. on the next washington journal, governor gary herbert will be here to discuss his meeting with the president and state priorities for this week's nga annual meeting. then congressman donald norcross, democrat of new

jersey, talks about his priorities for the 114th congress and what can be accomplished under a republican majority. later, our spotlight on magazines features james fallows on the atlantic with his cover story of the armed forces. we'll also take your calls on the sentencing of former virginia governor robert mcdonnell. washington journal is live at 7:45 a.m. on cspan. >> here's some of our featured programs for this weekend on cspan networks. on cspan-2 the pitfalls of group decision making and what to do to avoid them. and sunday afternoon at 1:00 part of the influence of hip-hop on politics and:[cy

and on cspan-3, saturday lectures on history. brian dirck uses lincoln to talk about slavery during the civil war. and a discussion on birth control with margaret sanger and the birth control movement. find our complete schedule on cspan.org and tell us about the programs you're watching. e-mail us at comments at cspan.com org or send us a tweet @c-span.org. his remarks focused on combatting international criminal networks and his

agencies' relations with communities in texas. this is an hour. good morning and welcome to all of you who have braved the elements. my name isó\÷ stephanie. i am a senior fellow at the international program here at csis. we were joking earlier that every time we have a homeland security-related event, we have a weather event that same day. so i'm both appalled and pleased to know that our track record is still stellar. but thank you all for braving the elements. if i could ask you to make sure your electronic devices are set to silent or stun, i would appreciate it, and we'll go ahead and get the session

started. as you know, u.s. citizens have long made border security a priority. the new 2014 congress promises to continue the long-going public debate on security reforms. these reforms will take place in both policy shifts and practical changes in program implementation. here at csis, we are pleased to be part of that discussion working with congress the executive branch industry and the entire community of stakeholders to unpack the issues surrounding border security and highlighting key focus areas for action. during our conversations, i have been especially impressed with the vision and real thought leadership coming from ourne!qñ border patrol colleagues. these men and women have experienced firsthand the ever evolving security environment that liza longes along our nation's borders, covering 5 to 600 miles of canadian borders. these are fast ever-changing to

threats of adaptation and risk. we have grown sophisticated which now have the ability to converge. it's also worked hard to develop quantifiable and qualitative metrics that track progress toward desired outcomes instead of simply tracking investments. today we will hear from two outstanding public servants on the topic of the border patrol's history, risk-based strategy and methodology for measuring success. first off will be u.s. border patrol chief mike fisher who is responsible for planning organizing coordinating and directing enforcement efforts designed to secure our nation's borders. chief fisher entered on duty with the u.s. border patrol in june 1997 and has held a number of operational and leadership posts from arizona to texas to michigan, and, of course here in washington, d.c. he was named acting chief of the border patrol in january 2010

and assumed his current position in may of that year. we at csis count him as a real friend in our homeland security and terrorism program and as a real thought leader for the nation's security. we'll hear from assistant chief robert schroder who is the author of three articles and for which there are hard copies down at the registration table. one of the articles focuses on theer the border officials and one on risk indicators. currently he is a legislator on capitol hill where his colleagues certainly benefit from his years of experience. he has served on the southwest border conducting search task operations boat search operations southbound operations, countersmuggling operations and the k-9 handler team. he's also commanded two forward-operating bases near the

international border along the arizona-new mexico state line. after our two guests speak, i plan to ask a few questions and then turn to the audience for questions and answer. we will end promptly at 11:00 so you can enjoy the snowy wonderland that is d.c. mr. fisher, thank you for sharing your thoughts today and i look forward to hearing your speech. >> thank you stephanie and to dr. hemry, and everybody at csis, this is indeed a unique opportunity for me. but first and foremost, to $ kyou. your dedication admission and the fact you are actually here given this weather does wonders for my heart so thank you very much. may of 2010. so i get a call to go down to the commissioner's office. at that time that was commissioner parseon. he calls me into the office and

when you're new, getting a call to the commissioner's office is probably not a good thing to do. i go into his office. i figure this is it they made a mistake, i'm not the guy, right? he walks up and he has in his hand this badge. and he's pinning it on me, and he when i sayispers to me i expect you to take the border patrol to the next level. and your expressions were about the same as mine. i didn't know what to say other than, yes, sir. and then i was immediately dismissed. and i walked out and a couple things struck me at that point. one, i had no idea what i just committed to and committed the organization to, and i had a very short turnaround to figure it out. so i did what perhaps many of you would do, is gather your smart staff that are more zbf1 o capable and a lot more intelligent than you are and try to figure this out. we had a very quick meeting. after about 30 minutes, three things were apparent to all of us, which is very rare for border patrol agencies to come

to a consensus on just about anything. we can't figure out most of the time to figure out where to eat. it takes us 15 minutes to hash that out. here's the three things. one, it was clear to us that the environment in which we operated had changed. number two, our capabilities as an organization had changed as well. and three equally important, was there was this convergence on transnational criminal organizations and terrorism. and we need to figure out how we were going to prepare the organization and prepare our defenses on the border against these emergeing threats. that's what started this strategic shift. so as many of you probably saw, we published the strategy in the spring of 2012 and moved quickly to implementation. one of the criticisms from gao at the time was the border patrol doesn't have a timeline for implementation, they don't have a plan for implementation.

