and the number 202-621-7250. thank you for being here. guest: thank you. my pleasure. host: tomorrow we will discuss the upcoming budget debate on education as well as infrastructure and republican plans to cut spending by $38 billion. grace-marie turner will talk about the health care bill that could be tested in the supreme court. and robert draper of national geographic. tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern time on c-span and c-span radio. thank you for being with us. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great weekend. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, "news makers" with homeland security secretary janet napalatano. then a debate on a reform of the health care law. followed by senate republican response to the vote. >> janet napalatano is our guest on "news makers" including her thoughts on airline security. here to question her brian bennett of the "l.a. times" and eric lipton of "the new york times." " first question do eric lipton

of "the new york times". >> when you are going to sleep at night, what are one or two of the things that you worry about the most in terms of threats to homeland security and what specifically are you doing to try to make sure that those concerns don't ever come true? >> well, we're always concerned about the threat of terrorism. it westbound somebody trying to sneak explosives on a plane. it can be somebody trying to sneak bombs on a plane or a cargo shiphold. it can be biological, raid logical as well as more traditional explosives. we are always concerned about terrorism. the jurisdiction of this department is huge, so it can be whatever the event -- threat of the day is or whatever event we need to make secure.

or it can even be the weather. so this week we had a huge storm, ultimately covered about 100,000 people. the worst storm of the season, we hope. it runs the gamut. >> in terms of terrorism threats, i know the previous secretary used to talk about dirty bombs or something. is there a specific security terrorism threat that is most worry -- worrisome to you? >> i don't look at it in that way or that fashion. i think there is a whole host of things that could happen.

some perhaps more likely than others. some will -- could have more severe consequences than others. you have to think about the threats that have occurred and then the what-if threats. what if this happened? what if that happened? constantly pushing our department and other debts to make sure we have been thinking through these things ahead of time. >> in the coming weeks congress will be holding hearings about the threat of radical zation -- radicalization of young americans being drawn to the fundamentalist islamic cause and being recruited to attack america. what is the department doing on that fund. >> countering islamic extremism -- it is looking at communities.

kind of tried and true law enforcement methods. we support local police departments in particular in terms of the work they do. we think that's probably the best way to protect the country from a violent act of terrorism an islamist act for example happening on our own soil that's home grown. >> what's the way to engage in the muslim community in the united states and talk about these issues without alienating muslims in the united states? >> i think just engage. it is meeting with leaders in different communities, and showing that you are not painting with a broad brush. that we recognize that members of the muslim communities are part of the solution, and that the violent extremists, those being recruited into al-qaeda, al-qaeda-type organizations are the few and not the many.

we meet with community leaders. we are dealing with this as you would using traditional police methods. and we support local police. also broadening it out asking people to be part and parcel of the local community. >> a lot of people see something safe. you have a phone number to call. that must be creating a large flow of inflow. what is the capacity to deal with suspicious activity. how is that being built out. >> let me be clear. we did not say something across the country. it is in my jurisdictions where it is tied into tip lines where there are trained operators. we like putting it in place where we have suspicious

activity reporting. systems in place with law enforcement. that's a system we have working with law enforcement but also with the civil liberties community on how you handle suspicious activity reports. we get back to d.c., share information out, and then tie individual's reporting if they see something or say something. we are talking about two different things. individuals that see something or say something idea. s.t.a.r.s. is really a law enforcement idea. >> increasingly it seems to be individuals acting as lone wolves perhaps in conspiracy with a foreign entity but with individuals as opposed to large groups of people. what specifically is the government doing to try to make sure it is positioned to identify a single individual acting as opposed to a group on september 11. what are you doing to make sure you will be in front on the next incident? >> well, eric, it is tough.

