anti-trafficking legislation that had 30 cosponsors roughly and it will number of democrats and republicans, sailed out of the judiciary committee. ..c whip, knows the judiciary committee is no place for the faint of heart. we have a lot of disagreements. maybe that's because we have a lot of lawyers on the judiciary committee. but we have -- we fight a lot about things we believe in strongly. but this antitrafficking legislation sailed out of the judiciary committee on a unanimous basis. so i hope we can work out these differences. and i've made multiple suggestions and compromised in an effort to try to get everybody to "yes." i agree with the majority leader 's description of the -- the majority leader's description of the sordid,

unspeakable evil of human trafficking and the compelling reasons why we ought to do something to address it. i know that that's where the -- that's where the hearts are that's where the hearts are of all of our colleagues but somehow we have just been stuck and we need to get unstuck and i hope today will be that day. of course human trafficking is a plague in all 50 states and my state unfortunately has way too much of its share. i'd like all of our colleagues have had the chance to meet many of the brave victims of human trafficking. one i met last week in austin broken axle. our friends at google convened a meeting there in austin. the technology community understands a lot of the solicitation of underaged girls and victims of human trafficking occurs on line and so they have

come together to try to work with law enforcement, work with victims rights groups to come up with a comprehensive way to combat it so it google last week in austin i met rick -- brooke when she gave a moving speech. back in texas she is known for her work with a number of non-profits that are focused on ending domestic violence in human trafficking and i can't begin to tell you how inspiring she is and her words were particularly when you consider the horror the absolute horror of what she has been through as a victim of human trafficking herself. starting at the age of seven seven years old brooke was abused. she was literally put in chains and a cage, treated like an animal in a basement and she was

repeatedly sold to men who raped and abused her. out of this horror that she experienced as a young child brooke has brought light to her pain and i think her leadership in the anti-trafficking efforts has actually helped her heal and she is one brave courageous young woman. she founded a group called survivor human empowerment which is a healing community for the survivors of rape, abuse and sex trafficking. that is why today at 11:00 i hope all of our colleagues listen not only to brooke's boys in her experience but each one of us here on the floor can tell a similar story about somebody in their state, somebody they know that they have met who

would be helped by this legislation. i hope we don't tell them no. i hope we don't shot another door in their face. so i see some of our colleagues on the floor. i want to just briefly give them a chance to speak before we bowed at 11:00 just to say that the underlying legislation is not partisan. it would strengthen law enforcement tools and authorities to rescue victims well bringing down human traffickers in and the criminal networks that support them. it would provide -- the goal is to provide at least $30 million through fines and penalties paid into the public treasury that would then go to help heal and rescue the victims of human trafficking. now this is not tax money so it's really deficit-neutral.

we are not raising taxes to do it or making the people who purchase these services and you are convicted and that have to pay fines and penalties, we are making them pay to help rescue and heal the victims. shortly we will vote on another compromise that i have offered. i have tried to listen to the objections of our friends across the aisle and i don't want to relitigate those, because frankly that's not particularly productive. they seem to be locked in. or should i say we are locked in and so we are trying to find a way forward. first and most importantly this amendment would completely replace a provision that members on the other side have objected to regarding the application of the hyde amendment. the amendment would replace the language or of the provision negotiated by leader pelosi leader pelosi from the doc fix bill i mentioned earlier that passed the house with three to 92 votes.

180 house democrats voted for this bill including the leader pelosi so that language we have substituted that language for the original language. and of course here in the senate we have 92 senators vote for that same language. and our colleagues across the aisle have repeatedly voted for similar language. so the pelosi language from this bill in my amendment includes would simply say any funds used to provide services to victims of human trafficking would be subject to the same requirements of funds under the public health services act. the majority leader said it well. if this language is good enough to help the doctors and the hospitals, surely, surely it's good enough to help young 7-year-old victims of human trafficking like brooke axtel was to further clarify, to

address the stated concerns of our friends across the aisle. this amendment would also clarify that all the money in the domestic trafficking victims fund must be derived from the general treasury. this is an objection i don't personally understand that we want to make it clear just perhaps to help our colleagues get a yes that all the money would be derived from the general treasury, which of course is where all federal funding comes from. and we would make clear that all of the money would be public dollars. now i don't really get this because you know tax dollars are private dollars until you get into the government and then they are no longer private. they are public. fines and penalties are private until you pay to the government and that is public. but we want to make clear that eliminate any rationale for any objection and say exclusively these with the public dollars the requirements placed on funds in the bill would not be placed

on the fees and penalties that seem to be a matter of concern and we try tried to address that. well as i explained the pending amendment would do what i have tried my level best to try to address the concerns of the democrats -- our democratic colleagues who have locked the bill so far have continually expressed. so the language is just the same as the doc fix and we made clear that none of the fines and penalties themselves but rather funds derived from the general treasury would be used to pay for these services and an equivalent amount to the fines and penalties. i would just add parenthetically parenthetically, when i was talking to one of our colleagues about it they said well, that's money laundering. you are taking fines and penalties and transferring them

substituting them in the general fund. give me a break. what we are trying to do is find a solution. so i think we have given our colleagues every opportunity to get to a guess on this. i know if i have talked to a lot of them, including the senator from illinois, people want to get to a yes and i hope we have found a way to do that. so i hope we won't let the political gamesmanship continue to get in the way of a bill that would ring relief and healing to victims of human trafficking. so i hope we will have that vote at 11:00 and it will be a broad bipartisan support to proceed to the bill and to pass legislation. i yield the floor. >> mr. president. >> the senator from illinois. >> mr. president how much time is remaining on the democratic side? >> 20 minutes. >> i see my colleague from

connecticut here and let me say at the outset in the most positive way, i want to thank senator cornyn and senator klobuchar of minnesota for their bipartisan effort to bring this issue to the floor and to the senate judiciary committee. at a hearing in the subcommittee on the subject it was heartbreaking to hear about the exploitation of these young women at such a tender age unspeakable things that were happening to them. sadly, in many states when their were finally came into the custody of law enforcement, some of the children, these young girls were being charged as criminals so it was clear they had been enslaved and they have been exploited for so many years. so the thinking on the subject is moving in the right direction and the suggestion of senator cornyn and senator klobuchar are also moving in that direction so why don't we pass this bill? we have all this bipartisan support. one provision in this bill turns out to be fraught with

controversy. 39 years ago a congressman from illinois named henry hyde offered compromise language on the issue of abortion. it was just a few years after roe v. wade. he was still very controversial and he said we will prohibit the expenditure of taxpayer funds for abortion except in cases of rape, and the life of the mother. for 39 years that has been the standard. it's been an uneasy truce between those who see this issue in much different ways, many different ways. they have come to the conclusion this will be the standard that will be applied to the expenditure of taxpayer funds and its renewed year after year after year. senator cornyn perhaps by accident or perhaps by design cross the line and started talking about not taxpayer funds but funds collected from those guilty of human trafficking to creative victims fund.

and that has brought all of the debate to controversy. in fairness to senator cornyn and to senator murray who has joined with others in this battle, there is then an absolute exchange of compromised language. we have counted i think 12 different versions. we sent over to senator cornyn. descent probably as many our way so both sides have hunkered down and staring one another down. there's an honest effort to find a solution. this solution would not be a vote that event scheduled for 11:00. it's the old language that they are working on new language and i hope they reach a point in where we can achieve that. we all agree human trafficking should stop and victims should be compensated. i yield the floor.