what was happening was changing our operations as we were developing the strategy. we were going to weigh it as a procedure or a process but we wanted to move forward very quickly, and as we were learning about our strategic shift, we were making operational adjustments on the fly. we did that throughout. we didn't stop and have an 1450i68 18-month planning session to do another 18 months of implementation. it was about that time in 2013, towards the end of 2013 we felt that we were off to what we thought at the time was a good start of what we thought this strategy was going to look like. we had set, at least in our minds, the metrics that we believed made sense to us beyond the traditional apprehensions, for instance, about how we were going to assess the extent to which we thought we were successful in this endeavor. so our baseline numbers were gathering in 2013 kind of it taken a pause. whole process, from 2010 to

2013, and as it turns out, into '14, really hadn't changed. i still get the question chief, is the border secure or not? we look at each other as if we all understand what that means. as we were looking to understand members on the hill and people in the department and what they thought the end state should look like we couldn't wait. so as we were quickly devising the strategy of implementation we came up with it. i'm just suggesting we had to set an end state and some objectives to get this thing started. as some of you may have heard, if you don't know where you're going, any road will get you there. and so in 2013, it also occurred to me that we have not done a very good job(0ú articulating the narrative about what we just did. to have those discussions. and so at that time i had the opportunity on staff chief robert schroder i had read some of his work before he

happened to be assigned to headquarters, and i gave him very little instruction. i said robert, i've read some of the stuff you've published and i have a favor to ask. by the way, he wasn't going to be pulled from his other assignments, so don't let the stuff you're supposed to do slip, but what i need you to do is tell our story. and he said, okay. he said, who is the audience? i'll make it easy. it's for everybody. it's for internal consumption within the first line supervisors to the border patrol agents that are just graduating from the academy to the chief patrol agents that are out there in the largest sectors that we have. it's for the people on the hill. it's for anybody that's interested in understanding what we're doing. he kind of gave me a stare. he said that'sa%#dç very difficult to do. i said, by the way, we want it short. so that's the old mark twain chief, i would have made this longer but i didn't have enough time, right? so he had a very somewhat trun

truncated schedule, to come up with things he had indicated and try to tell our story. it doesn't suggest in that article anywhere that the border is more secure than it's ever been, right? what it is is to start a discussion, perhaps a different narrative than we've had in the past about what it means to secure the border. it's from our perspective and it's told by robert and at this point i would like to have him explain how he went about doing this. robert? >> chief, thanks for the introduction. thank you all for coming. i appreciate you braving the weather, especially the congressional staff that made it today. i know this is one of the first days and one of the busiest days for you in the 114th congress. i appreciate your time. the chief said we had to tell our story. we had to tell why we changed how we changed and how we ultimately measured that over a period of time. i'm prepared to read for you. it includes a series of three

articles, a review of border patrol long journey and gradual evolution to our current risk-based strategy and to illustrate why a new strategy was necessary. they were written for both internal and external audiences as the chief has pointed out. everyone. these articles touched on numerous events and relevance to our evolution but significant things have changed in the border patrol's rich history which began with the release of the 2014 border patrol plan officially began. as you noted, it really began before that, the thought process and the planning. historically, activity levels coupled with the ever-increasing deployment of resources guided our deployment and planning activity. today resource deployment planning activities are guided by a much more realistic view of border security and border security environment, one in which there is a greater

concentration on intelligence against individuals and networks responsible for the crime in a given area. instead of just reactively plugging holes into the border we started looking at ways to work with inter-agency partners to comebat the risk to border security. while the 2014 plan was to effectively transition tieo a+ more comprehensive planning approach, here is a statement on homeland security which paved the way for creation and adaptation of the new approach. it was a tipping point of sorts. and throughout our history i'm sure we'll look back>ç] at thal2t point as a point which has started to change for us. during the hearing, border patrol leaders testified that u.s. border patrol spent $3.5 billion on border security for the force of entry alone.