the so-called lone wolve or -- wolf or the individual that isn't using any kind of complicated weaponry, unless they are giving off tips ahead of time, it is difficult to prevent them from committing an act of terrorism. i think we're struggling with that, the f.b.i. is struggling with that, the nctc is strug with that, the national counterterrorism center. we are all struggling with how we deal with that. i think one of the most effective things we can do are the things i was describing to you, and that is asking individuals to be alert about their surroundings. having police that are trained to recognize suspicious activity that could be a tip-off that something is going to happen. the third thing is to make sure our communities are prepared to be resilient. that our first responders are

trained, properly equipped to immediately get in there and deal with someone like a lone shooter and that our justice system is fully prepared to deal with that system as well. >> given what's occurring in the middle east, but possibly in jordan and yemen as well, has d.h.s. increased its individual lance -- individual lens -- vigilence of flights uming in from these -- coming in from these countries? >> we have a whole list of thing we do to keep track of air traffic throughout the country and who is traveling and so forth all designed with proper privacy proteches in mind, but also in a way that maximizes our opportunity to identify someone who may be a terrorist seeking

to get into our country. to that extent there were preexisting procedures and protocol in place that we think are sufficient right now. what we are doing is assisting the state department and whatever evacuations need to take place. we have the department of homeland security. that needs to be accounted for. to make sure that americans who are over in that part of the world and need to get out can do so swiftly and securely. >> in watching international traffic, prltly -- particularly peopling coming into the united states is passenger name-recognition data. are you satisfied with the amount of information that the u.s. is getting from european nations traveling from north africa into the united states? i think right now we wanted to

make it more specific in terms of data sharing. >> what are the improvements that can be made? >> part of it is selecting more information. you are talking millions of travel records a day. so making the systems from that standpoint easier, more uniform more standard. we are actually in the process now of renegotiating that a.p.i. -p.n.r. agreement. what it means is advanced passenger negotiation. so we are negotiating that now. we have a team in brussels today on that negotiation. >> aviation seems to be the most popular target, if you call it that, of terrorists that want to hurt the united states. it seems air cargo continues to be one of the great vulnerabilities. you don't have the ability to mandate that foreign countries inspect a cargo going on to

flights, particularly cargo flights. what are you trying to do to make sure cargo is safe? >> cargo is tough. it comes from a lot more places than passengers do. you have to deal with aviation, maritime land, so you have all three types of ports all three types of places, you have literally hundreds of countries, and you have a real economic need to be able to move cargo in a smooth and efficient manner so that manufacturers can have real-time ininventories, and this affects the cost of goods and affects jobs. as we saw last october cargo too, is a target. one of the things we had been working on prior to last october is now coming into fruition, and

that is a world-wide global supply chain initiative. what does that mean? it means security of goods from the time it enters the place of manufacturer to the time it ultimately reaches the hand of a consumer. it may go through seven different countries. it may cross a number of different borders. it is very complicated. we have now knit together international organizations the world customs organization, the international maritime organization. hopefully between now and june to agree upon a standard set of requirements and protocols for shipments literally around the world. with those organizations we know we will cover around 200 countries. >> secretary napalatano, where was the breakdown when a toner

cartridge is shipped from yemen to a synagogue in chicago? what happened wrong in that supply chain? >> again, i wouldn't presume anything happened wrong. what was wrong was putting a bomb in a tone are cartridge. we have good information we are able to share with countries around the world that we were able to find those two devices before they could have been detonated. so in that kind of intelligence-sharing is -- >> but they did get on flights. >> they did get on flights. what we are doing and what we did immediately after of course, was put a ground halt on cargo out of yemen and somalia and so forth until we could put in place more enhanced

inspection requirements for cargo. we precluded things like toner cartridge that weighed over 16 pounts pounds from -- 16 ounces from going on planes. those are the kinds of things we will have to do going forward. but even as we do, recognize that around 85% of the world's cargo ultimately comes into the united states from a smaller number of air ports or seaports than where it starts, and recognize that we have a whole host of companies that ship lots of cargo on a routine basis. so we are probably -- we are hopeful that we will be able to segregate the cargo world into trusted shipper catagories versusous novus shippers and