>> mr. president? >> the senator from connecticut. >> thank you mr. president. i rise with regret because unfortunately we remain divided and there is so much common ground here so many good ideas in this bill, so much that unites us. we have so much more in common than in conflict on this bill and the justice for victims of trafficking act has some so much work by great colleagues senator cornyn and senator klobuchar senator murray and senator feinstein and my colleague from illinois who just finished speaking. i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this bill. we are divided on one paragraph that is simply unacceptable. and it is fundamental to the goal of this bill which is to restore human dignity and

freedom to victims and survivors of human trafficking. restoring freedom involves giving those survivors choices over whether or not they will bear children as a result of that trafficking. trafficking is fundamentally modern-day slavery. it is sex slavery and sex or exploitation which results all too often in pregnancy. and at its core the human trafficking bill before us today is about restoring human dignity to those victims and survivors and enabling them to avoid the long-lasting and enduring consequences of that slavery. this legislation is an acknowledgment of our common commitment to these survivors

and to providing them the services and support they need so much. one of them is abortion. and where we are divided here is on guaranteeing that reproductive right. the essence of freedom and dignity and choice and so it is well beyond a technicality here. it is about the fundamental goal of this bill which are contradicted by this provision in the law. senator cornyn's proposed amendment changes the words of this paragraph that we find objectionable but it doesn't change the substance, the basic substance for its practical effects. we are told that the provision in question doesn't matter because it includes a --

but it requires the survivor to request, to ask to supplicate to the state whether the rape was really rape, whether it is a pretense or they must bear the rapist trial. we are told it's essentially the hyde amendment but that's flatly in true because the hyde amendment applies to taxpayer funds and as my colleague from texas, a good friend who is determined i believe to address this problem of human trafficking there are no taxpayer funds in that $30 million that is taken from criminal fines and penalties.

it is an entirely different source of funds. as a prosecutor, former prosecutor i view that money is restitution. they come from criminals and they are used to try to support and serve the victims of that criminal activity. there is nothing more fundamental than using funds taken from criminals to the benefit of their victims. congress has never before privileged the concerns of criminals over the rights of women and we should not start now. i respect my colleague from texas and other colleagues who may differ with me on this issue. he has stated with heartbreaking and eloquent terms of practical

human impact of trafficking sex slavery. i ask my colleagues now to give these women the real freedom from that sex slavery, liberate them truly from this heinous and horrific violation of basic human rights by guaranteeing them one of the basic human rights which is the right to make choices about their own bodies about their hopes and dreams as they are liberated from this slavery. let this chamber and my colleagues recognized the rights they have two truly be free from

those who enslaved them. i urge this body to strike the hyde language from senate 178 and to make good on its promise and is cochair of the bipartisan senate caucus to end human trafficking, i agree completely that this cause ought to be bipartisan. it got not to divide us along any partisan or partyline. i am proud to have worked with members on both sides of the aisle and i hope that we can come to an agreement now with my good friend and my excellent colleague, senator cornyn and others who have worked so hard and who are so genuinely determined to solve this problem and to take a step, it's only a first step in that direction of

combating human trafficking. thank you mr. president. i yield the floor. >> from the senate earlier today the senate recessed for the rest of the week back on monday. today they negotiated off the floor with anti-human trafficking bill. some saying they are hopeful there will be an agreement on that soon. measures installed because of an amendment that prevents funds for victims being used for abortion. also awaiting action in the senate legislation approved by the foreign relations committee earlier this week. that would allow the not require congress to approve or does it truth of the nuclear agreement between the six major powers and iran and a confirmation vote on the right alleged to be attorney general. president obama nominated her in november in the judiciary committee voted in favor of her nomination in february but the full senate has yet to hold a confirmation vote. it the new hampshire republican

party kicks off the first in the nation leadership summit this weekend with speeches from declared a potential republican presidential candidates.

>> ponce de leon may or may not been searching for the eternal youth. a lot of people have said he was out for additional properties for the king of spain and the colonization's attempts which is decidedly true. we do know juan ponce de leon came ashore after searching for good harbor took on water and wood. this area presents one of the few freshwater springs in the area around 30 degrees and is also the location of the 15,651st settlement of st. augustine 42 years before the settlement of jamestown was founded and 55 years before the pilgrims landed on plymouth rock. >> the hotel ponce de leon was filled by henry morrison flagler. flagler is a man who is very

little known outside of the state of florida. but he was one of the wealthiest men in america. he essentially had them a co-founder of standard oil company with john d. rockefeller. he was the man who always wanted to undertake some great enterprise and as it turned out, florida with it. he realized that he needed to on the railroad between jacksonville and saint augustine augustine, to ensure that he could get to his hotel conveniently. so clearly the drain was beginning to grow on flagler. he was a man who had big dreams. he was a visionary.

>> the former secretary of homeland security michael chertoff and the chief of border patrol michael fisher spoke earlier this week about measuring the progress of immigration enforcement. this is from the bipartisan policy center and it's about an hour and a half. >> good morning everyone. thank you very much for coming up to the bipartisan policy center and thank you for joining us today. we have a very great lineup of speakers and i will introduce the amendment but first let me say i am theresa cardinal brown and i'm the director of the immigration project at the bipartisan policy center. a little bit of background it was founded in 2007 by four former senate majority leaders howard baker tom daschle bob

dole and george mitchell. epc is perhaps the only think tank in washington that is bipartisan which means we pull together knowledgeable leaders from both parties to drive solutions to some of the countries most challenging problems. we do analysis and you have probably a copy of the reports we are going to be discussing today. negotiation among task forces and commissions we have put together in dialogue to develop bipartisan solutions that they think are the way forward on these issues. bbcs projects in multiple areas including immigration project. our immigration task force was formed in 2013 to work toward bipartisan recommendations on immigration reform into engaged both parties to develop bipartisan legislation. the task force cochaired by former governors haley barbour and ed rendell former secretary condoleezza rice and henry cisneros and former members of

congress business leaders advocates and other former cabinet secretaries including our first speaker today secretary michael chertoff. before introduce the secretary just a couple of words about the topic today. as immigration reform legislation has been debated in congress over the last few years and in particular last summer which saw the arrival of thousands of unaccompanied children and families from central america and it the cost challenges for our border agencies one key area keeps coming back and immigration discussion and that is the issue of securing our border. while this has been a continuous problem for many leaders and put forward by some as a precondition for immigration reform, it is a very ill-defined concept and it's rather not well understood. in fact when it comes to border security that lack of understanding in solid data tends to make a secure border something that is in the eye of the beholder. yet this isn't a good way to make policy so so we have a ppc engage in a process to determine the best ways to measure the

security of the border and the effectiveness of our immigration enforcement of those results are in the report we have today. what we have found briefly is that the history of developing measures is as long and varied it has been inconsistent over time and this led to a lot of confusion and yet all of this study has produced inside government and by outside researchers some widely accepted measures and estimates that we believe have taken together could provide a comprehensive common understanding of the state of border security and we will be talking about that with our panel as a little later. so we have invited our guest today to talk about this issue in greater detail starting with secretary chertoff and a brief bio of the secretary that is the second secretary of homeland security from 2,522,009 secretary chertoff oversaw foundational. not for the department which is still coming together after being formed in 2003. during his tenure he undertook a major review of the department set the stage with you and make changes including its approach

to border security making several changes to the way the department held a third country nationals at the border streamlining removal and performing detention. he undertook to a soup to nuts approach division engaged all components while the same time working with congress on whether earlier attempts at immigration reform that secretary chertoff currently is the founder and head of the chertoff group where he advises corporate and government leaders on a broad range of security issues including border security and serves as a key member of our immigration task force of police welcome secretary chertoff. [applause] ..

forces that are demographic and economic. it is it is not a question of infrastructure and people it is about the incentives and disincentives. in some ways the border flow reflects the purest example of a market-based system that you can imagine. very sensitive to even very small changes in operational activity in law.

