 Well, thank you very much. Good morning. Welcome to what I am confident is going to be the highlight of the Reagan National Defense Forum in 2023. I'm putting that out there, so it's got to be true now. All the pressure is on our panel. As you heard from our voice of God here, this is overlooking Monroe protecting the hemisphere and the homeland. Of course, Monroe is referring to the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 and just to geek out for a second here. I'm sure the amazingly smart people at Reagan knew this, but today is actually the 200th anniversary of the signing of the announcement of the Monroe Doctrine. It was December 2nd, 1823, and I think it's super cool that we get to sit here today and talk about it. It was, of course, when President James Monroe announced it in his annual message to Congress, and it was a declaration that foreign powers could not become involved in the affairs of independent countries in the western hemisphere. And at the time, of course, it was directed at European powers, but the threat has shifted in 200 years. So we have a terrific panel here today to address this and other things in the hemisphere. I have my order wrong, so let's see. We have Congressman Mike Walts. He's a Republican member of the House of Representatives from Florida. He's also a retired colonel in the National Guard and the First Green Beret elected to Congress. General Laura Richardson has been the commander of U.S. Southern Command for just over two years, I believe. And also important to our topic today, she was the commanding general of U.S. Army North, which is the service component command for U.S. Northern Command. We have General Paul Nakasoni, the commander of U.S. Cyber Command, the director of the National Security Agency, and Central Security Service Chief. I hope you get paid extra for three rolls. I'm just saying. I've got an agent. I can put you in touch with him. And then we have Joseph Lonsdale. He's a serial entrepreneur and one of the co-founders of Palantir, and he now runs ABC, which is a venture capital firm. So welcome all. I want to start with the... Well, this is a big topic, right? So let's start with a big question. What do you see as the biggest threat to the Western Hemisphere and to the U.S. homeland right now? And I'm just going to go right down the line, starting with Congressman Walts. Well, I'd have to say, I mean, right now in the present, it's the cartels that have essentially taken operational control of our southern border. And according to a number of estimates, control anywhere from 30% to 40% of Mexican territory. So if we're looking at more Americans dying each year, then we lost in Vietnam in 10 years through fentanyl and other types of illicit narcotics that are coming across one. Two, that these organizations are essentially paramilitary transnational crime organizations. They're not like the mafia. They're much more like ISIS, and we need to start treating them that way. When the Mexican army, the Mexican military, is fought to a standstill with armored vehicles, heavy weapons, their aircraft shot down when they try to go arrest a cartel member, that is a existential issue that is literally right on our border. So Representative Dan Crenshaw and I have proposed legislation to authorize the use of military force. I have to say with a strong caveat, no one is talking about invading Mexico. We are talking about our overwhelmed law enforcement, Customs and Border Patrol, and others that do not have access to assets like General Nakasone has in terms of offensive cyber, space, drones, and other types of methodologies. But the bottom line, Courtney, is we need to unleash military resources to take on what is now a national security problem. If you change the name from Jalisco in Sinaloa to ISIS in Al Qaeda, I don't even think we would be, frankly, having this debate. That's the shift we went from the 90s to the 2000s. I think that's the shift that we need to see now. Again, it's an authorization, but I think it will push very scarce resources towards this problem set. And we know how to take down networks. We've been doing it all over the world. We've done it in Colombia. We can do it in Mexico as well. General Richardson. So I would say for the Department of Defense, our number one pacing challenge is the People's Republic of China. And so that's at the top of our list. But make no mistakes that for our partner nations in the South America, Central America, and the Caribbean, transnational criminal organizations are at the top of their list of what they face every day. And I look at the instability and insecurity that they stir up and plow the ground. I mean, they've become way more powerful. Diversified their portfolio. It's not just trafficking of drugs. It's humans. It's illegal mining, illegal logging, illegal fishing. I mean, it's the whole portfolio. And a $300 billion revenue business annually. Very powerful. But then it's also what we've got to do better at is following the money. Us from Team USA and our interagency and following that money of how that money is laundered, cleaned, and then put right back into that very powerful system. But in terms of the People's Republic of China, I think through the Belt and Road Initiative is how they bring their authoritarian model under the disguise of a developmental model into the hemisphere. And that's how they bring their instruments of national power together under this communist government and why they're so effective looking like it's investment economically when really it's a lot of extraction at the end of the day. So Courtney, first of all, thanks for allowing us to be part of the best panel at Reagan. Fantastic. You're welcome. I would say that to really reinforce both the Congressman and General Richardson's point, the near-term threat for us I think is transnational criminal organizations. We need 100,000 people in our nation every year to drugs such as fentanyl. And as we think about what we need to be able to do to impact that, the near-term impact for me is the reauthorization of 702 to be able to ensure that we have the identified intelligence that can lead us to the types of mitigations that prevent that type of precursor and the type of chemical entering our nation. But the longer-term threat truly is the corrosive influence of both China and I would say Russia. Think