since the beginning of this year, i have been speaking across the country at various universities and colleges about homeland security. it is a new and ever-evolving field, and is one that as the dean manchin, a covers a range of -- as the dean mentioned, it covers a range of topics. after 9/11, its responsibility ranged from counter-terrorism to securing our borders, meaning air, land, and see, to immigration enforcement, a very non-controversial area. [laughter] to cybersecurity, which is a

fast-growing area, more and more important each day, a disaster response and recovery, a terrorist attack, a man-cause disaster, or indeed mother nature. for example, right now we are responding to the federally declared disasters in 28 different states, a remarkable and unfortunately record- setting spring for tornadoes and flooding across our country. we have a vast range of responsibilities, but the priority for the department was, it is, and will remain the counter-terrorism issues. how we prevent the united states from being the victim of an

attack again? and how do we do that in a way that respects and embraces our and rights and liberties, the values that undergird our country, and that we are sworn to as attorneys and as members of the cabinet to uphold? so i want to talk with you about that facet of our work, a counter-terrorism asset, and i want to speak with you in that vein as a member of the cabinet, not as a student or a fact of the member for other, but someone who is dealing with these issues on a day in and day out basis. because i believe right now is an opportune time to discuss the

ongoing threat that our nation still faces. right now we are between two focusing defense. one, of course, is the killing of osama bin laden. the other is the upcoming 10- year anniversary of 9/11. what we learned from the osama bin laden operation confirms what i think many in this hall new or suspected for a long time, and that is a kite and its affiliates remain determined -- al qaeda and its affiliates remain determined to attack within the united states and our interests abroad. so as we move forward over the coming months to commemorate

what happens on 9/11, and share in the remarkable stories of the men and women who perished in the attacks here and in the pentagon and in pennsylvania, as would detail the progress the country has indeed made over the past years, we have to also recommit ourselves to the notion that unfortunately the world that we in have it is a world, and environment work terrorists exist and where they continue to focus upon the west and on the united states. where are we now in relation to where we stood, say, 1 9/11 or shortly before? i am confident that saying that our country is stronger than we

were a decade ago. we have indeed bounced back from the worst attack ever on our soil, and we have made significant progress in many fronts needed to protect ourselves. i think as well that our nation is smarter about the threats that we face, and how best to deal with them. we had use this knowledge to make ourselves more resilient, and not just to terrorist attacks, but to disasters of all kinds. and by resilience, i want to pause a moment. i mean the capacity to bounce back quickly after a crisis. what we saw at ground zero and at the new york stock exchange, which reopened four trading days after the attack.

now with investments that have been made and capacity building across our country, working with first responders, working with state and local authorities, we have seen remarkable abilities at the state and local level to show resilience right now from mother nature. when you think about what is going on in alabama, mississippi, and missouri, the ability to bounce back from those storms has been enhanced in most part by the investments to fight terrorism or come back from terrorism. in fact, they allow us to respond better, more effectively to a disaster whatever the source. let me go back to my major point, which is that the threat from terrorism is still there. they are not going away. they are real and rapidly

evolving. they demand our vigilance and they demand our willingness to learn and to adapt. so perhaps at no other time in our recent history, this point between the attack of 9/11 and when we will commemorate the 10th anniversary is the time to say that we have to rethink how we deal with terrorism, and understand that one of the evolutions we has made -- have made is that terrorism is not just a government function, not just the federal governmental budget. it involves states and local law enforcement and first responders. it involves the private sector. it involves individual citizens.

it involves a sense of shared responsibility that we as a country are all in this together, and that while different parts of us will have different types of strengths and abilities, the plain fact of the matter is that everyone has a stake in the safety of our people. so as we move forward, we look back on the last 10 years and as was noted in the introduction, i laid the third largest department of the federal government, it is part of the largest reorganization of the federal government that has taken place in our nation's history. we have reoriented not just the agencies within dhs but also within the department of justice and the fbi toward the prevention of terrorist acts. we have invested tremendous

energy and resources in our country to assimilate the knowledge we have gained and to use it -- and this is a key point -- to use what we have learned and to share to inform and to empower a broader, more exclusive range of people and institutions to become a part of the homeland security architecture of our country. so as we move forward, that architecture, that sense of shared responsibility is a guiding philosophy of how we will proceed. so let me turn to the nature of the threat that we are currently facing. the terrorist threats confronting the united states right now have evolved significantly over what it was 10 years ago.