to give you a perspective of what that would have looked like under a resource-based strategy that means we would have needed 77,000 border patrol agents or a budget in excess of $100 billion. today we have a little over $120 billion. the border patrol was either once severely underfunded or they needed a better way to communicate. i knew that the 3% number we reported didn't relay the good work that the border patrol agents were doing for the american people. the three articles we discuss here today should convey some of what was happening inside the border. each cover a different segment of the border patrol's history. writing on them i wanted to draw on real examples that illustrated not only what we were doing not only made sense but it worked in the past in public and private industries. the first article in the series

washff information on the border patrol's simple and humble beginnings and why it was inevitable given the complexity of the border environment. the border patrol in 1995, and later in 2004, was the step in the right direction. lessons learned from these strategies included a realization that in order to truly address the complexityies of border security, the border had toh examine current threats and proactively address them. within the first article, lessons learned in the military and by nasa when designing and developing and deploying the international space station were examined to draw parallels between critical elements of our risk-based strategy and risk management approaches taken by other government agencies. the second article in thetvi

series, the risk-based strategy was written to show how the u.s. border patrol made that shift, specifically how they leveraged the department of defense, intelligence community and other inter-agency partners to develop planning tools to effectively preliminary meant this strategy. the first of these tools was a threat to targets and operational assessment. this was designed to address the capabilities of both the adversary and our own capabilities. they help identify aeep6z potential action to mitigate those gaps. the intelligence operation was heavily borrowed from the joint publication. it also addresses the course of action adversaries are likely to take in the future. they were heavily influenced by the department of defense. and finally, bp 3 was developed to help leaders identify

objectives and specific problems within their areas of responsibility and to develop appropriate courses of action to achieve those goals. historically border patrol operations were predominantly based on activity levels and tactical intelligence garnered from arrest. we were plugging holes in fences. if it was busy we put agents there. the border patrol helped planners conduct a more thorough office and conduct a more practical approach to operations. the third article in the series measuring security, answers the question as to how we know we're winning, if, indeed, we are winning and measuring progress toward that end. in the end a secure border is one of low risk. the border patrol considers an area to have low risk when we have the confidence in our situational awareness and understanding of imminent and emergent threats and competence in our abilities to address those threats. while we had a way to generally define low risk, we still needed a way to measure a progress toward that end.

we needed a way to measure outcomes of operations and cam plain plans. it wouldn't be on the specific assets seized and detained. recoó/!#%ng the metric is to be taken individually can prove success. we developed a :q preliminary set of risk indicators to analyze elements of risk along our border and evaluate the progress we are making insofqñ relation to our bills. if you asked a border patrol agent if we were winning, he would say, absolutely, and he would point to a number of arrests and seizures to show you that. regardless whether they went up or down, we were winning. we had no other way to explain it. this isn't to suggest we weren't seceding intermission. border patrol had to have consistent and reliable data.

not simply data on what we were catching, we also479jñ had to report data on what we were not catching and the unknown. today the border patrol does not describe the borders as controlled or uncontrolled. instead it uses a variety of indicators, capability assessments, commander judgment to assign areas of risk category of high, medium and low. the border patrol also evaluates these risks to ensure they are based on current risk. in closing, i will leave you with a few thoughts here that became evident as we wrote these articles and i spoke with dozens of agents representing thousands of years of border patrol experience. border security is not an end state to be achieved and revisited every five or ten years. rather, it's a constant battle we fight every day and one609% which we must be vigorously engaged. there is also no panacea for border security. no silver bullet is out x96ñthere.

in his description says it best. there is no solution, there is no better or worse, there is only a system. that's what border security is a continuous struggle. resources will be needed to secure the national border. however, using a risk-based view of border security and continues to work with inter-agency partners to combat the greatest risk to border security national security and public safety. and)ygñ ultimately the articles answer those big three questions. why we changed how we changed and how to answer whether we're winning or not. with that i'll turn itb+j)ñ back over to stephanie. thank you. >> thank you both. i'm going to exercise the moderator's prerogative and ask each of our guests one question first before opening it up to the floor. the first question i have is for chief fisher, and that is regarding your hopes for this trilogy of articles.

as i mentioned earlier i've been impressed with thought leadership and strategy and having authority for the border control. i can understand from an audience perspective i'm not in the border patrol i can take these articles using my own experience. but your hope for what folks in the field will take away from these articles what was your intent from a border e(g patrol-specific perspective. >> thank you stephanie. for the border patrol agents, my intent was for every border patrol agent regardless of how long they've been in the border patrol, where they currently were stationed regardless of what rank they may or may not hold is to read it first and foremost, which was mandatory, by the way,9l for all the chiefs. and have a better understanding of what we as an organization are asking them to do, first and foremost. secondly, i would hope that they could envision that which they are doing plays a much larger ] in border and national

security. because many times and oftentimes when i talk with border patrol agents in the field, we talk about kind of network operations and we talk about the threat of terrorism. that's been out on the line form çc instance, for five years will raise his hand and 3"c i've never seen a terrorist here, what are you talking about? making them understand that what we're asking them to do day in and day out plays into a much larger, very complex security system that we're not going to solve on our own. so for the internal audience, hopefully they can understand, one, where we are and where we're going, and their contribution to that overall mission. >> i appreciate that. mr. schroeder, i have a question about the risk-based stralt jitegy you outlined in your three articles. you mentioned in your remarks just now that it's not a resource strategy because throwing resources at this set of challenges won't necessarily lead to the outcome we're ÷4o$jt to pursue. can you talk a little bit about