about the diplomatic information, military, economic influences that both nations are having in our southern border and certainly in the hemisphere. If we think about it, our national security, our national prosperity, our national identity, I think it's tied very, very closely to this region and sometimes we forget that. And I think this is an opportunity certainly today as we talk about it to remind ourselves just how important that region of the world is to the United States. And just, this is a super smart audience here, but Section 702 of FISA, can you just explain what that means? Right, Section 702 of FISA. Expires this month, right, I believe? Expires on the 31st, which provides the ability for the U.S. government to collect information on foreign intelligence targets operating outside the United States that utilize U.S. communication systems such as e-mail and telephone. A critical capability that allows us to be able to ensure the protection of the United States, provide insight to our policy makers and support military operations. Mr. Lonsdale? Well, thanks Courtney. I'm honored to be up here with these amazing leaders. You know, from my point of view, unfortunately we really lack leadership from the top in our country to acknowledge these two threats and what needs to be done. Basically, the border should be a military issue. We have some of the best and brightest in our country running our military. We have capabilities that would be able to secure our border if we treated it like a serious defense issue and we have not. The transnational criminal organizations have their tendrils into Mexico, they have their tendrils into these local governments and they're killing Americans and it's very clear how we can stop them and lack leadership from both these last two administrations means that we're not doing it, first of all. And second of all, the other threat, I totally agree, both China and Russia are extremely involved in the politics of Central and South America. I was saying earlier, I was with the president of Columbia, with some friends who are very close to him, the former president of Columbia, El Duque, and the people they caught coming across their border involved in political rallies, involved in helping the far left there, where people sponsored by Russia, sponsored by Cuba, the same people who helped shift Chile to the far left. These are not just like local parties, these are our adversaries, realizing they can cause trouble for us and for the world and have crony governments that they can work with if they push these places to the far left. And we've lost confidence in ourselves because of former things we did in the 70s, 80s, 90s, where we no longer are involved down there nearly as much as we should be. And so we have these huge threats coming from our adversaries, breaking things in this part of the world. All right, let's take these issues one at a time. By the way, you can ask questions that will come up on this iPad here, but I don't know how you do that. So some way the audience can ask questions and we'll get to some of those later on. Let's take these issues one at a time, starting with China. General Richardson, since you were the one who first mentioned this, I guess can you walk us through how China's presence is changing in Southern Command's AR? Yeah, so thank you. It has definitely changed as a game changer. I think that, and as I've said and I've repeatedly said in this forum, actually at the Reagan Forum, that the investment and through the Belt and Road Initiative in the region, 22 of our 31 countries in the hemisphere are signatories of the Belt and Road Initiative. And again, I say that that's how they bring forward their instruments of national power, all wrapped in a tight, nice box that, again, looks to be investment in the region. But it's all of our critical infrastructure in the hemisphere. It's deep water ports. It's 5G telecommunications. It's safe city, smart city technology, aka population surveillance technology. It's space. Why do we have the most PRC space-enabling infrastructure in this hemisphere out of anywhere else in the globe? And looking to almost double in those space facilities in the near future. And so when you just look at that, the encroachment on the 20-yard line in our red zone to the homeland. As you talk about the Monroe Doctrine, hemispheric security is really, really important. We need to have this partnership doctrine where we are better partners and we're securing our hemisphere and shoring up and helping our partner nations and helping these democracies deliver for their people. I think that's really, really what's important because each and every day our strategic competitors are waking up figuring out how they're going to undermine democratic institutions and democratic governments. Why is China doubling its space infrastructure in your AOR? I mean, what are they using it for? I think that it's able to, with the vulnerability of the partner nations of the countries in this region because of the impacts. I say it's the residual impacts of COVID that are still lingering. And the 170 million people thrown into poverty, the 8% GDP decrease on average for countries, the high being an 18% GDP decrease for countries or for a country. They're still trying to dig out of the hole, so they're looking for how do they deliver for their people. You've got leaders, presidents that are in the seat for one term of four years. They're working on a stopwatch, not a calendar. And we've got to be able to deliver at the speed of relevance for the assistance that they need from our democracies and from our democracy here in the United States because their security is our national security as well. And I would say just the instruments of national power, diplomacy, information, military, which was what I bring to the table in economics. We were just listening to Secretary Ramondo's fireside chat and she's talking about how national security rests on our economic security. That's absolutely correct and what I've come to realize because our leaders in the hemisphere, they don't see what everything that Team USA is bringing to the fight. We are not bringing it. We have all-star teammates on Team USA, but we are not bringing our instruments of national power together, synchronized as a full-fledged team. We can do better at that because all the elements