today in addition to the direct threats we continue to face from a al qaeda core, we face growing threats from other foreign- based terrorist groups inspired by al qaeda or al qaeda-like ideologies. they may have few operational connections to al qaeda, but they certainly are inspired by al qaeda. indeed, we face a threat environment where they lead to extremism is neither constrained by international borders nor limited to any single ideology. one of the most striking evolutions we have seen recently, and indeed we have seen this accelerate even during my 2.5 years as the secretary, is that plots to attack united states increasingly involved

u.s. persons, united states persons, american citizens. based on the latest intelligence and law enforcement actions, we now operate on the assumption that individuals prepared to carry out terrorist attacks may be in the united states now and could carry out acts of violence with little or no warning. so we have been dealing with an increasingly diffuse source of terrorism and increasingly smaller methodology of attack. what do they mean by that? the big spot, the big conspiracies that involve years and years to develop, to get people into the country, to train them at flight schools, to be able to website -- weaponize

commercial air carriers, those are not the types of plots that we see now. what we see now are more diffuse, smaller, involving a single person, and as we know, it is very difficult if not impossible to stop a single person if there is no one with him that person is communicating, sharing information, plans, or spots. the-fox. there is nothing to interrupt until something actually occurs. so as we move forward, we believe that the increasingly shabby use of the internet, mainstream and social media, and information technology is by groups like al qaeda or related groups, to inspired those who live abroad or live in our

country now has added an additional layer of complexity to the problem of terrorism that existed prior to 9/11. and we should be very clear that there is now no single portrait of the would-be terrorist. research and experience has shown that an individual background does not explain why a small group of individuals choose to take their radical beliefs down a violent path. so we have no interest in policing police or profiling of any sort based on factors like religion or ethnicity. not only are those practices illegal, they are also ineffective. that is why we need to be

instead working with a broad range of partners to gain a better understanding of the behaviors, the tactics, the techniques, the other indicators that could point to anticipated terrorist activity and the best way to mitigate or prevented that activity from being successful. so if you think about the nature of the evolving threats, what has changed, what we need to be focused upon in a part of birds to prevent something from being successful, -- in our efforts to prevent something from being successful, the fact that new types of threats can come from any direction and with little warning of then -- upend much of our thinking about terrorism prevention. that has changed not just from a

decade ago, but even from a few years ago. it does not mean that we still do not need a strong military were top-notch intelligence operation, the very kind that was used to killed bin laden. nor does it mean that we focus only on the domestic. indeed, there is an absolutely international aspect of much of what we do in homeland security. when we look at the tactics and techniques that could be used to wait and attack, we have to be thinking about aviation. you might not be able the weaponize of plain as they did on 9/11, but what about smuggling cten in your underwear when you board a plane

in nigeria and change planes in answer man and fly over canadian airspace to get into the united states? so aviation, supply chain security -- i was speaking about that earlier today. i mean the movement of business and commerce are around the world, it is a possible avenue for attack. witness the attacks of the bombs at him in just this past october. also international in nature. information sharing about terrorism, human trafficking, science and technology, the things that we are learning to better fine, detect, since, mitigate against possible attacks, all have a tender -- all have an international dimension to them. as we talk about the evolving

threats, one of the implications is to recognize that when you have something like the department of homeland security, it is actually international in context. we are currently working in 75 countries. we have the third largest international footprint of any federal department. i have travelled in a 2.5 years as secretary to 20 countries, several of them will times. -- multiple times. we need to recognize that with the ever evolving nature of the threat confronting us, we have to get to a place where every part of our society is cognizant of the kind of threats that are out there and empowered to take some common sense steps to help counter them. so how do we do that? first of all, we try to reduce

some of what i just spoke about to a short phrase. the short phrase that i want you to walk out of here with, they're going to beat two, and this is the first one. the first one is that homeland security begins with home town security. all of us are now stakeholders in the effort to keep families and communities, our businesses, our social networks, our places of worship secure and resilient. we have to have a distributed sense about homeland security. how does that take effect? what are some of the indicators of that? there are four key parts of that distributed architecture. one, we now have 72 fusion centers throughout the united

states. infusion center is a place where local, state, federal, occasionally tribal and territorial depending on where you are, they are co-located so that information can be gathered, analyzed, and shared at the local level, and looked at through the prism of all the eyes and ears that state and local law-enforcement possess. second, we have expanded a statewide reporting initiative. it trains state and local law enforcement to recognize behavior's in indicators related to terrorism and other threats, and standardizes how those observations are documented, analyzed, and shared back to the homeland security.