when i came in there was a real particular challenge relating to individuals crossing between the ports of entry illegally. sometimes there were not even there own children that was because at the time we did not really have a detention facility for families. therefore, people who were apprehended with kids bound up getting by and large released. of course, most of those never showed up at hearings. as soon as we built a facility that allowed you to maintain families and a custodial setting all of a sudden that started to dry up. another example court case that require that for people from el salvador who are crossing the border they had to be a special process a special process in place more elaborate process. and what we discovered we

talked about apprehensions. most of the people being apprehended came with our papers and claims to be from el salvador. because they because they knew that they could take advantage of this process. and that is one of the things that an overwhelming amount of detention beds resulted in people being released, many of them never showed up for hearings. as soon as we went to court and reversed that system all the sudden a number of people claiming to be from el salvador dropped precipitously. the word got around so quickly that literally within days you could see a change in behavior. the important lesson it is not just a question of lighting people up to apprehend them but it is a much more complicated dynamic situation. a solution creates a legal pathway for people who want to come in and work deals

with interior enforcement as well as the border's and deals with the issue of people who have come in illegally and will be perfectly happy to come back to work but right now feel that they don't have that opportunity, so they stay in place. all of these pieces tend to fit together. i remember in particular a mantra that i heard almost any time i talked about this issue. and i think what is useful is to unpack what we mean by secure the border and to recognize that there are different challenges and therefore different measures one of the critical issues, ultimately is to get an agreement upon a discipline, reasonable them and internally consistent set of measures that we can use to determine whether in fact we are succeeding are not. understand there are three

different ways in which people enter the united states illegally. one is coming one is coming between the ports of entry. usually when you watch television that is what they focus on what people crossing whether it's the mountains of the desert or perhaps coming by boat. this is what most people conceptualize or think about as the source of illegal migration into the united states. in fact there are two other significant categories. one is sneaking through the ports of entry coming through an airport or through more often the land port of entry either with false documents or -- and this is more likely by hiding in a truck or train. i remember going through the border ports of entry. amazingly seeing in the dashboard of an suv overall

where someone basically had hid themselves in the dashboard to try to sneak in the country. so this is what people think coming over land or by see. they are literally going through a port of entry and trying to get into the country without being detected. the 3rd significant source are overstays people who enter with a visa or whatever lawfully but overstay and don't leave and then often statistics i recall were roughly 40 percent of the people in the united states without authority came as overstays. one of the reasons that is important is because that is not a pathway into the country that is going to be dealt with by lining up people between the ports of

entry. in fact, entry. in fact, that is one of the most challenging issues that we deal with the issue of illegal migration because whether or not people overstay depends on interior enforcement and the rules with respect to employment and similar types of activities. so one has to look at the issue of flow into the country using all three of these pathways as part of what you are considering. a couple of other points i think are important. one is there has been a tendency to look at the issues as one of brute force how many border patrol agents do we have how many miles of fence to we have how many different types of infrastructure do we have? but inputs are really an imprecise measure and probably misguided or worst is a measure of whether we are succeeding. what matters is output. are we being are we being effective? and ideally you want to be effective with fewer. if you can come up with a strategy that allows you to

take your resources and make them as effective as possible that is not only good but it means your actually getting a result and in the end measuring success'. one of the lessons i learned early was on the issue of fencing. shortly after i came into office there was a bill passed the required miles of fencing in various places. congress basically designated the place. and the logic of it was less than a hundred percent clear so we looked at the question of fencing and said, what is the value? the fence doesn't after all keep people out forever. all it does is slow them up. and what we recognized, and i benefited greatly from the experience the key issue is the time to interception.

if you are at a place on the border were crossing the border put you within 100 yards or quarter of a a mile of either a town, city, or transportation hub, there is very little time to intercept someone before they essentially into the flow of commerce and it is difficult to find them again it is what some people call the melting. i remember when i went to yuma early on in my tenure the town was quite close to the border and there were literally hundreds if not thousands of people that would run across the border and squirming to the town it is once they were in the town it was much more difficult to find. that was the area where we concluded that fencing would make a difference. it would allow a sufficient delay to permit the border patrol to make interceptions in fact it was tremendously significant in reducing the flow of people who came across a daily basis. but other parts of the border's where you may be

miles and miles from a town or city or transportation hub don't require fencing and fencing may be if not counterproductive at least wasteful. there what you want is visibility and make an interception or apprehension. at some time that is convenient. it is a little bit like playing football. you want to have some people playing back because sometimes you we will wind up intercepting something. again,. again, for people who have a very simplistic view the idea is we ought to live folks up on the border and like a human chain they find that unsatisfactory. from an efficiency and outcome perspective having the deployed depth is very important. one of one of the concepts that we dealt with when i was in office was the question of operational control the border. i'm not quite sure how the phrase got generated, but i think it is sufficiently

ambiguous. and as i understood it perception of two things. first, the. first, the ability to have a significant or high percentage of people visibility. so with a combination of surveillance tools and radar you could be 80 to 90 percent certain you are seeing people who were coming across the border illegally. the 2nd element is you want to have an equally high percentage of people who cross that you can actually effectively intercept before they vanished. and that is where the significance of deploying infrastructure as an enabler to slow of transit became important. but one of the challenges to operational control is some people regarded as zero-tolerance. nobody across the border ever, even 1 foot across the border. and and that is to my mind and unrealistic expectation. it is unrealistic because if

you look at the border again, as a matter of depth you are not pretending to or even advised to try to stop people literally when they put the 1st up across the border because there aren't enough people realistically that you could deploy to make that happen. and if you could pick somebody of further down the line in a more efficient way that achieves the result you want to achieve. i also used i also used to tell people look, hundred percent is never expected of any law enforcement agency. if if you look at the best police departments in the united states the best police chiefs, nobody says we expect zero crime. if you can reduce crime and get to a manageable level that is success. again, it is about being realistic and how we define our objectives in achieving them and then having a way of measuring outcomes that allows us to be in agreement

about what constitutes success. so let me suggest some techniques that have been laid out in full until. first, as i mentioned there are three pathways for getting in the overall population. you want to measure all for. first, you want to use surveys and other kinds of data to tell whether the overall population of people are in the country without authorization is increasing or decreasing. there are some nongovernmental agencies that do a pretty good job of surveying. and it won't be precise down to the 10th of the 10th, but it gives you a pretty good view of what's going on second, over stays. we know who comes in with a visa. we have an exit system that is at least biographic not necessarily biometric to

read as for telling which of those people is left, and that difference that delta is the number of over stays. it it is not perfect. the one reporter measuring over stays is that our land borders do not have a way of measuring exit. we don't want people. and the less we are prepared to build a lot of infrastructure probably the solution is to have the canadians exchange information with us. second area is port of entry. again, that entry. again, that is challenging to measure how many people are getting in but i think based on what we do we can do some random surveys. the 3rd and the hardest there are a combination of known close which we will describe later, surveys, seeing what goes on the other side of the border, all of which can give a symmetric as to what percentage of people we are

apprehending and what percentage of getting away. we need to come to a resolution. we need to have an understanding that only with people in the committee but with congress about what constitutes a real measure of the fact. if we if we do that then i think we are on the road to success not only to securing the border, but to doing more generally. and i'm and i'm happy to take some questions. [inaudible conversations] from our understanding of being very well tracked in terms of over stays. i wonder if you would comment on that. >> that goes back to my time. to be honest a lot of it has to do with schools.