are there. Congressman Wallace, what do you see as the major threat from China in the hemisphere? Just to add a little color to what the general is talking about, case in point. Hurricane Dorian a few years ago comes barreling towards our coastline. It literally does a miraculous halt and then turn out into the Atlantic, but before it turned, it sat over the Bahamas for a devastating three days and just wiped out the northern islands. I just had the Bahamian foreign minister come see me and say, look, the Chinese ambassador there is very aggressive, is very effective. They are doing what they do in terms of taking key assets, whether it's port rebuilding or what have you, in exchange for aid. And at the end of the day, the Bahamians, because we really weren't present, we don't have an ambassador there at this point. They gave up their fishing rights as collateral. I mean, this is 60 miles off the coast of the United States. As collateral for some redevelopment aid in the wake of a hurricane, the United States should have been there. That's in Northcom. That's not in the general's AOR. But this is what they do over and over again, whether it's a space tracking station as collateral in Argentina, whether it's ports in Brazil. I mean, I think we need a real wake up call to the sense that roughly 30 to 35% of our food in the winter flows out of South Central America and into ports in Florida and ports in southeastern United States. Well, if you look at how many ports the Chinese are investing into, including on both sides of the Panama Canal, which is critical obviously to global shipping and our ability to reposition our fleet, they have their tentacles in so many areas, literally right in our own hemisphere. I have your placemat of all of the investments that they have made, whether it's port processing, whether it's ports, space tracking station, electrical grids, but they could have a devastating effect on our economy, on our way of life that I just don't think we collectively realize how interdependent we are economically, whether it's energy food or shipping or else wise with our southern hemisphere neighbors. General Akassoni, a couple of months ago you put out a warning about some potential Chinese malware that may have infiltrated U.S. infrastructure. Does the U.S. currently have evidence that China has right now prepositioned malware inside U.S. critical infrastructure? And why? Are they just waiting to use it? I mean, how big a threat is that? We did talk about this in the spring of 2023 where we said we see Chinese activities in a number of different networks, particularly in the Indo-Pacific region, where they had positioned capabilities that we did not think were solely for intelligence gathering. So the question becomes, why are you in that critical infrastructure? But I think the important piece is what are we doing about it? And what we're doing about it is very similar to what we're doing with General Richardson is, how do we stay engaged? How do we have a series of partnerships? We in the hemisphere have sent two different hunt forward teams to defend forward capability that allows us to, at the request of a foreign government, see if there are adversaries on their networks and then be able to ensure that those adversaries no longer able to stay there. That's part of the partnering piece that I think we have to bring, not only as an all-star team, but as a consistent, persistent engagement with our friends and allies in the region. Is there now evidence that they actually are infiltrating U.S. critical infrastructure today right now? Beyond the warning that you put out in May, are they physically inside U.S. infrastructure? So we have given indicators in terms of this is the type of activity that the Chinese are conducting and a number of different activities throughout the world that system administrators and those that run computer organizations should be very cautious about. And you're confident that the U.S., whether it's the government or private industry, is able to detect that before it could potentially be able to? We do. And I think that's one of the really good news stories that we've been able to do, is how do you work with a series of partners, both public and private, to be able to say, this is what our adversaries are doing and we should be very worried about it and not necessarily classified channels, but how do we talk about this to the world? Joe, how can private industry work with the U.S. government on this problem? Are they doing enough? Is there enough coordination? This has been a positive trend over the last several years where it used to be that the companies that would run the cyber infrastructure for the most advanced technology companies, most advanced banks, and others would have almost no role in the U.S. government and they'd be entirely different companies that were winning all the contracts from the U.S. government and it's kind of like the animals that would evolve, like the Glopkos Island, if you put them on the mainland they would be slaughtered because that's kind of how the government technology was for a long time and fortunately in the last few years you are starting. And that's a little too glib. If you go back to the 1970s, 1980s, the NSA was way ahead of private industry, by the way. I grew up in an era in computer science where the NSA would do something and then the academics would figure out like 20 years later why they were doing it and so there were, I think if you go to the mid-century, there was the very best and brightest technology there and I think what happened, perhaps really the big shift was in the 90s is you had so many trillions of wealth being created and so many new advances in technology that a lot of these things in the private world in certain areas did get to be way, way ahead, like much more so than they ever were in the past from our perspective. And I think it took a while for the culture in the government to realize that and to say, oh wait a second, there is some stuff out there that these giant corporations are doing with people in Silicon Valley that is more advanced than us and I think you've seen that realization in some areas and you have seen them start to adopt more private things which is a positive trend. Congressman Wolts, do you think that the the U.S. is doing enough to protect critical infrastructure from cyber