and they are shared and then taken and converted into products that can be re-shared throughout the rest of the united states. we're not just talking about intel moving from d.c. to the country. we're not talking about the analytic capacity to bring intelligence from the rest of the country back into washington, d.c. the third aspect of how we are empowering people is the launch of a new national terrorism advisory system, which we just recently did in april. ntas is the replacement for the old color code system. say goodbye to orange. [laughter] we are not using that system anymore. it did not give people information. it did not give businesses or

the private sector information. he did not give state or local law enforcement information. if you walked into an airport, airports have been at all level or range, i think, since the year 2006. so rather than have a color code system that no one paid attention to, except maybe jay leno or david letterman, instead of that, to have a system where we presume that the base level of risk to our country now incorporates ongoing risk. our base level is higher than it was wired to 9/11. we assume that in our base level. then if there is specific or credible information about a threat, that base level can be elevated or in certain circumstances described as imminent.

when we do that, it can be limited by geography, by sector, it could be limited in any number of ways, and importantly under the system, and the warning given inspires on its own after two weeks -- expires on its own after two weeks unless it needs to be continued. that is important for a very practical reason. once someone raises a threat level, it is very difficult to take an intentional act to bring it down. what you have a as an ever- increasing pilot levels and no one pays attention anymore. -- ever-increasing pile of levels and no one pays attention anymore. this will be more relevant to people's situation. and up for the level of shared

responsibility aspect of things -- the fourth level of shared responsibility aspect of things, if you see something, say something. that would be the second phrase that i want you to walk out of here and remember. it is a simple and effective public awareness program. actually began here in new york with the metropolitan transit authority, and the whole purpose was so people would be alert and not alarm. they know that if they see something unusual, they should reported to the appropriate authorities so that it can be dealt with. we have seen very big responses to see something, say something. we have expanded it to federal buildings across the united states, to major transit systems like amtrak, to sports and

entertainment venues where we often have to think about the so-called soft targets, to the hotel industry. so when you add those macho together, but use in centers, sars, the new warning system, "see something, say something," visa learn from and build on each other, and the helpless and any other number of ways. to carry them out -- and they help each other in any number of other ways. we have worked with hundreds of communities and local organizations on how to incorporate lessons learned. we have implemented lots of new training. we are doing all of this, and that the same time, incorporating everything we do

-- and it is important to say it again -- the importance of protecting privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties. as michael said in the first introduction, there is a false dichotomy if you have to say that we must sacrifice liberty for security. we do not. we just have to think about them at the same time and look for common sense and pragmatic ways to make sure that both are being pursued. as we have worked across the country, i think we have become not just stronger. we have become a bit smarter. we have learned from every incident. we learn what has been done in different states and locales. the new york state intel center in albany is a good example. the new vigilance project is another, and analytic and saw --

and historic catalog of terrorist cases since 9/11 which we can now share across the country. we know that we are better equipped in states and localities around the united states. and we know that we are beginning to hear some of the things i have been saying that goes back to us. that is always a sign that the message is being received. let me, if i might, talk about shared responsibility from an individual standpoint. we have continually recognize the role of the public. according to one recent outside analysis, from 1999-2010, there were a total of 74 lots properly

characterized as terrorist. and there are definitional issues there, but in this study, properly characterized as terrorist. a total of 74 lots will. there were motivated by a more variety -- by a variety of ideologies. al qaeda and its affiliates accounted for about half. but most important, the public, individuals of the members of the public stop 33% of those plots. that kind of vigilance that we encourage with something like the "see something, say something" campaign has already helped to protect lives and property and for lots since 1999. when you add to state and local law enforcement, in terms the

remaining plots, they came from old-fashioned shoe leather. old-fashioned police work. community-oriented, knowing neighborhoods, knowing what makes sense and what does not. those two things combined to get there are at least 80% of the plots that have been foiled. vigilance is expressed by individuals and as practiced by trained first responders and law enforcement makes a huge difference. for us to be informed, we also need to engage in regular discussion as a community and as a concerned nation. to discuss another recruiting tactics that are being used, and to know that our adversaries are increasingly relying on glossy english-speaking magazines,

appeals through social media, even hip-hop of videos, if you can imagine that. we have seen increasingly sufficient -- sophisticated threats from cyberspace, alluding using major news events or natural disasters to target unsuspecting users with scams and malicious code. while a sense of awareness is important, we all have to be willing to keep moving, keep learning, and to do a bit more. we can learn more about the signs and indicators of potential criminal or terrorist acts and to say something to the proper authorities. it was a street vendor, after all, who last year set off the police to the times where bombing attempt. in january, it was alert workers

