>> i have not heard yet. nobody likes to wait in line. no one likes to wait in long lines. this is happening and will continue to happen. >> what will you be doing to mitigate it or will it get worse as the month goes along ? >> the procedures we used to clear passengers and cargo, they are responsible for the fact that we have a very safe aviation system. we have a very good land migration system where we know who is coming and the country. -- in to the country. lines are going to get longer. >> one more sequester question. in the sequester report that the

white house put out on friday night that everybody read the saturday morning, the secret service is taking a five percent cut to its operating account. $84 million. how did it skip? >> that is part of your empire. >> empire. [laughter] obviously one of the major responsibilities is the protection of the president and vice president. on the protective side, we will protect that. what it really means is that on the investigative side, where we handle financial identity theft, cyber crime, counterfeiting cases that originate here and around the world, secret service is the lead and many of those. those activities are being cut back. >> all three of the secretaries together, what is interesting

is that they all get along and the alumni get along. the three administrations have joined -- joint alumni events. there is something coming up on wednesday. how many people here were in dhs on day one? we have a bunch. [laughter] governor, i asked backstage if i should call him secretary or governor and he said gov. governor, tell us about day one. >> what most people don't realize is that although the gates opened on march 1, the national security council dropped by a couple days before and thank god we had a guy, in a couple weeks we were going into iraq, we want you to button up america if there's low back. we had something called liberty shield. that skeleton group individuals when out and built

relationships in the private sector just in case. the work of homeland security began before the doors even opened. >> in your book, "the test of our times," you have a chapter called buttoning up america. you talk about those early days. there is this narrative in the media that the department of homeland security was foisted on the bush administration. you resisted it, saw it coming from a hell. you did it anyway. you are in the white house as home land security adviser. is that how it happened? >> that is not exactly the narrative with which i am familiar. >> you have heard it plenty of times. >> clearly. president bush, early on, after i received the phone: september, there is no architecture for how you deal with an asymmetric threat. this new threat to our sovereignty and way of life.

his challenge to me was, let's see how this plays out. we worked for several months within the department. i recall early on, during the first of the budget discussions, trying to move some people and some money around in order to create a border centric agency without a massive reorganization. there was enormous pushback by members of the cabinet erie it this that we needed better communication, better reorganization. ultimately, it was clear that we needed something in the 21st century. even before 9/11, there had been plenty of conversations that said we need a border centric agency we have to monitor people and goods coming back and forth. finally, with resistance and small maneuvers the president decided that we needed to do more than that. there was a lot of vetting to

what belonged and did not. once the president suggested that we need a border centric agency, the cabinet finally decided it was a good idea. >> i talked to some of your colleagues, you are there and trying to do it in the white house. the meetings got crazy, right? all the people who thought they needed to have a seat at the homeland security table. it just could not be done. >> truth be known, the president with others in the white house, have a deliberative and intense three-week process within the white house. they vetted every conceivable agency that belongs or did not belong. should the secret service be under the new department? should fema? at the end of the day, without any links, they pulled together based on the national strategy

built about a year before. the aggregation of the traditional departments. with a layering on a new set of requirements. a new mission. it was done thoughtfully and energetically. done by a handful of people who worked 24/seven. at one point in time, should the fbi the part of homeland security e the president said absolutely not. the unsung heroes around the organization of the department, many of them may be here, those who just labored intensely and intensively in the bowels of the white house for three weeks. when that was all done, they brought it before the president. he approved it. away we went. >> each of these was a suited to their times. a great public face, right after 9/11, a comforting figure. michael, of double harvard.

a clerk at the sick green court -- supreme court. i wanted to ask you about the touring of dhs. it took the defense department 50 years, some people will remember it that initially the service secretaries were very powerful. they try to impose pentagon authority, it did not work. it took till 1986 until he had a -- we had a questionable powerful center of defense. where is dhs not -- in that evolution? >> tom did a great job of standing up a foundational architecture. it was not a mature department. a lot of the processes you are used to in a department like the department of justice, there was not a fully fleshed out way to manage schedule or briefing

or press or things of that sort. there was a lot of filling out the frame that had to be done. there was one advantage that we had at the dod did not have. we did not take a couple of existing pieces and put them together. there was a reshuffling. in the short run, it made it more difficult, it also meant that the entrenched way of doing business, which they faced at the pentagon, was not really present in dhs. nobody was in any trenches. everything had to be built from scratch. the opportunity, which is now continued under my successors, to bring in a sense of joint nist. -- jointness. how can we promote people operating in a joint fashion? that is really what the value proposition of the department was. >> within the u.s. government and because you now have distance, you can talk more

candidly about this, within the cabinet and government,, stability does dh -- how much credibility does dhs have go >> in my four years in office, i saw a tremendous difference in terms of the position in the department. when i came in yet -- >> >> it is the third-largest. >> it had a lot of missions previously performed by other agencies. when i first got there, we were still at a injecting your own rice bowl mentalities that other agencies had. -- protecting your own rice bowl. it was very difficult. by the time i left, and a lot of that had fallen away. it was because we have lived through a series of significant events. terrorist attempts, natural disasters, which over time