the risk-based strategy its limitations? you mentioned also there is no panacea or silver bullet short-term fix, that this is the longer term strategy. there are gaps there will be vulnerabilities. so how does one think about a risk-based strategy? how does one wrap one's head around the idea that there will be gaps and, you know, eventually we'll try to address those gaps, but first things first. what's the strategy? >> situational awareness, b gz a-number 1. the resource-based strategy we talked about, through resources at the border are based on activity levels. in the article we talked about the deployment of the international space station. i wanted to draw real world parallels to what was going on and what we were doing. this space station was designed in certain areas thicker in some areas, thinner in other areas to specifically combat risk of impact. and the same way on the border. the articles are probably the

first step. reading those articles understanding those articles, understanding the risk-based concept in that we address the threats, we use those three tools, the intelligence the analytical process and the planning process, it's not an end state, it's an endurging state. it's a continuing progress and the border patrol has changed for us. the article talks about prohibition, it talks about smuggling alcohol. we don't smuggle alcohol anymore, we don't have that. it's drugs and alcohol and other aspects on the border. things change over time and the border patrol had to do things to dictate how it was actually changing. the articles kind of hint towards that. >> the follow-up question, then, would be measuring that. as you try to quantify risk and you try# x to quantify you know -- i know from a hill perspective the demand is always what

metrics are you using so how can we figure out whether we're getting to where we need to be? so what is your reply to folks on the hill or elsewhere who say, you know, the metrics of the past, you know were not useful because if the numbers were high you were winning if the numbers were low you were winning. it didn't really tell you anything. what's different about the system going forward that you can actually measure success? >> measuring success for us is different in that we take the border environment holistically. we compare everything, not just the apprehensions. we go back to the articles. we talk about the inventory of assets and the reactivity of what we were doing. we were apprehending we were doing everything we could but there were things we knew were getting past us. we never consideredl plan. typically the border patrol before this, we would look at traffic, we would look at activity in a given area and we would create an operation specifically for that traffic just in a reactive posture.

looking at the border patrol realistically, we needed to understand apprehensions alone meant nothing to us. if you're apprehending a thousand and 10,000 are getting away what did you really accomplish? so we needed a way to understand the entirety of the environment and the ttoa and our analysis will do-(la that for us. >> i would now like to open it up to the floor$mk for questions. just a couple ofq6z reminders. i will call on you. if you would wait for a microphone to come to you state your name and affiliation if you have one and please do ask a question. i encourage you to make sure it's statements but at the end of the day ask our guests a question that they can answer. first up anybody willing to -- if we could go to that gentleman?gentleman in the back? >> thank you.4!:!ñ just as an outsider's question when the thing happened with the

children last year at brownsville, i'm fairly familiar with your operation but i just was really curious to find out, did the border patrol back off on methodology in order notrzz5 to turn away thousands of kids? how did these kids getírwe over at that brownsville crossing? >> well when we started seeing the trend increase in the spring and it peaked right around june of last year, and really, i mean, it's happened before. we haven't seen it at least inòzb(t&háhp &hc% the south texas, and greater numbers as it related to other countries, in mexico, for instance. our methodology didn't change. we were stillfg9k making the &fh @r(t&háhp &hc% apprehensions once the detections were made. if you haven't been to brownsville, texas, get up on the levee and look. a lot of what people think about the area is different. so crossing in that area is not

practical. what we want to do is be sure, that once we detect them, make an apprehensiok7t-ç in a higher0bcl proportion than what wii donee've done in the past. when the numbers started going down in july, we didn't just say, whoo glad that's over right? we said, let's look at this and find out what we need to do. and the secretary in the spring was talking about the unityñ of effort. some of you may have heard that. if some of you were here a couple months ago the secretary laid out i thought quiteñ clearly, the introducing the borders campaign plan and introduced a couple weeks ago the task forces that are going to stand up that effort. all of that was part of this learning process. it wasn't just, hey, the kids are coming across, what do you do? that was our typical reaction. what's really important is when the numbers go down,/s the question should be, now what are you going to do? we tend to go from crisis to

crisis. in some organizations, and< especially in the environment in which we operate now in terms of information, the instantaneous, everybody understands what's happening in the field whether you're ahd municipality or you're at the border. people get very reactive and that somehow feeds and is very contagious at times. that's just my own personal experience here in washington but that's not an organizational position, that's just the reality in which we have to but we have to you know, stop going from crisis to crisis and really think these through, and the secretary and his team have done a really good job of pre positioning the department in the future, whether the unaccompanied children come back or not, this is just ano@pñá incremental, evolutionary step to do integrated network operations better than we have before. but thank you for that question. >> thisi'd like to call on this gentleman up here. >> thank you very much.ds/a

ted alden with operations. you noted there is an internal and external face to that. there is what you want to measure within your organization to get the results you want and then there's this story you give to the public. is it critical the metrics you're using be the same for internal and external purposes? is it okay to have a set of internal metrics you don't share, putting aside any confidential information, but putting that aside,9rceñ is it important to have a single set of metrics for both internal and external facing purposes? >> ted, that was a question i was going to ask you in about a week or two, so i'd like to get your answer to that by the way. now. ib:á0heard both sides of the argument. i'm going to hold back on my vote until i get&f]tx a little better informed. i come from the everybody everything. just give it to them. whether they can understand itócfaw or not.