a lot of the schools are reluctant to inform the authorities when someone is no longer enrolled in class will have otherwise failed to meet the requirements of the student visa. some of that is because for some schools the ability to attract foreign students is financially important and therefore they don't want to do anything that creates a negative reputation. and then frankly some schools from a political standpoint don't necessarily agree with immigration policy and don't want to be part of what they view as important. but i do think that both an inflow standpoint and from a security standpoint we need to do a better job of tracking over stays among students. [inaudible question] >> my name is michelle with america's voice. we need to secure the border 1st before taking other

steps. i wonder if you could comment if we can ever get to a.where people are dissatisfied and can we really secure the border without taking the other steps anyway? >> i used to testify, and i still believe that to really secure the border you need to do the other pieces as well. that is because as i said earlier the driver for most people for crossing illegally is to work. i'm not talking about the minority become for criminal the comfort criminal activity, the economic incentive system and the demographics. and if you don't tackle those you are really swimming against the tide. it could be done, but it would be enormously expensive or would make more sense to have a staged process where you have in place the tools necessary to secure the border, including

the accurate metrics, but you are also creating a legal pathway because most of the people who come would be much happier come legally you create a way to track them when they come have an employer verification system that makes it practical for employers to that their workers and creates an incentive for them to use legally authorized workers. and even with respect to people who are here illegally if you at least give them some visa or some basis to stay, assuming they have not otherwise violated the law you are removing one of the things that tend to keep people here and create an infrastructure that invites more illegal traffic because then they have the freedom to go back and forth. experience shows that many people come into work would be perfectly happy to go back home. they are cyclical. in the end it out budget constrained all of these pieces have got to be a part of the solution. i we will say that i do

understand that there are people who are concerned. looking back that if you do comprehensive reform the politics will ultimately resort and dropping the enforcement peace. you need to find a way to reassure skeptics that if your going to do everything you like in the enforcement piece and will not simply abandon it. the metrics are very important. and the credibility is now the biggest obstacle. other questions? [inaudible question] >> i remember you when you had much more here. i still have just about what i have. >> genetics. >> i understand. i would like to suggest to you that in the little town

of artesia new mexico set to center. the center has my name on it because for about six years of my life in the senate i was the sponsor of the facility. can i say that it is a pretty adequate facility for the training of border agents, male and female another law enforcement people. does it still remain an active player in the training of officers? is there sufficient facilities for training? >> first of all, i all, i am a little out of date. i remember going and attending graduation, and it was a terrific facility. and there is no doubt that the training remains a a very

important part of it. we expanded the border patrol. when i. when i came into office there was less than 10,000. but the key to being effective is training. that involves both understanding some of the real challenges and working in that difficult environment, particularly the desert. also understand your rules of engagement and what the policies and laws are. i guess the chief will cover that when he does panel. but. but i think it was a great great facility. other questions? yes in the back? >> i am also the president of the military operations research society. you mentioned that 100 percent apprehension in general for low enforcement is unattainable. however, having some benchmarks that we look at

targets to shoot at a and measure ourselves and how well we are doing in different areas, that is what really can help getting to those effectiveness analyses and other areas that we can explore. do you know if there are any specific benchmarks for some of these different areas? apprehension, apprehension over stays, others that can be very beneficial to get into those measurements. >> welcome i think you're right. one example pioneer 1st in new york and then in la and other parts was can't stat the use stat the use of statistical data to determine whether were high crime areas and then to deploy officers by district and precinct commanders and hold them accountable based on the statistics. if you look at the two

components of what i understand operational control to be, one is the ability to detect and the other is ability to apprehend. look, you would aspire to be have 100 percent. i don't know that i would make that a precondition. particularly doing other things which actually up the and enable you. i think if you can get to 80% 80 percent on both of those metrics that's a pretty good accomplishment. again, it is an issue of relativity because one thing you do learn is as you get successful in one sector he tends to be challenged in other sections. so what you want to do is make sure that you are being more or less stable across the entire border. that includes, by the way, the sea as well as land. i would also say just around up we do have to work with our partners in other countries. part of what drives the inflow is these up as people

out. if it is economic issues or demographic issue of crime issues, as we have seen in some parts of central america to the extent we can help our partners alleviate some of those pressures will actually make it easier ourselves. it is a little bit if you look at this migration is a flood from if you can do things upstream to reduce the flow because your making conditions better that makes it easier when people finally crossed the border. i agree with you that we should measure it and agree with the measurement is make sure that we are not only looking at between the ports of entry but considering over stays and at the port of entry. and to the.made earlier creating a legal way to come and work would be a huge benefit to allowing the folks who are on the line to focus their attention on the people you are really worried about, criminals and bad actors. yes. one over there.

>> secretary say a bit more about the border patrol. in retrospect are at the time were you concerned that was going too fast? oversight and accountability measures were keeping up? >> i think the concern was to increase the population of border patrol in a way that would allow people to be adequately trained and mentor at recognizing that you need to bring people out into the field with experienced partners for them to really learn how to do the job properly. and properly. and during the time that we doubled the border patrol we hit what i think we were comfortable with reasonable pace probably the upper limit of the pace. people pace. people who said let's go to 50,000 are hundred thousand in a short time and were unrealistic about the ability to assimilate train, and get field

experience for these agents. it is a tough environment. you're on your on your own a lot. it is challenging terrain. and you know by and large most of the people you apprehend are not violent, but you have some really bad actors there. there are groups that have a business model that is threatened by enforcement and they will act violently against the border patrol classy have to make sure people are adequately equipped and prepared to deal with that set of issues. time for one more question. great. listen this is an area where you can have a lot of debate. we do have a lot of experience. the border patrol spent a lot of time coming up with different ways to measure including measuring

footprints of am not mistaken in certain sectors. the key is to get two things come in agreement about what will be metrics that are trustworthy and 2nd, an agreement about what will be the definition of success. and if and if we can agree with those and not change over time that i think i think you are giving the border patrol and enforcement folks something that they can really target command that is a measure of success. so that is the value of this report and debate and no it forward to continuing to participate. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm going to invite our panelists to come up. while they are doing that i we will provide you a brief introduction. starting to my immediate left the manning green as you probably no his chief

mike is chief mike fisher of the border patrol. mike fisher is the senior executive in charge of all the border patrol, responsible for planning, organizing, coordinating and, coordinating and it -- directing the enforcement efforts. he entered the us border patrol in 1987. and his 1st duty assignment was at the devastation tucson sector. he has worked in the detroit sector as well as his time in san diego and that headquarters where he also served for a stent as the director, deputy director of the office of antiterrorist. seated next to fisher's paul and steam, staff director. he advises chairman mccall and chairwoman candace miller on a wide variety of border and maritime security

issues. prior to this assignment he was the legislative director and began his government service in the united states serving in the marine corps where he had two tours with the 1st marine division. next is christian ramirez born in tijuana mexico and has been active on issues related to us immigration policy. he is the director of human rights programs and staff for the san diego immigrants rights consortium and is the director of the southern border community coalition. last but not least brian roberts who is the principal author. the senior economist at economy triggered think. previously assistant director for border and immigration programs at the office of program analysis and evaluation at the department of homeland security where he worked to try to develop these measures. he measures. he worked for the office of policy and science technology division. before that he was an

economic advisor to several countries. so the way we're going to do this is am going to ask each of our panelists and introductory question and then we will have a conversation. so chief fisher, let me begin by asking you what you heard secretary chertoff in his assessment of what is needed for a secure border strategy. from your experience how is the border patrol strategy changing? >> that is a great question. i think the secretary really hit on a couple of key points. when i 1st came there were only a few thousand of the spread out primarily in the southern border. and very little infrastructure to speak of. and then as the secretary mentioned, almost overnight we had increased capabilities to include the

text capability and warplanes and access to the border which in many cases was for the 1st time in our careers. when he looked at what it was rumored trying to accomplish, that has changed over the last few decades in terms of the way we approach border security. first and foremost, the young agent approach this job by wanting to apprehend everybody. and certainly any couple so you that if there is crime they want to go ahead and make the arrest. but we also recognize that just building the fence, adding more border patrol agents in of itself was no security. we started shifting the way we were thinking and even tracking a a secure border. the secretary mentioned that we were focused on how many miles of border equaled more operational control. there are areas where we did not have the bulldogs come as much operational control but just measuring fence in a linear fashion or numbers

of border patrol agents really was doing a disservice in the capturing what was happening. and shortly after 2010 we started looking at the threat environment, how we were going to be able to identify the extent to which we believe are making this country more secure and switched from a resource -based strategic philosophy into a risk-based approach. primarily when we look at the fate of the border we bring three things in the consideration. first and foremost is advanced information. the more information we have the better prepared we are to stop that. second which is the topic of today's discussion, risk indicators and metrics. looking at whether the apprehensions are increasing over time or decreasing and then trying to have a narrative. the data the data that we either did not capture in the past or looking at data differently than we did in the past. the 3rd critical component

is increased situational awareness. in one case back in 2013 we started an initiative called sky fall where today we are capturing and collecting information on entries by utilizing coherent change detection over 900 miles of the border. without technology and camera systems are radar systems are using technology to be able to understand the environment in which we operate and really identify how many people come through 900 miles of the border without border patrol agents are cameras in place. >> so after hearing what he said, let me ask you the chairman introduced legislation. talk about how congress is the importance of this issue how do you look at what the administration and government is doing? what are the most important factors? >> this is my 3rd iteration of border security either i am bad at legislative drafting by this is a tough nut to crack.