in spokane, washington that reported a backpack and thwarted what would have been made deadly bombing along the mlk parade route. we can practice better cyber habits when we are on line, but also make sure that our children are practicing safe cyber habits. and now we're cognizant of what they are doing online. this is especially relevant in the wake of several major breaches and attacks that recently targeted the american public. we can all take the basic steps necessary to know how to deal with an emergency when it happens. there was a lot of experience the past few weeks with communication systems totally going out because of tornadoes. people could not call each other

on their cellphones. there was no way to do it. they could not know whether a family member had survived or not. those families who have reunification plans, thought through ahead of time, where the children were supposed to go, where they would all congregated something were to occur, they were in good shape. the others had and hours and in some cases days of worry trying to locate loved ones. so those kinds of efforts which sounds so basic, almost to be too simple, but they are not. what we are talking about is making sure that across this country, every single person is incorporating and understanding the role that they play. and that is a big challenge for us. we are used to in many respects not listening to these types of

efforts, when in fact we need to be listening and empowering more. we are still a young department, but we are old enough to know what works and what does not work. and what we know really works is when people are not relying on the federal department to do all of the work and address all of the challenges. so finally, if i might, let me close with the notion that what i have suggested to you today about the evolving nature of the threat you may have heard some about, although i am not sure people in this auditorium perhaps recognize how quickly the threat is evolving, but nonetheless it is there. you have perhaps heard about some of these things we are doing, but perhaps you have not put them into a total framework

of steps that interact with each other to help us strengthen our homeland security architecture. and perhaps you have not really thought about the role that each of you play. for decades, we have looked to fans and neighborhood watch programs to be elements of our own protection. we have accommodated to new threats as threats came. when we were in the midst of the cold war, we all knew were the closest fallout shelter was. we learned to hide under our desks, we learn to keep children indoors during polio epidemics -- some of them worked and some sound silly in retrospect.

but i have to tell you, right now, we need is a country to keep adapting, to take the head, to be nimble and to be adapted as individuals, as communities, and as a nation. we have made great strides but given that, we cannot provide guarantees. while all those things i have discussed with you are steps forward, we will never put this country under a glass dome and seal it against all threats, no matter what the threats -- where the threats to originate. we have to maximize our ability to prevent something untoward from happening. we have to minimize the destruction that a successful attack could cause. we have to be proactive and awful, thinking always what

could be around the next corner -- and lawful, thinking always what could be around the next corner. we need to come back and let that kind of confidence we will proceed. our greatest source of strength and sense of security will always ultimately rest, not with any machinery, not with any technology, not with any one federal department, but it is always going to rest fundamentally on the citizens of our country. we have to make sure they reengage in the way i described and perhaps others as well. and now will be a fitting way to commemorate the upcoming 10-year anniversary of 9/11. thank you. [applause]

ok, i am going to sit down now. >> thank you, secretary napolitano, for your thought provoking remarks at a very i am one of the cut-directors of the liberty and security program here at the center. i'm going to monitor this session today. a few ground rules for people. we have two microphones on

either end of the room. please identify yourself to the people holding the microphone. i understand that we have 15 or 20 minutes for questions and answers. please keep your questions short. when you take the microphone, and to identify yourself so that we know to his speaking. since i and the moderator, i get to answer -- ask the first question. something you mentioned about the use in center and the reporting system, -- fusion center and the reporting system. we take that information and funnel it in a way that is useful to counter terrorism and other anti-crime efforts around the country. my question to you -- how do we guarantee the quality of the information that is going into the system, and when we are collecting information, how do we guarantee that it is not from theby pbiases

individual? and when you take information out of context, don't you lose something? how do you account for that when you are bringing it into the federal system? >> from my law enforcement perspective, when we're talking about suspicious activity reporting, this is a discipline. there is a protocol about what kind of information, how it is to be collected, and handled at the local and state level, how it is to be forwarded, there is a curriculum to teach the protocol -- so when i talked about the thousands of frontline law-enforcement officials that had been trained, they have been trained in accordance to the protocol. we have a whole department within dhs on civil-rights and civil liberties.