attacks? I think they're doing all they can from a defensive standpoint. I think the question to ask is do we need to move to a more of a deterrence model? An offensive model? An offensive model and a deterrence model much like the evolution that we had in nuclear warfare in the 1950s and 60s. I mean if we know that the Chinese Communist Party are putting capabilities in our rail systems in our ports in our nuclear infrastructure and otherwise not to collect information but to essentially damage that infrastructure and therefore our economy our way of life, do we think about that differently from a doctrinal standpoint is there much different than them putting a missile into that infrastructure or causing it to implode through cyber means, either way it's destroyed or incapable. So have we communicated from as a policy matter to the Chinese Communist Party that we can and will do this as well and take a mutually assured destruction approach because the old do we start flicking the lights in Beijing and send a very strong signal on our offensive capabilities to therefore we're having that same conversation in space in that new fighting domain as well I personally believe and the general knows far more than I do that we can only play so much defense we can't bat a thousand and that we have to really look at some paradigm shifts on making them understand that this would be mutually assured destruction if they went down that road as a preventative measure to hopefully prevent them from doing that. General Laxoni, you've sort of overseen what has been a shift from more defensive to some offensive cyber operations or at least acknowledging that the U.S. is conducting them over the last five or six years, around five years can you give us any sense of how much of your cyber operations are offensive versus defensive right now? So I think it's better to think about it in the thought process of an entire persistent engagement spectrum so everything you can do from defense to effect space operations is something that we can do today and I'm very confident in terms of not only being able to see the threat but also being able to react to the threat but also our adversaries knowing that we have incredible capabilities that if the President determines that's necessary that we would be able to utilize them so that whole perspective in terms of having a full spectrum operation is something we need to do well it's with a series of partners this is the interesting part of the domain where 95% of our critical infrastructure is with the private sector being able to operate with the private sector that's what we can do and this is what we've shown over the past several years one piece of critical infrastructure the Russians and the Chinese have unleashed their and I put in their quotes private sector often offensively our companies are coming to us and saying we are under a deluge in the economy of ransomware attacks and yet that offensive capability on our end is reserved in the government space heck is reserved in the title 10 space and so back to kind of Joe's analogy of the Galapagos do we have if we unleash Silicon Valley forward or they believed that we could I mean that is a very different conversation with all kinds of ramifications I get that but that's kind of where from an oversight and a policy standpoint on the Intel committee those are the questions I'm asking and nuclear mutually assured destruction it was very clear what each side could do to each other I don't know if our adversaries believe that we have the capability and the will to unleash that should they do it to us and therefore keep the peace and that's I think a question we need to continue to ask ourselves what do you think about that idea Joe this idea of I guess that to an adversary and can private industry or in some way be a part of that well I mean first of all I 100% agree you need to be standing up to them and calling them out China from their point of view is in a cold war I mean you had Chinese and Russian troops marching with the Mexican troop parades you know off right I live in Texas like right nearby our border recently you have China you know putting into the Huawei networks and spying on all these countries you have them buying up the ports financing elections to try to push in socialist governments that they could be friends with and control you know what we saw this last month with Iran is that when Israel was very clear with the backing of the US that you know if they were attacked from the north they would they would consider an attack not not not from your friends Hezbollah and Lebanon but from actually Iran itself and they deterred them because the Iranian mollus did not want to be assassinated you know and I think you have to be very very clear with China that if this if certain things happen that's what they're doing right now in Central America and it's hitting us or if you're supplying these things are coming into the US there's going to be an aggressive response in return and until we have the leadership to say we're going to actually call you out and respond they're going to keep hitting us through their proxies and they're going to keep doing what they're doing Joe mentioned the sort of the cyber attacks and the impact on democracy that's something that you see in the Southcom area quite a bit General Richardson can you talk to us about who is behind some of the cyber attacks that you see in your area? Well it's our strategic competitors that are trying to replace us in the hemisphere and be there for our partners act like they're being there for our partners when they probably cause the situation to begin with and so what we're doing on the Southcom side of the house and the Department of Defense is help our partner nation militaries and their public security forces with cyber operation centers with updated equipment with the training and things like that that help them bring up their level of being able to protect their networks but as the our strategic competitors are attacking their networks with the ransomware the hacktivist attacks very very severe and on all of their networks I mean you're talking the financial institutions healthcare I mean nothing is being spared and it's very sporadic it's with a lot of our countries and so cyber and being able to being able to protect themselves and their governments I mean