if they misinterpret it or use it tox;q[ñ bash their organization, that shouldn't limit it. i think if we do more and more engagements like this or have a session where you say tell me again whyna

and if you say standard deviation one more time, chief i'm going to slap you. i just want to know is the border secure and how do you assess that? so there's some ways you maybe just do a home page, right, and for those that are interested and want to delve a little bit deeper into that there are certain forms for that. we have to stop doing this all or nothing right? and we start looking at the specific audience and try to8uaw tailor what4[ub that message should be but we're still having those discussions and any insight into that would help in the cause, i'm sure. thank you. >> the gentleman across the aisle from him, please.a9xwç >> i'm wondering, you say you don't want to pin the metrics on one particular metric, you want to spread that out. great. you're going on a risk-based strategy, but that sort of begs the question what is an acceptable level of risk? >> that is an excellent

question. you know, let's take a look at the different types of threats. if you saygç what is acceptable in allowing a terrorist into the united states along the southern border? that level of risk is very small, in my mind, right? we have to do everything and anything which, by the way, the reason why when we look at how do we assess that risk, right first we take a look --í,r(÷ ifh anybody askedë6=ime, chief,6m v is the border secure or not, we transition it ;2 state of the border? if you're talking about the arizona corridor, let's have that discussion about arizona. because what i'm about to explain in arizona may or may not apply in a state like south texas. so the first thing we do and this is a continuous process by the way, we'll take a look at what the intelligence excerpts are. what is the internal telling us about the intent and1i) capability of any adversary, regardless of who they are in& that spectrum and define the threat for us. the border patrol doesn't do

that. we don't own that, we are the consumers of that. then we assess vulnerability and consequence on our side, and we try to identify what the risk is. that's one whole section, right? the second section is ┌ )pjuáup'ding those risk indicators that we were just discussing, about 12 or so of those. what do they mean in the geographic area in comparison to other first,4o./ how well do we think we know what's happening in the environment, then we can assess that level of risk. but the level of risk for allowing a terrorist in this country is a lot different than allowing 6,000 unaccompanied children coming through south texas. we have to really start thinking about threat differently, because they're not all npñequal. and yet throughout history, again, it's just because as we're evolving, we used to just look at the border because not only was it resource-based we took the approach that we're going to grab and hold terrain.á5b!í independent. it was just get him on the line and once we get a piece of that dirt, we're going to hold onto it.

lo and beholdtl dirt to hold onto. what now do you do? that was part of it. not all risk is equal, and again, we're not he isespousing that we're the experts at understanding risk and mitigating risks. there are perhaps those in the audience who can help us in the out years to help us implement and manage this. we're really in the infancy in understanding this shift in our strategy and how do you assess risk? and by the way, the border patrol is not going to be the only one dictating what is acceptable. there is a whole bunch of voters out there i'm sure, will have a voice in this. >> if i could follow up on that and ask robert a question regarding not all risks are created equal, and when you have a risk-based strategy you have to take several factors into consideration. oneemw your articlesa#v2 talked about a taraditional approach and traditional capabilities and technology. could you talk a little bit about capabilities in

approaching the risks as identified in the strategy and the sort of integration of traditional and technology as methods to approach this kind of risk? >> so when we talk about traditional andxí( assets traditional we're talking about a sign cutting. it's the tracking of individuals across the border. on border wars it's the tv that you see, it's the young border patrol out there in green uniforms actually tracking them individuals. traditionally that's the way it's been done for the majority of our history. the chief talked about our environment and our capabilities that are changing. that comes with underground sensors, fixed towers, radar. all types of technology. specifically web1lç talked about uas and the capabilities they bring, especially in the face of picture taking. s?"gáátj over, takes a picture,

flies over takes another picture and we compare the two. we've never had the ability to do that. that, in and of itself has given us a better situational awareness, including the metrics we have today to help usv1[ understand what's happening on the border in a more consistent manner. >> you mentionedn(f=z uas. i know a lot of technology has been developed for the military that's being appliedp3""'ow at the border patrol but some things have been developed specifically for border patrol or for law enforcement, generally speaking so it's not always military style technology. one thing that i was wondering if you could talk a little bit about is sort of inter-agency partners. you mentioned the border patrol is one$ñf use technology and you talk about interoperable ability, but being able.1hñ to work with other marines or a piece of things,