they helped create the protocol. we have it reviewed by outside groups who look would help the -- who look with healthy suspicion that some of these things pre -- at some of these things. that is one of the ways that we do it. the second way that we do it is one of the real capacity- building things we need to do across our country is intelligence analytic capability out of washington, d.c. and into the country. all that does is flow into washington, remove from its local context, and one of the fur act -- first at cited as secretary was to take intel analyst working in d.c. and move

them out to work directly in the fusion centers themselves, so that they could train others in analysis, and so that we got a more organic sharing of information out in the fusion centers before it even got to washington, d.c. or indeed came back. let me describe an example of how this works. and i will use a real case. there is an individual from colorado. he was driving across the country. he was building backpack bombs. they were designed to attack tunnels. there were hydrogen peroxide- based. that is at datapoint. that is intel. how you turn it around and turn

it into information sharing, his to share information about, what kind of bombs were they? what kind of power would they have? to suggest that local police survey suppliers in their jurisdictions to see if they had seen unusual, high-quantity sales, because we did not know whether this was a plot that was unitary or if there were several others plan to go on around the same time. i hope they give you a sense from the info-sharing aspect what we're trying to build here, to get information to washing but to also get information back. >> we are ready for on quiet -- we are ready for questions from the audience.

>>-charles, and i make tax attorney. i am a loyal supporter of the obama administration. i had a short question. in a recent article, under the bush administration there was enormous electronic storage facilities set up in texas and utah basically to get copies of all e-mails transmitted in america. i am quoting the article. would you know if that is the truth? and if it was the truth, has the obama administration shut down these collection efforts or are all our e-mail still being transmitted to some government agency? >> i cannot comment to that because i do not know the answer. but i can tell you how we are interacting with the nsa.

the cyber world, if you look at cyber security, pursuant to president obama's review which he instituted at the beginning of the administration, the issue was how to organize cyber security for the united states. this is a rapidly evolving area. all through the government people have different responsibilities and budget lines and so forth. under the review, the department of defense has the responsibility for the dot.mil universe, dhs has the civilian side of government and the interaction with the private sector which controls 85% of ours nature and -- our nation's critical infrastructure. we both need to use the nsa. we were not going to build two nsa's. it is a huge national asset and

it is really impossible on replication. the sec brief -- what the secretary of defense and i did was to negotiate how each of us would use the technical resources of the nsa, and under our memoranda, the folks from the department who are at the nsa, and i have folks now at the nsa, have also within people from our office of privacy, people from our office of civil rights and civil liberties, and people from our office of general counsel. we do know what the american people fearing that in our efforts -- we do not want the american people fearing that in our efforts to protect our jurisdiction, we are somehow going to him properly review or

retain their personal data. -- improperly review or retain their personal data. >> fox news. what are your thoughts on the rebuilding of the world trade center, and would that make it a bigger threat than it was before? what can the federal government do to work on security with the nypd and the port authority? >> i think the decision to rebuild is a local decision. some of the leaders from all law enforcement and first responder community are here at the lecture this evening. and i thank them for that. but i am very confident, whatever decision made, that the people of new york and new york city are very well protected. it is a very impressive

operation there. >> i am part from "time magazine." and other incidents that the dhs is unambiguously collecting private information, which is at borders, with a searching for a digital devices. dhs asserts the power to do that, without suspicion or explanation. i understand that you keep those images and you have not said whether you have destroyed any of the data or if you share it. can you explain that policy and why that is not a dichotomy between security and liberty? >> longstanding law has been the powers of the government at the borders in determining what and

who comes in are different than once you get into the country. the standard of proof, for example, for collecting evidence is lower at the borders. once you are inside the country, it is a different issue. but the border issue is different. our authorities at the border are very large crude we have huge authorities and a huge responsibility there as to what comes in the country. and under what circumstances. there is no new law being created here. that old law was extended to laptops. and there have been for a proportional basis, very small percentage, very infinitesimal percentage of laptops that have been seized at the border to look for things like, in some

cases, they have found planning literature. in some they have found pornography, child born in particular. and the like. porn in particular. and those are turned over to the local attorney for prosecution. there is a very -- i think there is a public misconception that we are simply willy-nilly taking laptops and reading them for our own wishes. and there really is not true. it is the same authority we had that we did to search someone's backpack when they come into the country. those authorities are long standing and have served us to could avail. -- good avail.