we're really talking about sovereignty countries are very very proud and very very strong on their sovereignty for their nations but the cyber is a whole different ball game because there aren't alarm bells that go off in some cases until that your data has been snatched and then you're trying to you know you're being it's like a nap veransum right and you're having to pay some kind of a fee or whatever and the billions of dollars in fees that are having to be paid right now I'll just refer back to the 60 minutes interview with our FBI Director Ray and the 5I Intelligence Chiefs all coming together about a month ago doing an unprecedented interview talking about the importance of what the People's Republic of China is doing stealing data it's the number one global espionage threat to democracy that democracy has ever faced in our entire history if you have not watched it I recommend you watch that 10 or 15 minute interview talking about our data talking about how companies are US companies and might not be interested in geopolitical activities but geopolitical entities are interested in you and in order to protect our national security we have got to work as a team and we have got to put national security at the forefront because our data is being stolen I normally would never recommend watching anything but NBC News but actually I agree the 60 minutes spot was pretty good Joe did you want to add something? When we were at PayPal early on this is like 2021 years ago before it sold to eBay and the Chinese and Russian mafia literally then and these weren't necessarily state actors they were independent actors that were kind of sanctioned by the state tens of millions of dollars a year from us hundreds of millions of dollars a year from the sector they made a bunch of our competitors go bankrupt and this was a very profitable thing in those countries and when we found people stealing from us in the US you'd work with either the Secret Service or the FBI that you branches in charge of that and you'd arrest them and you take care of it we found them there and report to the governments it was very clear they were being protected by their governments and what was very frustrating to me is that is that you have very clear criminals based in those countries caught right handed stealing from us, clear evidence and nothing from a foreign policy perspective to say by the way stop stealing from us stop doing this we're going to sanction you we're going to punish you we're going to do something to hurt your country for doing this and that still seems to be the case today that when our countries are stolen from by these actors in those countries which by the way at this point we have lots of evidence that China has actually been creating groups of hackers helping them do this so it's like semi-state sanction these days and we'll find evidence and yet we still have these like trade agreements with China and there's no punishment of China while we lack leadership from the top of our country to like hit them back and deter these activities it just we just lack that leadership do you think why do you think that is we got a promise in 2013 from Xi that he would stop I couldn't resist so if I might I think that it's also we should talk a little bit about what has changed over the past five years this idea of persistent engagement how do we persistently engage with our adversaries not episodic not when we think we need to strike them hard every single day and this is where we need to enable and act our partners so it's the FBI it's Secret Service it's the State Department it's being able to bring these different levers of our government to bear as I mentioned working with General Richardson being able to deploy teams when a foreign country asks hey we need some assistance you know being their matters and showing up with a team from Cybercom to say we're here to help you is the way that we do business today and I think that it's also the ability to share information rapidly right it's being able to tell the private sector that hey they're the vulnerabilities right here this is a much more nuanced approach that we have to take to a very difficult problem this isn't always a nation state it could be non-nation state actors it could be hacktivists it could be a number of different proxies we need a very sophisticated strategy which we're operating now to be able to campaign against them at all times General Nakasani we're another critical infrastructure piece that we even talked about is the elections we're at T-minus 11-ish months away from the presidential election you may still be in the job at that point I don't know Senator River is not here so we're not sure if you're going to be able to retire or not but have you seen any attempts to influence the 2024 elections yet and are you able to say whether the U.S. is engaged in any offensive operations already to preempt them here's what I can say we haven't seen any attempts to answer your question first off but we're not waiting we've already at Cybercom and the NSA our election security group which is our fourth election going back to 2018 and our strategy hasn't changed we're going to gather intelligence we're going to share information we're going to take action and in terms of taking action that means everything from being able to provide unclassified reports of what our adversaries are doing to be able to work with a series of partners to be able to take down infrastructure that might be harmful to our democratic process I'm very confident as we operate part of a broader government team operating outside the United States that will have impact again I want to go to another thing that was brought up as one of the biggest threats to the hemisphere and that's drugs the flow of drugs from across the southern border Congressman Walts can you say why do you see you explained a little bit it's about the beginning but can you expand a little bit about why you see this as more of a military issue because I think if you're making the comparison between a Mexican cartel and ISIS many Americans would say well ISIS goes across the border and attacks people they may not necessarily see that as a fair comparison so why do you see it that way well because they're essentially these groups are operating in a paramilitary fashion I mean as I mentioned they have armored vehicles they have heavy