you know each know, each time that we have decided to craft legislation when it comes to border security we have had three questions. what does a secure border look like, how do we get there and how we measure success. let me unpacked as little bit. what is a secure border look like. you have to have an instinct. this is what i'm shooting for, my goal. then he can work backwards. so so last congress the bill was 9 percent operational control. testify before the subcommittee that he could achieve 90% operational 90 percent operational control. he took what he said and ran with it. and that was the standard we chose. this chose. this congress the standard is 100 percent consistent. as the chief knows in the secretary mentioned, 100 percent operational control is not achievable. many many members on the hell were uncomfortable with the fact that 90 percent would be as good as it gets.

going back to the previous standard understanding that was not achievable. many members wanted to say it has to be the goal. what you achieve on the backend is something that we can debate and argue about. the right line is always something you can figure out later. and then once you have that end goal in mind how do you get they're? how you operationalize more tools and the toolkit to use? obviously we can talk about infrastructure and technology. each area of the border is different. sectors on the border that are vastly different in terrain, threats. so you have to meet the threat and the terrain with the appropriate toolset. sector by sector and set in san diego in a tunnel a tunnel detection. a rio grande valley, maybe the right toolkit of the arrow stats or technology or some surveillance factor. and and what we did with

those, congress can craft the right makes it a moment in time but that is a snapshot in time and can change. we gave the chief the ability to change figure makes if you will with the technology makes that he uses to get operational control. you know you squeeze one area and you will have challenges elsewhere. once you figure out where you are going this is the most important part in terms of the hill how do you measure success or failure. failure. for many years we had apprehension or operational control. the chief will tell you better than i can't that operational control was never designed to be all-encompassing. when secretary napolitano jettison that nothing replaced it. you can have you can have measured is go because up and given it goes down.

meaningless at that. you have to have something more robust easily understandable, concrete. congress has to understand it and say this is the right measure. this measure border security. so what we have done is said the border is different. let's have a set of metrics between the port of entry set of metrics at the port of entry, set of metrics in the maritime domain. a set of metrics that measure how effectively are using are aviation aspect. and so we do it. twenty-eight of metrics. when the sec. talked about secretary talked about credibility, that's the key issue when it comes to metrics. many members have many members have a deep reservoir of distrust and it comes to the administration

of manipulating the numbers, you know, statistics can be manipulated plus or minus. what we built into legislation was if we have to have a third-party, third-party, take a look at the numbers and make sure they are accurate, statistically valid and make sure they are actually measuring what we want them to measure and not subject to manipulation for better or for worse. that is how we approached border security in the aggregate. continues to be continues to be a challenge. will see what happens with the remainder. >> as you listen to the discussion so far about securing the border and what happens at the border from your perspective someone who lives along the border what do you think is missing. >> it's a great question. one of the missing pieces is in the last 20 years of enforcement will we approach the border from both democratic and republican administrations the missing piece of that conversation has been how they feel the

border security and how this increase in enforcement of the doubling of border patrol agents the last ten years suggestion from the senate to decrease that even further really has left border communities wondering we ever going to be consulted. there has been a huge gap between law enforcement, the largest law enforcement agency in the united states. because as you grow an agency and when you don't bring them in that conversation oversight oversight, accountability, whether issues that remain unresolved in terms of use of force that begins to create a gap between civil society and border. there there are 2 million of us who live along the us-mexico border. i am thankful and we're thankful for the leadership.

we said, look, when you start looking at the impact of civil rights we started looking at measuring how this enforcement impacts the border communities. and that was and that was an important step under the leadership that she fisher. we have engaged in a a robust conversation about the need to have dialogue on issues surrounding use of force. those force. those are important steps. unfortunately we're going back and forth. on the last congress and the leadership of the chairman we said let's measure. let's look at accountability. the flick of the impact on civil rights command the senate through that out the door threw that out the window. the reality is we won the largest law enforcement agencies in the country.

so i am very optimistic that this piece of the conversation will begin to be folded into the need for a secure border. another piece that i we will touch on quickly the moral question also of the impact of border security in the last 20 years. operation gatekeeper began thousands of people have lost their lives. no matter where we stand on this issue, no matter where we believe 90 percent control, 100 percent control what we have a moral obligation as a democratic society to ensure that we do everything in our power to prevent the loss of life. and that is also a conversation that i'm glad we are beginning to have because it is urgent and we needed.

it is a political conversation, an issue of ensuring that we do everything to protect the lives of innocent men women, and children are doing nothing but coming to this country to better the lives. so as we move forward i am encouraged by the sincere dialogue we have had with the administration and members of congress and unthankful approaching this issue not just from the perspective of security but also from the perspective of the importance of civil society has along the border >> brian everyone here has talked about metrics and measures. why is this so important? and if you can come in a little bit we had been counting input for a long time. how do we get from here to they're? >> it is important because as the secretary mentioned we had a comprehensive immigration reform carried

out in 1986. the immigration reform control act. and it took us a long time. the administration tried to carry out reform. take as well over 20 years in the time that illegal immigration became politically controversial to achieving the reform in 1986. and it did deliver on the legalization program. 1.9 million people were legalized. but it did not unfortunately succeed in stemming future illegal inflow which grew dramatically in the 1990s. so as part of the result of that failure there is a perception that us borders in a secure.

over the last 15 years polls have consistently shown that a significant majority of americans believe that us borders and not very secure in that much more needs to be done. i think for me as an analyst the most dramatic poor results came out in 2013 in which 80 percent of those polls believe that inflow of illegal or unauthorized immigrants was the same or significantly higher than in 2,008 or 2,003. all of the evidence we have at our disposal suggests that inflow has fallen substantially over the past decade. but that evidence has not influenced public perception and as a consequence we saw the difficulty of creating the perception is that were needed to help immigration reform.

i think that the failure is due at least in part to the fact that the us government really did not try to measure objectively what was happening in terms of illegal inflow into the unit -- into the us. and if we could establish measures that enjoyed acceptance and credibility this would enhance the ability to have a better public debate about these issues. let let me just look at my notes. i think there is also need to move away from the dialogue in which was the border is described as either being secure or not secure. it is presented as a binary outcome for one or zero. we either have it all we don't. you will be will be better served the dialogue moved toward what is the actual outcome.

what is the number of people who are successfully illegally entering the us and the three domains that were mentioned earlier. what is the probability that somebody somebody's, when attempting illegal entry? and that will help us understand if we want to significantly lower whatever is happening today, whatever outcome today, whatever outcome is being obtained, what other resources and policies necessary to achieve that? and finally, i would mention that we also need good outcome measurements so that decision-makers both in the government and in congress can better understand what policies and resources are needed in order to change of comes. without that we are basically carrying out activities, spending money like a shot in the dark. the example of fencing was mentioned earlier.