about -- youl inter-agency partnerships, but expand upon that in terms of how that impacts the thoughts behind your articles. how do you integratebzo inter-agency folks? >> inter-agency folks, when we talked about énfsz)ut second article talks a little about the black swan theory. it's one of the more commfc= questions i get about the second article. what was that for us? it was literally unrestrained integration. it is the ability we have through the inter-agency process when we want to when we focus on individual targets, to stop crime, to stop illicit border activity. that no doubt came fromnl÷ rob rose's murdejg'ñ inb81çl 2009 but also the south texas campaign. when thev,fx÷ south texas campaign was developed, it had to bring everyone in the same room, and it had to go beyond co-location or cooperation. it had to be true integration. it had to have everyone in the same room, all the intelligence on the table.

we had to pick specific targets we had to vote on those targets and we had to not only tell each other what we're going to do against them but we had to focus on individual targets. of course, we've had d.o.d.l on the board, title 30 for quite some time. so that lesson that came from the integration of rob rose's murder and how we brought those individuals to justice led that he evolution of how thel worked. >> thank you. this gentleman up r@ç (shere, please? >> first, chief, the reason for the visit you hosted on the border, i would say we've seen clear evidence that the thought process of the agents is changing, and everybody is talking about risk based and developing their own metrics andrs:÷ stuff, so i want to complement you. i think it definitely deploys down to the troops on the

border. my questionúáh] you look more strategically at risks in the future, what do you secure border environment from a strategic perspective? and regarding the metrics what kind of lead metrics are you.?fz÷ looking at in order to help you predict and foresee what's going to happen in the next two, three, five years ahead that you really need to get ready for? >> that's a great question. thanks. for the first part of the question, i think -- everybody was so focused on unaccompanied children, i'll kind of go back to that example, and there was a lot of discus .w about what are you going to do with the kids and, you know is the border patrol feeding them and there was just hordes of people, thousands a day, right? what we were looking at was who was mixed in with that group. when you start looking at groups of 50 just coming across, and a

lot of them weren't running away from border patrol agents. it was añ)nsñ smuggler's paradise. smugglers were saying, when you get to the levee, sit down. a there within 20 minutes. they were making no money no risk, and all these people came across. there was no impediment to stop people from crossing. when you look at the strategic, whether you couch itvbnñp as a mass migration or not, where you have a lot of people infiltrating a specific area, you don't know who these people are at least we don't until you do the biometrics and you sit down and talk with them. when you have that many people coming across a specific area now you have to be able to move some of those agentsg)s1w that were response to the detection to make and now you have to get them away from the:c1#t border. you're trying toaufe thin the force for a potential exploit not

that the kids are a threat necessarily when

nobody hs't able to predict this before and so64 we had some smart folks and said, how about we look at the data differently? how about we take a look at(r.hr(t&háhp &hc% where proportionately along the southern border people are÷rs"ç showing up for the very firstzcmz time?zrhñ again, it's not about the people, it's about the business shift and the smugglers who decided, we're going to ayxtx()1 moving elsewhere because it's too difficult to go in thi3[á,hñ particular area. lo and behold, for a three-yearfbsmy period, the vast majority of individuals,2s%ujuár'g the southern border for the very first time were showing46 south texas two years before south texas was a blipnmk0a:vñ everybody's radar. but that was one leading indicator. and we were looking at others to be able to make those judgments to talk about in the future what our resource requirements may be. and how about we start shifting border patrol agents and" $ñ beefing up a particular area in advance of a potential surge instead of reacting to it. so we're starting to look at the data ay in the past. great question.z,ñ thank you.

>> lady over in the x4ê÷corner, please. >> may nameyhép3÷ name is laura sump. i have a question of border communities. people who live on the border from wanting more policing, wanting more patrol, and people who have a lot of grievances on border patrol and increasing military in their communities. from your perspective, how do you see that the opinion andrimkñ dialogue has been carrit out -- i mean the opinions of the communities have been taken into account in rn)upstrategy, and how do you plan to includep áuz in the future? >> again another excellent question. i think the communities in which we serve are paramountye&v helping us think through. it's one thing to think about looking at the border ç from a strategic context and going out to a rotary club and saying, we're from the border patrol, we'rep91jy the experts deal with it, all right? we don't do that. at3íjip r(t&háhp &hc%

what we want to be ablejhk to do is understand, because thexfsq constituency out there aren't inconvenienced by the pz$yç checkpoint. they're not -- just because the border patrol is tracking a group through theirdv2?g yard=s"nu and a dog is barking, we don't want to be the nuisance. we want them to help us understand that border environment, add to that situational awareness. we rely on those communities, and the leadership in the field meets with them frequently because they're a really good source of information. i'm not talking about as confidential informant, but,b hey, i noticed the dog started barking the last couple weeks and that hasn'tç0eñ happened in the last three months. we want to be able to involve them, first and foremost, have them understand what we're doing in terms of our deployment. i'm not saying they all have to agree with the way they're doing it, but at least give them the opportunity to understand, this is what we're doing why we're doing it and get their reaction to that. understand what their concerns are so we can adjust as needed and recognizing that we don't want to be on their property any longer than we need to, right?