machine guns they're able to fight a neighboring military to a standstill shoot down their aircraft in 2019 when the Mexican army went into arrest the son in the Sinaloa cartel a battalion's worth I mean 800 to 1000 cartel fighters surrounded the Mexican military fought them to a standstill and forced them to retreat so I we have to be careful with these with these distinctions I remember us running around the world in the 90s trying to arrest Al Qaeda transnational criminal group and it took 9-11 for us to think about it differently in the FBI at the time said well we didn't have enough evidence to hold up in US court therefore we didn't arrest some of the key leaders in Sudan and Somalia and elsewhere when a few years later we're taking them off the battlefield so I do think that our law enforcement entities are overwhelmed they need supporting assets like what General Nakasone and cybercom could provide we could have surveillance assets that could begin whether you're disrupting their financial flows you're disrupting their supply chains if their leadership is worried about where they're sleeping at night then they have a harder time moving against both our neighbor and us and look of course we have to have the cooperation of the Mexican government we didn't initially have the cooperation of the Colombian government when we launched plan Colombia when we made it clear that we're going to start moving unilaterally we'd rather move with you than without you that relationship changed heck Amlo refused just a few years ago to deploy his national guard but after some tough engagement he had 25,000 of his national guards men and women on his southern border and then finally look I think there's things in the non-military space we can and should be doing if we're talking about bringing supply chains home or at least getting them out of our number one peer competitor under the grips of China of course I'd prefer them to be in the United States but let's start incentivizing foreign investment into Central and South America through different types of incentive programs but when the only solution to get at the root causes is to spend four billion dollars when we know that between corrupt governments and the cartels they take anywhere to 30 to 40 percent off the top do the math you're actually fueling financially through our foreign aid packages often the very thing that we're trying to fight against so I think there's a lot of things we could do and I give general Richardson a lot of credit her and her team do so much with so little we are constantly fighting for her place within and that's not as much of a dig on the defense department as it sounds I mean they're stretched all over the world but I do think we need to make Southcom much more of a priority and then final piece it's not just our 2,000 mile southern border we have a 95,000 mile coastline and currently of the things that we see on radar coming by air or by sea towards our coastline we only have the assets to intercept 10 percent of them it's 90 percent left unchecked coming into across the Caribbean or southeastern United States or in the California southern coast so it is a right now I think there's some policy changes but there's also just a total dearth of resources that we should rethink do you think there's an appetite for an AUMF right now for that well you know there's flattery or what is it I don't know imitation is the best form of flattery I can tell you when we see the presidential candidates at least on my side of the aisle saying that that would be first and foremost in their new administration then I think so General Richardson Congressman Wall said that you don't always have all the resources you need I think you have about 2 percent of the total DoD ISR goes to Southcom covers about 17 percent of your needs I believe is that a roughly accurate so what do you think about this idea about potentially using the military in this manner along the southern border do you see it as could it potentially be helpful to use the military against I know it's a policy question but from a security perspective military resources military I just don't want anyone to think I'm sending the 82nd airborne and not an invasion of Mexico it makes for a good click headline that is not well let me ask it this way what about using the military for more training in South America do any of the allies ask for that do you think that could be valuable in this I think that the training that we already do the security cooperation training that we do with our military partners and our public security forces because a few of the countries don't have military forces that all goes to the professionalization of their force and their ability to counter the threats we've got to be able to help them or they need help and meet them at the speed of need and the speed of relevance for them I think that the training that we already provide helps with that I would say you know back to your question on the ISR and the ability to see our partner nations also have the same problem of being able to see threats and domain awareness and so innovation and technology is really really important in that perspective and just like to put a plug out that you know I advertise the Southcom AORS and Innovation Hub for the services for our Department of Defense to bring their technologies to the region gosh we're right my headquarters is right in Miami, Florida we can test it right there with Jaiat of South my Special Operations Command South my fourth fleet and we've been doing that actually very successfully so I put that out there because domain awareness being able to see threats and go after the threats to get after the malign activity obviously is really important. I want to put this to both General Nakasone and to Joe how can each of you respectively see helping fill those gaps those surveillance gaps that might support Southcom. Sure so you know Andrew was very first prox that came out with was perimeter security and you know it used to be it still isn't some places that the way they see if someone's come across the border is you drive a pickup truck this is not Andrew's solution this is the previous solution you drive a pickup truck I'm not kidding and you drive it and you smooth out the dirt and then you go look for footprints later to see if anyone crossed it like this is the state of the