the government has been required to spend several billion dollars in building fencing command we actually have no idea what it's real impact is. if you talked to many border patrol agents they would tell you that fencing is useful in some areas and very much not useful and others. we can better spend that money on alternatives resources that would help achieve the goals of border enforcement. now, understanding the impact of resources and policies designed to achieve law enforcement mention -- missions on outcomes is only part of the analysis that needs to be done. that is embedded in a broader cost-benefit analysis. i think the points that christian was making, those also need to be taken into account in a broader cost-benefit analysis. unless we understand the impact of law enforcement

resources and policies we really can't begin that cost-benefit analysis. >> let me ask you so the importance of measures everyone has said it. it. what measures his border patrol currently using? are you making these public? reporting to congress, to the public? if the idea is we need to create a common understanding to address misperception from your.of view what more can dhs and the government do to help dispel and provide that information? >> sure. we have currently 12 risk indicators and metrics. i i won't bore everyone. i will give you some examples. we think there is value in looking at recidivism can how many times the same person cannot because it is important in a variety of ways to be able to differentiate individuals were apprehended two times versus those who are apprehended eight times. the other thing we're looking at you may have

heard the phrase, but when i talk about effectiveness how many people came across the border last night and of that number how many people that we apprehend and how many people that away? there collecting metadata to my have for the last few years and are trying to be more informed in terms of security than just the apprehensions in and of themselves. the other thing we're looking at is the average weight procedure for marijuana. what about cocaine and heroin and methamphetamine? is not necessarily about the marijuana but understanding the illicit networks of the transnational crime that occur. the more you know about the individual networks and how they are exploiting vulnerabilities along the border the better prepared we believe we are to be able to our move our resources to those areas of higher risk. the average weight procedure tells us if the organization's organizations extent to which they are exploiting vulnerabilities. and what is different with

each of these metrics and perhaps the apprehensions is that each one of these has a definitive trend line. it will either go up and down. we take a look at those mathematically something i don't do we look at those within the core doors and across each of the four core doors on the southern border to be able to wait and ultimately to decide areas of high risk versus low risk >> one more time those are the things you are using internally. but if we want the public to understand this trend line, are we getting closer or farther away? how much of that are you publishing, are you putting out making public? the annual report that you put these measurements and so that the public can see the trendlines. >> the vast majority have been made public. a 2012 strategy was published. we went out we went out and did a trilogy last year. if you if you have not seen

it, it is our website. there is actually the 3rd part of the trilogy talks about metrics, and each one of these were better explaining go into more detail. each year i am continuing and the staff is continuing not just with members of the committees the different public engagements like this to explain what it is, and it is not just for us to say here are measures. the intent all along has been for us to show everything that we are collecting and have a broader discussion about what is valuable and what is less valuable. and we are learning as we go and undersecretary and undersecretary johnson's leadership department has taken a broader look. >> from your perspective what do you think you we will need to convince your

colleagues on the hill? i mean, what is -- they share some of his perception gaps. but what do you think is most important in trying to get them to have a more realistic understanding of this? >> two things. first, anytime that a member goes to the border and comes away with the more profound understanding of the complexity of the situation the train that will certainly help. in terms of the metrics and the measurement piece we go back to the old adage trust but verify. many members want to trust the metrics that the department will put out and say these are accurate valid measures. the problem is we can't have dhs grating their own papers. we have to have an independent third-party verifier take a look at these measures and say we are collecting the right amount of information, it is statistically valid and it actually tells us something about the border in a way

that we can take that information and makes all decisions from that. okay. the border is not secure in el paso. we need to do x. the border security san diego. diego. we need to take these actions. until you're faced with enough information to make those decisions we're going to continue to have people feel that the border is more secure than ever or the border is poorest and out-of-control. the truth the truth is somewhere in the middle but we have no way of knowing where because we don't have these measures that everyone is craving. >> let me ask you a question we talk about what measures the government has, but there is a lot of research other. from your perspective what is the right mix? talked about an external validator. can you help with that? >> absolutely. if i can answer that in two ways. so we argue that we should

be measuring the number of people who successfully enter illegally. let's talk about between the boards. it was it was actually the academic community the 1st made those estimates. in 1990 was part of the effort to measure the impact basically the government outsourced that effort to think tanks and they came up with a a clever way of estimating successful illegal and flow between ports. it's it's based on what the chief mentioned one hundred under people come to the border and try to speak across border border patrol catches 60 of them. they take those people and put them on the bus and are driven right back across the border. all 60 of try again. this time 30 of them are caught. you can estimate just from those apprehensions, 60 the

1st time, 32nd time the probability of apprehension and then he can go back and calculate how many people successfully entered. now, that was done for many years by academics using either apprehension records or using data from what is called migrant service. a big assumption is that everyone who is caught and sent back across the border tries again. what has been happening in recent years is the border patrol has instituted what are called consuls programs where you are not simply sent back across the border the legal consequence. in various ways people are sanctioned for attempting illegal entry and being caught. those sanctions are producing what is called at the border deterrent. people give up, go home.

we need methodologies that permit us to take that deterrence into account. and as methodologies are available. i am confident that if the department of homeland security a data available to the research committee that has been working on this for a long time -- i see a couple members right here in this audience -- i am confident that we can produce good reasonable estimates with reasonable uncertainty around the. they will be estimates. we're trying to estimate a population that is being very active and not being observed. they are trying hard to not be observed. that requires creative approaches, but those creative approaches have been produced many, many decades. that leads to the 2nd. how can that data be made available? there is a reluctance in the law enforcement community to

share the data at the little level of detail that is necessary to do this kind of analysis. basically, you have to share records an individual people i think that there are ways in which the data can be shared but also respecting the sensitivity of law enforcement agencies that are involved. to give one example of how it could be done there are many government agencies that have sensitive data and collect sensitive data and that find ways to share it with researchers without compromising the commitments that those agencies have made under which the data was collected. the u.s. census collects data on individuals and businesses that is very sensitive. that data cannot be released to the public because it would affect participation in the census program. synthesis come up with the a

way to share that data with researchers at specific sites where it is tightly controlled. researchers do research, published the papers but the data is not released to public dissemination. i think dhs to do something similar if there was a will. >> kristin this conversation tends to focus during the points of entry. the ports of entry are not just where people can come and unlawfully but a lot of commerce and trade happens. from the perspective the border community how you feel about why the conversation doesn't look at those issues? >> partly because the majority are antiquated. you know congress has taken a very long time to find extensions. thankfully now money has come in. the port of entry reduced

significantly. you know it's a rumor a rumor that one out of every 24 jobs in this country depends exclusively on the trade between mexico and the united states. so when they're are delays at airports we don't invest in making sure our ports of entry you know, up-to-date with the stability and making sure that they are able to access ports that is an important piece. and one of the challenges that we have faced along the border this lack of paying attention to the needs of civil society, commerce, environmental is groups has created a consensus that the business community ranchers environmental is groups, human rights organizations all agree let's invest on

our ports of entry and make sure that we have modern ports of entry so that folks who come and go everyday two or three times a day are able to do so in a safe and orderly fashion. there is no excuse to have folks going to shop douglas or in san diego to go to the baseball game to wait for two hours under the sun or in the rain. these are these are folks who want to come to our country to shop to use the dollars. i think that is the erroneous suspicion. they imagine the border as being this desolate land where nobody lives with his no trade where there is no family collection, cultural connection. ..

my recollection is that long delays are not helpful for

security. you want tee efficiently process as many people as you know are not going to be a problem quickly through the ports, and then have time to deal with those you don't know. >> do you have any comment there? >> well, sure. i think if john wagner or todd olenberger would tell you that's where advanced information is critical. not so much practically speaking at the land borders, but the air environment. the more information we can have before somebody approaches inspection to come into this country -- on the back end we'll be ability to do that cross-check those individuals so the flow process is more fluid going through the ports. >> we have time for questions. there are mics. if you could let us know your name and where you're from for the question, that would be great. let us know if it's directed to the whole panel or one panelist.