but it is ap critical component -- when robert is talking about integration, looking at our federal and state partners, that's going to be critical but that's not to the exclusion of the communities in which we serve. they ultimately are going to8l)z encroach upon encroach upon their property, and we reallyó!=b@%ñ wantgladñ to be good stewards in that regard as well. >> a question in the back. >> my name is eric with continental consulting. i had a@t!v question regarding, gao did a study, i ,hjsbelieve a few unmanned intelligence capabilities, and i just wanted to know if you could explain some of the differences between those two capabilities. aer#diñkur recently started that. >> i'll be honest, i'míkvrkot

really very familiar gao study butí

using it because we have another platform out there so let's get it up in the air and start looking for people. which by the way, 10 years ago, have a lot of detection capability. and robert can attest to this, as a patrol agent in the middle of nowhere and not able to get communication out when i started hea4ú6 the helicopter blades coming from the north, and i would hear at /s/b s pilot get on and say, 621 do you have any /0f1ñ traffic? i'm here to support you. that person was my best friend. border patrol agents always want air because that's sometimes the only way to relay out, but if something o0 sappens. that pilot is going to land and help them. >> i'd like to just ask a little about the changes that have happened in the border patrol in the last 10 years. the growing use of unmanned systems, whether they're pilotedy

or, you know, aununmanned systems dronesñ 7& surveillance things that you can use a truck tof÷ñ go ahead and shift spaces. the fact that the border patrol has grown so much since 2004, robert mentioned over 21,000 agents. that's something, i think, a lot of people would be surprised.qyìáhp &hc% you go back to 2004evb> that's a great point, and my quick answer is it's an z :crt, not there is not a set of instructions that comes with an aerostat when we get a hanjj from d.o.d. and say, hey, this is how you should deploy it, and you can reduce your level of

staffing by 30%, and that's what happened to us when wecs2ypdeployed it. i want to thank general swann since he's here and the great work he did with ] j-comm and jft north. oftentimes they would takep'(qz emerging technology and come on out to the border, one, because the environment in some of our border locations were very comparable to what they were going to be facing. they wanted to mbw test and evaluate ( some of the equipment. on the other hand,2u"ñ we had between 90 @ié880 days at times÷2l0vo ilfñ some additional detection and monitoring capabk-índ9ñ so it helped us out. and the military in those instances really taught us on how to absorb different technology. because if you give a border patrol agent any piece of ==wiu'q r she is going to use it to the equivalent of what they're used to right? a real quick example on one of the first eaunmanned aerial

systems we got. border patrol was like, get that up there and when the border patrol agent calls, they're going to slew the u.s. and tell the aus and tell the agent whether he's close to the group or not. as we were getting more and more equipment we had to teach the organization how and we're still learning ourselves on what is the best fusi$ of all these different types of capability. ten years é arizona, there was no command center. i wouldn't have the responsibility as some of those agents do now is try to -- there's going to be a shift tonight that starts at 4:00. we'll run that shift for ten hours. there's one watch commander who has toey 15 mobile surveillance systems going to be located. which one of the unattended grounda%y%ç sensors are not working and how will wef2bafeuju that gap. i have two fixed wing#g&)h that are running jf9?eory, two helicopters, four deployed on stand by.

two aus7p#hrs.l3 r(t&háhp &hc% asms#x border patrol agent i have to figure out how to deploy that because there's 500 border patrol agents that are depending on me.2axwf thank god that didn't happe while i was in that position. we have border patrol agents that are notks intimidated by that but they have to learn. ten years ago as robert mentioned, we're learning at a very fast pace. some of it is trial and error which is okay. but, a lot: able to+pp close those gaps and the military continues to be a great partner in helping us flatten out that learning curve. >> the5 +k gentleman near you, madison. >> hello, my name is dan i'm from tucson. i work with an?ñ organization called no more deaths. i'm glad you've heard about us.

we're5rn about the my grant deaths. we had 128 deaths. i'm curious in your plan it doesn't mention anything about goals to

out when you look at the> operational plans that support the strategy. the strategic document, as a matter of fact therg" article that robert wrote really talks about what those shifts were. it doesn'tp dq1- about the tactic techniques and a"[lejuáu the pages what the strategic objectives are. the intent of the article wasn't to do that. &tz if you're inned and,éi[v want to look at the campaign plan for arizona there are publications available that we wo you through. iing all deaths whether drownings or exposures in the elements that's the extent we can control that. oftentimes we cannot. right? because oftq- these organizations oftentimes will exploit people. they will tell them for instance, we'll cross the west desert. you're from tucson you're very familiar. they will tell them we'll be walking for an hour so don't worry about carrying any water.