have new shipping methods based on what kind of shipper we are talking about. those are the kinds of shippers that will go into the supply-chain initiative. again that is underway now. >> this is c-span's "newsmakers" program. our guest janet napalatano. here to question her eric lipton of the "new york times" and from the los angeles times. brian bennett. >> you were loping to have a thousand new scanners in place at the airports. has the budgeting process gotten in the way? are you going to be able to meet that target? are you struggling with that? >> no, i think we'll be able to

meet that target. even as we do so, we are plotting the next wave of software that has a much more gingerbread man image on it, moving to address some of the concerns raised. the reason we do the patdowns is because of the intelligence and the threat. we know that abulatano was evidence of the fact that long adversaries understand that explosives hidden in certain areas are much less likely to be found because they know of our sensitivities, quite frankly our privacy sensitivities and we recognize that and respect that. so what we've done is with the new technologies we have a much better way to find nonmetalic substances. . nanotometers did not find a

nonmet calic explosive. we ended up patting down a small amount of passengers. what we found from thanksgiving to christmas is that passengers themselves they didn't like it but they didn't dislike it. once they understands this was designed to deal with their safety, their security, it is the security of their fellow passengers on a plane -- >> you are saying there wasn't a huge number of people -- >> no, i was concerned the lines would bog down. i was concerned one of the things we want to do is keep involving the public, be they passengers, be they people in neighborhoods, whatever, people need to be involved in their own security. so when i talk about see something, say something, or when i talk about being alert about your surroundings in an airport, everybody just being situationly aware. >> we have eight minutes left with our guest secretary

napalatano. have you had the opportunity to stand in the airline security lines and go through the procedures yourself? >> oh, i went through the procedures, yes, and i went through the full patdown so i understand what we are asking of passengers. and again, we wouldn't do it if we didn't think it was necessary for safety. but we do. >> there was a freedom of information request that looked at what the department was doing when it got other requests from numbers and privacy organizations that came from the associated press, and the response shows that the department was referring some of these questions to political appointees to review what had been asked for reviews that were delaying the process so much so they were passing deadlines in order to respond. this doesn't seem to have been an appropriate step. it is not a normal part of a ref mation review process. why were you guys doing those political reviews?

>> i don't think we were doing political reviews. i think to the contrary what we walked into was a huge backlog of requests which we get by far more than any other department in the us -- united states government. partly because we are so big and so complicated. we are 22-some agencies. there was backlog upon backlog and we wanted to remove them and see whether requests were overlapping and so on and so forth, so what we were able to do within the first 18 months or so was to, a answer more questions in that relief, or b get that backlog down and get this on track. >> there were certain requests from certain organizations that were being referred to political appointees to review. there was an e-mail traffic that showed there were employees at the agency department. it show these political referrals were delaying the response. that's the process, as i understand it, that was stopped.

why was that referral process taking place. >> again have you to differentiate between something insidious, which your questions implies, rather than taking out a problem. there is the oversight committee. it sent out letters asking about this. we are more than happy to cooperate and give them those responses, and we'll just deal with it in the oversight process. >> was it politically motivated? >> that would was the insinuation. i think it was management oriented. >> i would like to turn to immigration. the department has reported rising numbers of deportations in the last couple years. there are questions whether the department moved numbers around or did tricky accounting to come up with this rising surf of deportations. is that accurate?

did you look into that. >> yes are we double counting the same people? >> yes. >> the answer is no. the answer is we have in fact removed more people from the united states in the last two years. and the fact of the matter is we are turning this boat, this big boat, as it were, to make sure we are focused on those who are in jails and prisons who are also in the country illegally. not exclusively so, but as a priority. >> on the border over the summer deployed 100,000 national guardsmen. they will be stood down at the end of the year and there will be 1,000 new border patrol agents hired over the course of the year. are you satisfied you have the resources to do what you can on the border to stop traffic in -- traffic? >> we have more resources at that southwest border than ever before -- manpower, technology, infrastructure. we have more on their way. we have 1,000 border patrol