>> anyone can answer this. robert schroeder innational inbestor. a critical issue i have not heard discussed here in the metrics is separating out the ordinary tourist, farm worker, et cetera, from the very dangerous elements. glad to hear we're moving toward a risk management approach, but just quick comment. one of the reasons the american perception may not be catching up with what is happening is because when we go to rural remote parts of the united states, we're fining there's a drug problem going and when we talk to law enforcement there, they say, very, very often they can trace down their arrests and seizures to the southern border. so it's getting to the doorstep of a lot of small rural communities. so my question is, what is really being done? what can me metrics do to measure the dangers you elements

of organized crimes and others that are penetrating the u.s. and followup to that, because they have such resources, financial and technology that enable them to penetrate more successfully than the more innocent who is trying to cross the border? >> i'm going to ask bryan to talk to one of those issues. the report we did we discussed immigration metrics specifically. that was on purpose. certainly as chief talked about, the mission of the border patrol covers a not of thing, not just unlawful immigration, and a lot of other things happen at the borer. there's a ron we focus on the immigration metric and we suggest strongly that similar metrics for other missions be created. can you speak to why we think there needs to be separate measures. >> well, if you look at the dhs quad dronal homeland security

review -- quad dronal home hasn't secured review where it defines i mission, the key mission is preventing illegal entry of people and goods. goods incomes illegal drugs and violation of the trade laws but illegal drugs gets the most attention, and really needs to be measured separately because it requires a different methodology. all of thesearch threats need to be measured. and ultimately the important measure is how much successfully gets in? i will tell you that when i was in dhs, my colleagues and i took a hard look at what had been measured with respect to legal drugs. what we found was that there was one time when the u.s.

government made a serious effort to measure success illegal entry and that was in 2001 and 2002, and they looked at four drugs, cocaine, methamphetamine, heroin, and marijuana and it became clear that the most mature measurement area was for cocaine. for several reasons. it's easier to measure the in-flow of oak cane and there's--- -- cocaine and there's more effort in measuring that since the early 1990s. that said the poll i referenced from 2013 that specifically focused on the illegal entry of people. i do think that the response of the poll is reflecting the perception about illegal entry of people as opposed to cocaine. i would be interested to see polling results related to illegal entry of drugs but i haven't seep that. >> chief, do you want to comment about the -- how you -- you're

dealing with unlawful immigrants, you're dealing with drug smugglers, people smugglers and traffickers multiple threats at the border. from the border patrol perspective, how do you determine what you have and how do you measure those different threats? >> i think to your first point, sir, everybody that is apprehended by a border patrol agent between the ports of entry is presses. part of the processing is a ten ten-print bio metric we do fed rated inquiries. we'll know in short order individual that have been apprehended by the department of homeland security before. another database will tell us where they have had criminal conviction in the united states before. others will check in see if they've been entered into the department of defense database. so a lot of information we know subsequent to the arrest, that we could take into consideration, for instance, on identifying levels of risk. you can imagine an area where only say, 15% of arrives are

individuals with prior arrests and another area along the border that number may be 40%. tells us who is operating in and around that particular area and each area will be treated differently in terms of deployment postures. [inaudible] -- >> enabling them to penetrate whereas innocents don't have that luxury. >> certainly we have seen that grown. they have a lot of resources to include a lot of money. they employ very sophisticated counterintelligence techniques against our agents and officers. we just have to be aware of that as we do our deployments. >> just to follow up, there's been some indications that those trying to cross unlawfully for worker economic reasons are using more of the criminal networks to do so than they may have in the past. has that been your understanding and experience as well? so they're -- i won't say benefiting but the criminal networks are taking advantage of

their desire to come and at the same traffic flows that can bring drugs are bringing pool? >> it is true that individual will wake up sometime today and decide to come into the united states between the ports of entry. what has changed throughout my career is they no longer make the choice on where and when they will cross. all that has been done by the organizations who own and operate what we call the plazas in the area. if you're intent of coming into the united states in between ports of entry you will be smuggled into the country one way or the other. >> ted from the council on foreign relations. a question for the chief. you mentioned advance information on individual coming. we normally think of that as illegal ports of entry people have documents and we have information on them may be coming aairplane. what does that mean between ports of entry? how do you get advance information on people who may be thinking about coming in between

the ports. >> two ways weapon cheng our collection requirements each year. last couple of years. we try to identify so we can get from the intelligence community systems of flows in other countries. the other way we have reached out to the government of mexico fringes. last summer when we started to see the influx from central americans, helping us understand what that flow was for this year, for instance, and so the government of mexico increased their capacity along their southern border, and in doing so we had agenting working in central america with their law. , training them and helping them understand and identify in advance some of those flows, and with the government of mexico, telling us when they're setting up checkpoints what the flows are on the routes of travel. what does a train look like full or empty? those are things that during our after-action review we try to

identify what those flows would be. and then also identifying some indicators of advancements of people coming into the country. what we found out, some of our preliminary information now and being able to track illicit money flows, and understanding that generally people are going to travel once the payment has been made. and we're doing initiatives with a broader u.s. government approach and identifying precursors of flows of people based on money transfers and flows in specific areas. >> more questions? >> secretary chertoff talked about you can't truly secure the border without dealing with other immigration components guest worker, interior enforcement, and what to do with 11 million people here illegally mitchell question to you is in terms of the mccall bill. the secretary mentioned 100% operational control is not

achievable you. seem to have acknowledged that. if that's the criteria for securing the border first how do you ever get to the other pieces? >> i think -- the first part of the question, the safeco is right -- the secretary is right you can't just look at the border line and be done. they have the everify and other enforcement mechanisms. in terms of the bill how it will be packaged, i think you'll see border security will be box car one in the train and i think box car two in the train will be interior reinforcement and a couple of different bills. obviously border security first. that's what everybody calls for. interior enforcement will be coupled with that in terms of the 100 operational control, it's clear that win well tell you 100% operational control is not achievable. it's a problem of politics more anything else. i mentioned during my opening

comments many members were concerned that 9 other% was not good enough -- 90% was not good enough and because they were concerned, that led us back to current law, which is 100%. so it's a matter of, how do you reconcile those two things? i don't know they'll be reconciled on the house side. as we move through the process, that's how you reconcile the 100% standard with what comes out the other end. [inaudible question] >> thankfully that's beyond the scope of my -- >> the cars in the train but maybe the next cars would be illegal immigration reform and dealing with the undocumented but we haven't seep -- seen those cars -- >> i disease my hands on those cars in any meaningful way. >> other questions to the floor? >> from the center for homeland

security. a question for mr. roberts but others can jump in as well. with respect to your paper, as you improve immigration enforcement how do you ensure that you're addressing the portion of the immigration flow where there's national security related concerns, whether it's special interest alien countries, people from there, or other sort of human smuggling counter-narcotics related concerns within the immigration enforcement flow. thank you. >> so, that's -- i think that goes back to the discussion earlier, that there are different threat factors and broadly they would include those coming illegally to the u.s. for economic reasons. the entry of illegal drugs and then the entry of potential terrorists, the national security component and i think that different measures are

needed for each of these three vectors. at a very broad sense the probability of apprehendsing somebody coming into the u.s. does relate to stopping all three of those threat factors, but the number of people entering the u.s. for national security -- adverse national security purposes like counterterrorism issue is so small that we need another set of measures to really specifically relate to that. >> chief, do you want to speak on that at bit? >> right. certainly. and just from the border patrol's perspective you have to remember when -- last night there was probably a thousand people that came in between the ports of entry. all of whom were a threat. they were a threat primarily because they were coming into the country illegally. they'd already broken a federal law, and the border patrol

agents made an arrest. not until after and we sit down and talk to the individuals and run the bayow metric and try to figure out the level of threat. when the border patrol agents are assigned today, there's not some agent that could immigration enforcement not agents that are going to go out and look for terrorists and others look for drug smuggling. the mere fact anybody or anything is coming in between the ports of entry in and of itself is a defined threat the extent to which can only be done post arrest, which is the reason why we look at this and train border patrol agents to be responsive once they get the tipping and cueing there has been an incursion, that could be an unattended ground sensor, radar, eyes on from the sky, or agent working a camera. we have to, to the extent we can, increase the probability of apprehension increase ethink