we know that's not r m÷true. these people coming from central and south america don't know that. help us, as we continue our messaging campaign how dangerous it is. it's not worth the risk of your life or loved one's life. don't pay a smugler to smuggle someone into the it's too dangerous. those profiting] l from this have no record for which you and i hold deer safety and security of everybody around the border. thank you forhq3]ñ the e@f question. [ inaudible ]7/9iz >> as it relates to in custody whether there are allegations of misconduct or deaths, not just the borderú)a and border protection and centerly the department of homeland security takes those very seriously. the commissioner j p recently received the authorization for 1811 positions which are criminal investigators.

we'll be doing thoseo& ìáhp &hc% investigations as soon as we, as 5gd4m allegations come forward. there's a whole host of folks that do those investigations now currently. the office of the inspector general, you have i.c.e. does some of those &fñyinvestigations. any allegations of misconduct are thoroughly investigated and we'll continueáqh to do so. >> with all due respect, sir, you've asked two questions now. if you wouldn't mind we'll turn to someone("s thank$÷/ñ you very much. [ inaudible ] >> with all due respect, sir, thank you very much. get a microphone up to him, please. thanks. >> first of all, very informative discussion. i'm the director for vietnam>úy + y southeast asia and washington, d.c. for the interstate traveller company in detroit. so we're business people not really concerned professionally

with border security. but my question is this. the allegation( representative and maybe more but one i read about in "the washington post" today that islamic0 some of their people to quote imitate hispanics unquote to cross the southern border.$r(t&háhp &hc% my questaka!÷ is, is there any cres1tw&ñ intelligencez6xaq that's happening to your knowledge? >> no.b >> if we can turn to this gentleman over here.ov:lñ thanks. >> thanks again for putting i think it's tremendous. i'm glad you guys are doing it. i'mqe=>÷ wondéhaz9ñ if other components within ba4cdhs have come

to talk to you about doing something similar or putting together a collaborative paper how you work together at the borders. >> yes and no. and a session. robert, please elaborate.2ty >> yes, they 9÷ ÷have. i believe the importance is with the articles, like a first stepqcfp right? even just speaking the border patrol ÷ in general or dhs we're very good at telling stories. you can sit÷q with a border patrol for 20 years and hear some of the best law enforcement stories in the world. throughout dhs those things exist. i'll carry the suggestion8+íñ back and encourage them with aldo haste to do that. thank you. >> if we can come up to one of our csi seniorui affiliates here, josh christman. >> good morning chiefs and thanks for being here. quick question. i think a lot of folks myself

included have been disappointed about the level and quality÷68b of the public and political dialogue in the last decade or so around border security. i think there's$(bcd some notable exceptions csis and council on foreign relations does some very thoughtful work but generally the level of dialogue has been less than, i think, the seriousness of the issues would - warrant and so, firsí# of all as a remark i want to congratulate you guysf nq because i think the work that chief schroeder you have done has the potential to reallyzc elevate the dialogue going forward and so my question is as you said you see this as opening the door to further conversation. how do you envision that dialogue moving forward and if someone is on the outside either a think tank or in the public or and wants to contribute how t#jr/ contribute to the discussion and the dialoguesaep moving forward.

>> thanks josh. i'll let robert talk a little i'm as disappointed as you are. let it be clear. we'll continue whether it's forums like this. i think getting the publication out, getting it on the website should at least generate more interest if6#;h"on't understand what you're talking about on page 18 can you talk about it. it always seems when we want to do this and there's some momentum building, younr now, within the organization, that the timing just isn't -- i was really surprised.=0zíñ touche to stephanie. you scheduled this for 6th of january the first day congress is back and everybody is tazat @r(t&háhp &hc% about a potential border security bill. all of a sudden the antennas are up. that's the nature it. it has been over the years. you know that. we can take two p7oep,kjj right. this is my personal opinion. one we asked a thousand times i'm tired of asking. and let's >víxa6&eñ go@5rq bu 5)y+

do our job and forget about it. that's the easy way out.loñgñ one, the organization$v internally. we owe it to them to talk about how proud we are of the work they are doing and wel @ñ owe to it the citizens and people that aren't in uniform just trying to figure it touched about it. so i'm not dissuaded, i'm notvhtnb chagrinned and i'll continue♪ to try whether it's venues like this, opportunities in the media. i say yes to every opportunity although rare and infrequent as they are, i want to talk about the mission and the men andfcm" women of the organization. and we'll continue to do so. sho,sfñ be doing wy let us$bamñ know. right. a lot of times people say when will you come out here and talk and do this. give us the opportunities. everyone2 nh that comes inp4zsñ request i advocate withinágs.x the opportunity this is a good