art that we are still using and that they've been using and you know it's become pretty clear to me that so the Andrew solution by the way is you put up towers that are very cheap their commodity cell phone towers you put radar and LiDAR and you use AI and cameras and you can watch within several miles of the border on the other side and you can get real time alerts and you can see the whole border and we've done this now for a large percentage of the border for some reason we've not done it for the full percentage of the border and it's become very clear to me this is not really a technology problem it's not it's really just a leadership problem do the people who run this country want to secure our border they want to see everything going on there or do they want there to be illegal immigration for whatever political reason they're allowing it and do we want to stop the 100,000 fentanyl deaths each year or do we want to allow that because it's part of our immigration strategy of one of the parties in charge like that clearly is what's going on because it's the border with the best technology and we're not doing it but why what's stopping the U.S. from adopting that technology because then we would because if we literally adopted inside everything going on and and secured it then you would cut off the illegal immigration and there's a lot of politicians in this country who do not want to cut off the legal immigration so it's a political choice not a policy choice we pretend it's a technology thing we pretend it's a capability thing but it's not it's very cheap it's very easy to see exactly what's going on the whole border it's not it's not expensive at all relative to our spending it's a tiny percentage of the spend and right now let's be honest we we know there's evidence there's a ton of our border guards and Port of Patrol being bribed the cartels it's a I think it's a crisis I think it's terrible as a Texan in Texas where we're furious about this we put up blockades and they and they come in and they and they cut the blockades let the immigrants in so I mean it's a very clearly a political choice being made to allow these people into our country General Acasoni is there more that can be done in this number one thing I would tell you Courtney reauthorized 702 it is the most important ability and authority reutilized in the intelligence community to be able to provide the type of insights that General Richardson needs what our policymakers need what we need to prevent the you know the the flow of Chinese precursors into the United States and fentanyl these are all things that 702 has allowed us to do and at the same time it's an authority that protects the civil liberties and privacy of Americans and I cannot emphasize that more it is an incredibly important authority we need to reauthorize but it keeps every time it comes up there's this fight and it feels like it always goes down to the wire because there is clearly a concern that it's it is a violation of civil liberties and I know there's that stat that you've given in the past that 99% of it is legitimately used but but the reality is because it's not transparent to the American people they don't know that so why I mean can you make the case here for why it is a fair it's used fairly and not violating people in this audience is well I would go back to the presidential intelligence advisory board that said it's the most transparent surveillance authority that any nation has ever deployed secondly I would tell you that there is a series of checks and balances particularly oversight on those of us that use it from the judicial the executive and the legislative branches and so we are obviously addressing this and we have to continue to make that case and I certainly appreciate the support of others that have been doing that as well I want to do one more to you congressman while it's about the border issue and who the migrants who are coming across who are they and where are they coming from well I know that's a big question the data that we have and this has been an ongoing fight between congress and DHS to actually get the data where are all of these people being sent I mean we have the highly publicized cases of Governor Abbott sending them to Chicago and sending them to New York and now both mayors with a fraction of what Joe Lonsdale and his fellow Texans are seeing have declared citywide emergencies Mayor Adams said this is going to be the destruction of New York with tens of thousands of migrants versus the millions that have come across so we don't fully know where everyone is going we do know that the FBI director is ringing the alarm bells that he is chasing nearly 200 cases off of the terrorist watch list that's an increase from 11 just in the previous administration and now nearly 200 they're not sure where everyone is and I fear God help us if we have another San Bernardino another pulse night club or you know God help us another 9-11 so it's not just a migration threat it's a counter-terrorism threat and it's just I mean 1 million per year 1 million God a ways that's 3 Jacksonville, Florida's per year being created somewhere and the stress on our over taxed school hospital infrastructure and other systems when I talk to a veteran who says I can't get what I need or I talk to an immigrant who came here legally waited in line and followed the system incredibly upsetting when you see others and heck I mean just to broaden it when we look at the withdrawal from Afghanistan when you have various groups unfortunately having to advise Afghans to take the migrant the humanitarian visa from Brazil and then migrate through our southern border to get to the United States to get away from the Taliban that is a broken broken system and you know finally I would say we have to solve the border issue before we can solve the other issues if you granted amnesty tomorrow for the 12 million illegal immigrants which I would not be for just for the record but if you did you're going to be in the same problem 5 to 7 years from now so I think Joe is right it's not a it's a political and leadership issue not a technology issue General Richardson we only have a few minutes left you testified that 42 of the 50 most violent cities in the world are in your AOR a couple of months ago what's the biggest contributor to that and how does that have a direct impact on