improved management of a marine area that's almost the size of one of our states, north dakota, and it has inspired more than 90 policies, regulations, laws and agreements to protect the local coastal and marine resources. here in the united states we have taken very significant strides to end overfishing in u.s. fisheries. we've rebuilt a record number of fish stocks back from depleted levels, and at the same time promoted and increased the economic viability of our

fisheries, trying hard to actually give meaning to the word "sustainable" fisheries. these are just a few examples of a great deal of work that you're all familiar with, that many of you have created that is taking place around the world. but so far all of these efforts have only been applied on a relatively small scale and only applied in one region or another. if we want to honor, if we are going to be able to honor our shared responsibility to protect the ocean, the ad hoc approach we have today with each nation and community pursuing its own independent policy simply will not suffice. that is not how the ocean works. we're not going to meet this challenge unless the community of nations comes together around

a single, comprehensive global ocean strategy. that is the only way that we can clean up our ocean today and make sure that it remains what it needs to be for generations to come. that is what this conference is all about. over the past few years, even over the past few months, there have been ap encouraging -- an encouraging number of reports, summits, meetings even conventions convened to examine the various threats that our oceans are facing and potential ways to address those threats. and many of you here have been part of those meetings. i hope you have found them as valuable as we have, that they've been instructive and critical. but now is the time for us to build on this groundwork of these past years. now is the time to build on the

knowledge base that we have created through these meetings. and that is why we have invited you here now. not just to have an important conversation, but to reach important conclusions. to try to put together a plan of action. i want us to walk away from this conference with more than ideas. i want us to walk away from here with a plan. a plan that puts an end to overfishing through new rules based on the best available science. and may i add one of the things that ted stevens, senator ted stevens of alaska who teamed up with me on the commerce committee in the senate, one of the things we always were fighting was getting more, better science so that we could convince fishermen and convince countries, governments of the imperative of making decisions. too often we'd hear, well, we don't really see that, or we

don't really feel that. i'd hear from captains of the boats, when i go out and fish, i see plenty of stocks out there. there's no reason to be restricted. we need science. and globally we could put our heads together and our governments together and come up with both the budget and the capacity to be able to do what we need to be able to help convince people of the urgency of this. we need a plan that requires fisheries to use gear and techniques that dramatically reduce the amount of fish and other species that are caught by accident and discarded. a plan that ends subsidies to fisheries which only serves to promote overfishing. a plan that makes it near impossible for illegally-caught fish to actually come to the market anywhere, whether you're in boston or beijing or barcelona or brasilia or any other city that doesn't begin with a b. [laughter] let's develop a plan that

protects more marine habitats, and we will have an announcement regarding that. i believe president obama will make such an announcement. today less than 2% of our ocean is considered a marine-protected area. where there are some restrictions on human activity in order to prevent contaminating the ecosystem. less than 2% of the entire ocean. there isn't anybody here who doesn't believe we can't do better than that. so let's start by finding a way to perhaps bring that number up to 10% or more as soon as possible. and let's develop a plan that does more to reduce the flow of plastic and other debris from entering into the ocean. everybody's seeing that massive array of garbage in the pacific and elsewhere. we need a plan that helps cut down the nutrient pollution that runs off of land and is miles from the shore and that contributes to the dead zones that i mentioned earlier.

i learned about that back when i was running for president out in iowa, in minnesota and mississippi and the hour rivers. and -- missouri rivers. and you learn about the flow of these nutrients that go down the mississippi, out into the gulf, and we have a great big dead zone as a result. we need to develop a plan that gives us a better understanding of the acidification effect that carbon pollution is having on our ocean. we know that in the antarctic, for instance, there was a regurgitation of carbon dioxide. have we reached the saturation point? i don't know. but i know that it's a question that is critical to our capacity to deal with climate change and to maintain the oceans. we ought to be able to know where it's happening, how quickly so we can find the best way to slow it down. and we need to push harder, all of us, for u.n. agreement to fight carbon pollution in the first place, because the science proves that's the only way we'll have a chance of reducing the impact of climate change which

is one of the greatest threats facing not just our ocean, but our entire planet. finally, we need to develop a plan that not only lays out the policies we need to protect our ocean, but that also considers how we are going to enforce those policies on a global scale. because without enforcement, any plan we create will only take us so far. i think it was back in the '90s if i recall correctly that ted stevens and i joined forces to take drift net fishing to the united states. and, you know, we'd become aware of literally tens of thousands of miles of monofilament netting that was dragged behind a boat that would literally strip mine the ocean with vast proportions of the catch thrown away.

so senator stevens and i managed to go to the u.n. ultimately, it was banned by the u.n. but guess what? there are still some rogue vessels using drift nets to strip mine the ocean because they get more money, it's faster, and there's nobody out there to enforce it. no one out there to enforce it. so we need to change this. that's our charge here, all of us. over the next two days, let's put our heads together and work on a plan for how we can preserve fish stocks, manage coastlines, protect ecosystems, a way for us to try to preserve fisheries, a way for us to come to a common understanding of our common interest and find the consensus that we could take to the u.n., take this plan to the u.n., take it to other international organizations. all of us begin talking the same

language off the same page about the same objective. and if we make this a plan that all countries must follow by helping all of them to understand that no country can afford not to. whether you're on the ocean or not on the ocean. now, i know all of this sounds pretty ambitious. it's meant to be. i know that some of you are probably thinking, well, what did i get myself into here? but look around the room. every one of you is here for a reason. we have government leaders from around the world at the highest levels including three heads of state, we have experts from international organizations, world bank president jim yong kim, others. we have private sector leaders who are committed to our oceans' future, people like chris from bubbleby foods. the best ocean scientists in the world are here. all of us can come together, and each can help the other to insure that every solution that

we discuss is directly tied to the best science available. ask yourself, if this group can't create a serious plan to protect the ocean for future generations, then who can? and who will? we cannot afford to put this global challenge on hold for another day. it's our ocean. it's our responsibility. so i hope that over these next two days we will maximize the time we are here. i am really delighted that you all came to be part of this, and i hope this will be a new beginning, a new effort to unify and to create a concerted pressure which is necessary to make a difference. it's now my pleasure to introduce one final speaker before we open the program up, and there's going to be a great deal of information coming at you in short order. but president dong is one of the

loudest voices, one of the clearest voices in the world in the call for global action to address climate change. and there's a simple reason why he has a special interest. it is because climate change is already posing an existential threat to his country. but he's also one of the world's greatest advocates for the protection of the ocean well beyond the interests of his own country. under his leadership, his country has established one of the largest marine-protected areas in the world in the phoenix islands in the pacific. it's an honor to have him here to share his thoughts with us this morning. ladies and gentlemen, president dong. [applause]