agents in the hiring, training, clearance process right now. and we see the effect. the numbers that need to be going down are dropping like stones, the numbers that need to go up are also dropping. so that border is very different than it was two years ago. we want to sustain those efforts. we are by no means done. i have some other ideas. there are some ideas we will be adding to this structure to our southwest border initiative. the results are very, very good. >> secretary napalatano, there are three new chairman in the house that you will be dealing with over the next two years during the 112th congress. including peter king of homeland security. are you planning on attending at peter king's wednesday hearing on the homeland security threat? >> absolutely. i will be there. representative king and our new chair with the ranking member of

our first two years. we work together well. i think overall on the issues -- the issues i deal with are not republican or democratic issues. if it is clear about anything, it should be clear that our safety and security is something we all share and we all have an obligation to do the best job we can, political considerings aside. that's the way he told me he's approaching his chairmanship. i approach my time as a secretary, and i'm looking forward to the hearing. >> how would you describe your relationship with daryl issa? >> i don't know him, and i don't know chairman smith very well. i suspect i will get to know them bet every over the next few years. again, we will cooperate and provide information to them. i think the more information we have, the better they will realize the job this department is doing. >> we have time for one or two questions each. eric lip ton -- lipton.

>> you recently announced you were canceling the border initiative to create what people call a virtual fence. this is the third attempt in recent years to use technology and equipment to better protect the border. the same day you announced you were testing it you announced a new program. what are you going to do that this isn't another wasted hundreds of millions of dollars and how do you know this time you are actually going to make a difference with the equipment and technology you install? >> well, f.b.i. net was a one-size cookie-cutter approach that relied on fixed cell towers and so forth. it was a program that was over-budget and behind schedule. it didn't fit the border. the border is very different depending on which area you are in. we are going to use more already-available technologies tailored to particular sectors and tailored to what our men and women who work that border

fleed. mobile back scanners, different types of scanners, things we know produce different results. we will have strict procurement oversight on this technology buys to make sure we are meeting the requirements that we have. >> you realize that's exactly what they said when they started f.b.i. net. >> they started f.b.i. net a while ago. it sounded good. you get several years into it, and it turns out that it couldn't reach the standards as advertised. i pulled the plug and said we're not spending any more money on that. we'll do a technology review, and we'll make our technology interface with the men and women that have to use it. >> when you were governor of arizona you signed into law a law requiring arizona employers to use employment verification to use everify to make sure people are legally in the country. do you think the u.s. government should make blanket requirements

in the united states that employers use everify and use a system to make sure their employees are in the country legally? >> the government is already doing it with contractors and i believe with employers we have to create a culture of compliance. they have to comply with our nation's immigration laws. otherwise they keep creating a demand for illegal labor. i don't care how many millions we spend on the border itself, if we keep having that big demand for illegal labor we will continue to have that movement north. both of these systems have to work together. ememployer verification on the legal residency of employees and effective border control. >> not make everify mandatory for all employers? >> i don't know if that is going to be a call or if that will be a piece of legislation offered. all i will say is the everify system is bigger every day and

more robust. we have more than a thousand employers using it every week. as the system builds out it does add to and create that actual tour of compliance i'm talking about. >> finally secretary napalatano, i want to go back to your first answer when you said your jurisdiction is so huge. is the department of homeland security organized correctly and is it too huge for one department? >> it is orget -- organized correctly in that we have taken all those departments and directors that were merged and put them under a five-part frame work that allows us to manage counterterrorism, border security land, marine, air and enforcing cyberspace, which we did not talk about, and resiliencey and the ability to respond in disasters. we found you can take all the various mission areas of the department and then create benchmarks, and that's the way to move the department forward.

>> janet napalatano is the third secretary of the department of homeland security. she's been our guest on "newsmakers." we'll be right back with our reporters. >> thanks. >> brian bennett of the "l.a. times" what did you learn from secretary napalatano? >> i learned one issue, there is not going to be a mandatory employment verification program requiring employers to check the legal status of employees any time soon. i asked her about that, and it seems that the u.s. is not ready to roll something out like that. >> were you surprised by that answer? >> i was a little surprised by that. she hadn't been asked that for a while, so i wanted to see where she stood on that. >> what did you see eric lipton? >> i saw a department of homeland security that is able to answer questions mor