North America does aggression lead to aggression? I think it absolutely does and I would chalk that up to the transnational criminal organizations and that huge diversified portfolio more powerful the 300 billion dollar annual revenue per year we have got to get after that but quite honestly like our strategic competitors the People's Republic of China Russia that's in the hemisphere as well the TCO's this region is very rich in resources and they have all discovered that and that's why the investment through the Belt and Road initiative I mean we've got 60% of the world's lithium and the lithium triangle is in this region PRC gets 75% of its lithium from this region gold, copper light sweet crude that was discovered off the shores of Guyana that's the fastest growing economy projected for the next 5 years at 25% GDP growth heavy crude in Venezuela but you have this huge irregular migration problem right now and the numbers are unprecedented they grow over a year but because of this families are on the move and it's only predicted to increase so with the potential I'll go back to the resources of the region over 50% of the soybean in the globe is from this region over 30% of the sugar beef, corn is coming from this region how do we help this region reach a potential to feed and fuel the world about 10 years ago there's not a lot of talk about this region being able to do that now there's not so much talk about that but when you talk about these resources that are there and we ask ourselves why the investment in all of the critical infrastructure by our strategic competitor the People's Republic of China so why is that well the resources are there this megaport that the PRC is building right now north of Lima Peru it takes 15 days to get food they get 36% of their food from this region it'll take 15 days off of that transit time from 35 days down to 20 they won't have to go to Mexico or go to San Diego before they go to China and that'll be just a direct shot why is that that's the PRC's plan gateway to Asia but where are we coming up with the alternative solution for all of the critical infrastructure and the contracts and the tenders that these countries put out why is it only the PRC that's doing that how are we mobilizing Team USA to come forward and to compete for these contracts and I would say with the administration's announcement of the APEP American Partnership for Economic Prosperity where 12 Latin American leaders were brought to the White House on the 3rd of November and so millions of dollars being channeled through the Inter-American Development Bank and the Developmental Finance Corporation into the hemisphere specifically for critical infrastructure is huge, it's a start but we got to do more, we got to double down and we got to see the importance of this regional hemispheric security doctrine that we need to put our foot on the gas and double down and it's a call to action Guyana and I'm going to take a question from here so that I don't get voted worse moderator for not taking a question from the audience someone asked about Venezuela looks like they might forcibly annex territory from a neighboring country it's Guyana how would regional partners respond to this and how would this impact US interest in the region I know there was the ICJ announcement yesterday or the day before but it doesn't seem like that might have any real teeth here and might be able to stop Venezuela from this referendum what do you think is going to happen so I would say that Guyana and the what's happening now with Venezuela and as they prepare to gain as Maduro tries to gain popularity in preparation for the national elections that are coming up it was good to see that that vote from the international court justice system was moved up to yesterday and they voted in favor of Guyana and so we'll watch very closely obviously the Guyana and the vulnerability of that nation and that Democratic partner is very important to the United States we only have about a minute left and I feel like I always we do these events and everyone wants to like leave and hide under their seats because we talk about all the threats that are to the homeland right now so I want to end on a positive note in general I'm going to put you on the spot I'm getting ready to retire I should say you're planning to retire the timeline is unknown Senator Toppleville is not here maybe after the football game today he'll be in a good mood and everything will start moving through but I just want to ask you after nearly four decades in uniform you've probably spent more time than just about anyone else in uniform focused on cyber issues for the United States I have no idea if that's true but that seems very plausible given how many years you've worked on the cyber issue what do you see as a potential bright spot and how the US is moving forward in cyber and I guess how things may be actually getting better well I think first of all just take a look over the past five years what have we been able to do we've been able to defend successfully for elections secondly we have a structure now that goes from the top of our government down to our military down to our broader interagency where there are actually cyber organizations responsible for what's going on CISA, FBI, NSA, Cyber Command these are all in place with the roles and responsibilities that are important then I think importantly we have really good outreach the beginning of extremely good outreach to partners whether or not they're academic partners private sector partners or foreign partners to be able to come together in a manner to be able to get after very very difficult threats it's a different environment today and we've been able to respond to that environment I think that's the really positive piece that I take from it will you miss being in uniform I will certainly miss it the people, no doubt being able to serve with general Richardson for well over two decades since we met each other at Leavenworth just a fantastic opportunity Leavenworth prison you met each other at did we make a little news here today thank you all so much and I have to say before we end that this is the first time in ten years at Reagan that there's been a panel completely focused on the western hemisphere to give you a sense of how this is an issue that is not only important right now but growing so thank you all thanks