>> thank you for being here. i am the other director of the security and program here at the center. you spoke today about the importance of information sharing. you also spoke about local and state law-enforcement now been at the frontline of national security. one of the things that you hear at you follow these issues is that sometimes state and local law enforcement and other first responders, other players on the state and local scene, have difficulty some time getting the information that they need to do their job, because the classification system, the system for classifying documents at the federal level, which as you know has been the same system in place since the cold war, emphasizes

compartmentalization, need to know restrictions, a lengthy and cumbersome process for getting clearances, and in various ways make it difficult for people to get the information they need on a timely basis. and that these problems are compounded by the fact that a lot of information that does not need to be classified his classified. how have you dealt with or experienced this issue? and whether some of your thoughts about potential solutions to make information sharing more effective to deal with the issues that classification causes? >> i agree. i think that we really need to be as transparent as we can, and we kneeled to do classic case in which it we need to deal with classification on a real-time basis. -- and we need to deal with

classification on a real-time basis. i think that this can be addressed in a couple of ways. look at the classification system itself. we have been working with doj on just that, pursuant to a presidential directive. the second is to increase the number of people qualified to receive information at different and higher levels of classification. one of the efforts made at fusion center is to increase the number of people there who can actually have access to classified information in their own right. deal withird way to it is to more quickly turn around products that can be shared at the lower level for purposes of general threat

information, and textual information, situational awareness. so for example, the night bin laden was killed, dhs and the fbi when a few hours at a fouo product out that was distributed throughout the country. followed up by a more classified product, of course, but something that could go out immediately. those of the three basic elements that we have to deal with. >> my name is jacobe could wind and i and the editor of a trade publication called it " government security news." sometimes this bonds into political correctness, and i do not mean to be insensitive, but i want to ask you a sharp question. you said earlier in your remarks that there is no single portrait of the would-be terrorist, and that the administration has no

interest in profiling, and not only are those profiling policies illegal, but they are also ineffective. common sense tells me that in most of the cases since 9/11 that we have made arrests, it would not be profiling to discover that most of these suspects were convicted parties have been men, typically under 30, often muslim. my question is, how to use square what most people would say, if they are just talking to you, that common sense would suggest those are appropriate parties to focus more attention on, given that those are the party's most often arrested? not to say that they are all men under 35 better muslim are suspects, not at all. but why would the department not focus more of its attention on that category of the

affirmation -- of individual that has turned up most often as a suspect? because you're not using good logic there. you have to use actual intelligence that you received. all you have given me is static. you have not given me a pattern, at behavior, something that would suggest that somebody is not muslim, but islamist, actually has moved into the category of the violent extremists. we have ways to make some of those cuts, and they involve the intel that comes in, the analysis that goes on. for example, we oftentimes for

travelers entering the united states -- we will not do a secondary assessment just because they are a 35-year-old male who appears to be muslim, whatever that means. but we know from intelligence that if they have a certain travel pattern over a certain period of time, that should cause us to ask some more significant questions than if they do not. and that is what secondary is all about. so we continue to focus ourselves and the focused those with whom we work in train not on status issues but on actual behavior is, tactics, and techniques that we can associate from intelligence that we know four things that we have learned or other countries have learned

that could translate into possible criminal or terrorist activity. >> i think we have time for one more question. may be over here? >> thank you, secretary i am with the national network and i have a very brief questions. new york state just opted out of secure communities and i would love to hear your thoughts about what you think that makes us more secure. the arab and muslim community were happy to hear that one program was funded. what happened to the person who had delayed applications now? is there a mechanism in place to deal with those cases?

>> yes, to the second, and we will talk to you afterwards to get you the information on that. with respect to secure communities, let me describe what it is to the audience. it is an information-sharing agreement between us and the fbi that says, when an inmate is being booked into a jail or prison and their fingerprints are taken, they are run not only against the criminal that basis but against immigration databases. it is part of our effort on the immigration side of things to prioritize those in the country illegally who are also violating other criminal laws. where do you logically find those persons first? jails and prisons. we have seen statistically that that is turning. it focuses the ice where it

needs to focus, and i will simply say with respect to new york, there have been a lot of miscommunication and understanding about secure communities. we would have to accept responsibility for that. but the plain fact of the matter is that this is a federal interoperability sharing system. so the notion that individual states had to sign agreements to be in and out of it was inaccurate. >> with that we will end. thank you very much secretary. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> if you have missed any of secretary napolitano's speech, you can see it online at c- span.org. coming up in a couple of hours, a senate foreign relations committee hearing for ryan crocker to be ambassador. you can see that at 9:30 a.m. eastern. in a few moments, today's headlines and your calls live on "washington journal." then live at 10:00 a.m. eastern, the senate judiciary committee looks into the possibility of extending the current director of the fbi's term for an additional two years. in about 45 minutes, who will talk about next year's elections talk about next year's elections with steven