50s and when somebody does come into the country there's a border patrol agent, in then we can start figuring out if in fact they're from one of the 144 countries like they were last year with 425 apprehensions. not everybody is equal when it comes to threats. the mere fact there's vulnerability and our priority mission is to protect america and that's from any bad actor or bad things trying to come in between the ports of entry. that's how we train and deploy and operate. >> so from the perspective of the border patrol agent at the border you can't do any risk segmentation. any analysis of the threat has to start before they get here. so talking about national security threat, you're looking to find out what are the people who are looking to do us harm -- are they try trying to come between the ports of entry? who is helping them and other things like that so you can with your law enforcement partners maybe try to deal with them before you encounter them

at the port of entry, for unlawful immigration, trying to find out more about what is coming your way where the flows are generating, and i assume on the drug flows as well. so it's more about understanding what threats are coming than you can't triage what is coming across the border when you're actually there. >> that's right. absolutely. >> chief fisher if you could speak about the reports' references to the migrant deaths. how is the border patrol adapting to the more difficult routes that need to be taken and do you feel you have enough resources on the search and rescue side? the deaths are up. >> we continue to add capacity and capable for such as the

border rescue teams. this year, compared to last year our deaths in the desert or along the southern border in particular are down about 20% and the rescues are up over 50%. so we're seeing more and more our agents get out into the areas and identify individuals when they become either incapacitated or the smuggling organizations just leave them out there and turn around and go back to mexico. and so we try to understand those types of groups. we work with the local district attorneys and the u.s. attorneys office, for sentencing and those investigations continued with hsi. >> anyone else? >> i think the chief just laid out the real commitment from border patrol to address this issue. i think if we are going to have consensus, i would want to hope that the consensus is we have a zero percent death rate in our

deserts and mountains. and i think this particular issue, how to address this horrific consequence of our enforcement policies has to be addressed from multiple sectors, and we have enjoyed a great working relationship with the tucson border patrol chief and civil society groups there to look at the patterns of crossings, to do the mapping of deaths and to make sure that resources are deployed by not only the law enforcement but by civil society groups to prevent deaths. i think this is one important piece that we need to have a conversation on. folks in civil society groups and faith-based groups border patrol, agree that is something we work together to address and get to that goal of making sure that not a single person dies because there was no resource

available to them to rescue them from the desert, from the mountains, and if we have that conversation in congress, and if we begin to look at the impact our policies have in terms of deaths on the border, i think we will have a much different narrative about what the border is about, that it's not just about enforcement. but it's also about making sure that we really have a moral obligation as a country to address this horrific issue. the other point i want to quickly touch on, border communities are -- enjoy a very low crime rate. el paso is one of the safest cities in the to country, san diego. and arguably san diego where i'm from el paso we live next to very dangerous cities, juarez and tijuana. and have been through dedicated

work between civil society groups and local law enforcement in those cities. the leadership in tucson and the sheriff in el paso, and the chief in chula vista and san diego. the way to get to that low crime rate is make sure we work together between civil society groups and local law enforcement, and we're behind working with federal allegations but there's another metric we need to explore how to get to a place in which we measure the relationship between civil society and law enforcement so we don't have such a gap between law enforcement and civil society, that there's no trust there's no communication, and we're dangerously getting to that point if congress continues to make this mandate that you need to have doubling of agents you need to have 100% control of the border. when you have thieves political conversations without really taking into account the

importance of dialogue between civil society and law enforcement you risk undermining the very relationship with homeland security. >> time for one more question. this gentleman here. >> david independent consultant. this for christian and bryan but anybody can chime inch we focused on illegal immigration on this equation, not nearly as much on actual legal immigration, and because of that illegal immigration has got real negative tone to it to the point we don't use that terminology anymore because we associate negativity with that. seems to me that negativity has kind of grown to be that immigration actually -- not just illegal but immigration is a bad thing, and as we know this is a cyclical thing in the united states. it grows and ebbs and flows

depending on economics and numerous other issues we have. i'm just wondering how much of the current problem we're seeing is actually part of the negative cycle that we have in the united states and in europe as well, of actually not seeing the benefits of actual exception what it does, and we focus so much on the negativity of illegal immigration that it changes the cultural identity of the indigenous population brings crimes and other things, and we don't focus nearly enough on all the benefits to actually immigration, not just historically but even today. so just curious how much of this is part of the trend and how to advertise the benefits of legal immigration. thank you. >> i grew up in the san diego-tijuana border region and i was a high school kid, in the early '90s.

my backyard, you had folks coming through every day. hundreds of people crossed through the backyard of -- my home. so i'm very sensitive to the importance of making sure we have a good narrative about around undocumented immigration into the united states. folks should come orderly, come safely, shouldn't be dying in the desert or the mountains. a political conversation of course. but here's my point. today, there's still news media around folks coming through interstate 5 from 1994. as though operation gatekeeper never existed, as though all the enforcement strategies of the clinton administration and bush administration and now the obama administration, have never been put into police. we do have an obligation to change the narrative in the ute around immigration and the benefits and negative consequences. obviously it's a lead conversation. but i think more than that it's

a conversation about what happens to border residents. we're stuck between a rock and a hard place, and if border communities are not considered as being part of the united states if we're viewed as being some sort of fringe element in american society and our constitutional rights are trampled pop and i have to go threw checkpoint see my sister in l.a. o go through a checkpoint see my in-laws in imperial county and have to get a passport card for me one-year-old son so i don't get harassed at the border. those are the kind of conversation if we don't have meaningful conversation on that and look at the negative impact that unchecked enforcement has on civil society we can't get to the point of the between fits and negative consequences of irregular migration. we want to make sure we have a safe orderly, and human

immigration system. we live through that. but it has been so difficult to have that conversation. paul makes a point that when we have to sort of capitate -- capitulate to having conversation it makes it difficult. so it's not just about going to the border and seeing the wall or having a speech in front of the border wall, but it's really about talking to business leaders, talking to law enforcement leaders in the community, and that's when you begin to change the narrative. we begin to change the narrative by making sure those folks who are most impacted by the unresolved debate over immigration and border enforcement are brought to the capitol, and really engage in conversation how we get to address that important question.

>> bryan? >> so, i am an economist, and i'm an analyst, so i always try to step back from the political issues and get to the quantitative analysis, and immigration, both legal and illegal, involve costs and benefits for native-born american householdses, legal immigrant households, and undocumented households, and it is possible to do research on to the economic costs and benefits of both types of immigration. when i was in the department of homeland security in 2007, in fact, i made sure a study was done on that and the economic impacts of alternative immigration policies were quantified. it's difficult to introduce those kinds of findings into the public discussion but i do

think that maybe more of an effort could be made. i had been hoping to see that be more part of the dialogue that took place in 2013 but again, it's difficult to introduce that in. just like to make one observation about the narrative on the border. it's interesting to see how the communities on the border themselves fall into the narrative. i was recently in el paso, and i saw a t-shirt for sale around the city that showed a picture of a handgun and it said, el paso you're not in kansas. and interestingly enough, if you look at the data the murder rate in wichita, kansas, has about much higher