accustomed people in other agencies to work with dhs. that was a positive development. >> one of the advantages that i had an assist backed -- and i suspect michael fell this way, there was a sense of mission internally areas the offices and headquarters were spartan, that is being kind. they were all over the place. building a new department and assimilating agencies and euros that had -- bureaus that had 200 year history's. you have the business line integration. you have to do with the budget, but the sense of mission among those men and women with whom he served was the glue that held them together area -- to gather. -- together. i recall the first meeting in

the roosevelt room when the president decided to go with the department, there was tremendous resistance from everybody else. once it was on, that an admission -- that sense of mission was really remarkable area. nobody worried about overtime, they just did it area did >> did you push for it or just salute it once the decision was made? access thought it was necessary to have it. i thought the president made the right call. there were a lot of things on a border centric agency, but right after 9/11, it anthrax and everything else, it seemed to make sense in the 21st century whether you had a terrorist incident or not, to build a network system within america to help detect this post-9/11. the real challenge was a unity of effort horizontally and vertically to defeat an

asymmetric enemy. all this other agencies had traditional missions as well. we laid on top of what they were doing. earmark book room. >> -- a remarkable crew. >> it was one unified department rather than his previous beefs with the disembodied head. this is proud and independent, customs has been there for 200 years. you have been there for 10 years. where are we in the process gecko >> and a lot of melting has been done. we call it the concept of one dhs. it is the business of focusing now our missions at -- as we have matured. the ability to really say, what are our major mission areas? counterterrorism.

air land and sea border security. immigration enforcement. cybersecurity which is been the most evolved in the last couple years. and disaster response and recovery. for example, hurricane sandy last fall, fema was up there on the ground. cbp was there, the coast guard was there, we had employee is throughout the department, over 1400 of them who had taken some extra training, come to the new york area. they lived on a merchant marine vessel. they were going apartment to apartment checking on people, making sure things were going right areas disaster recovery centers and the like. oceans that our employees join

join us with and melding them, a lot of our different activities have accelerated. >> secretary napolitano, you gave your third annual address on the state of homeland security, the evolution and future of homeland security. you talked about dhs 3.0. what you mean by that? >> we are a rapidly maturing department. 10 years is nothing in the history of a large, complicated government institution. this is the most significant reorganization since the creation of dod. now we can take what we have learned, we can take some of the evolving elegy that has -- technology that has changed over time and focus on trying to identify passengers and cargo that require more attention versus those that are very low risk. we call it risked base we can really focus our attention on getting more and more people on

pre-check or global entry. that is doing your security stuff beforehand, before you get to the airport area did we can really focus on the team building out to state and local that needed to have the kind of network that secretary ridge was talking about. >> you brought up tsa. this is not a beloved department. one of the reasons is that most people's encounter with it, or impact with it is not -- you mentioned risk-based. how will we see tsa checks evolve? there is a "new york times" reporter saying that they will be able to use devices -- devices on airplanes is something different. taking liquids -- >> liquids and gels and shoes, right?

we have already been carving out things. you're 12 and under, over 75, do not take off your shoes. we have identified that as low risk groups as a whole. i hope that technology is ultimately the answer. we will be able to move to something that allows almost every passenger to keep their shoes on. in the meantime, we really have melded databases. you can check multiple things very quickly. it started these traveler programs, global entry, for those coming. pre-check for those traveling domestically. our goal is, by the end of this year, 25% of the traveling of look will be in one of those pre-check programs. that takes them out of the mainline. that will help every traveler.

most airports are not configured to add lanes. given sequester, we will have difficulty staffing the lanes we already have. what we can do is make cummins and decisions -- common sense decisions. >> overseas in many countries on plans, i was in argentina last week, when i got in the plan to come back, i did not have to take my shoes off. what are the chances that when president obama as top it with his successor on january 20, 2017 that we will be able to go through a scanner at the airport and leave our shoes on? >> i cannot the number on it. leave your me -- believe you me, if i could snap my fingers -- >> i think the secretary and john have to be recognized for moving this. it is all about evolution. the three secretaries have seen

the evolution and maturing of the department. whether it is a terrorist that you are concerned about at the airport, or terrorism generally, it is always about risk management. you cannot eliminate the risk. what do you do to manage it? we decided to move in the direction, start prescreening market. use these databases. it is all about risk management. you can possibly say to this country, we have a department of homeland security, we are connected with the defense community, we have eliminated all risk. no. there is always risk of another attack. this is a significant statement on the part of homeland security to the rest the world and america, we will start managing the risk. it is an imperfect world. let's not be breathless about it. we can start managing the risk. a marvelous job has been done the last couple of years. >> a huge amount of change in

technology has occurred in the last years. we were just beginning to talk about what kind of data was out there and how you could manage it and make risk assessed and. what technology or was in screening. 10 years have seen a transformation in both elements. that ought to reflect in a somewhat more carefully sculpted system for screening them he had 10 years ago. >> we will continue to improve on the tech allergies. we have cutting edge research being done. sometimes you say, in this country i did not have to take off my shoes. i could keep my shampoo. the threat to the united states is different. we have to manage risk as it is represented by threats to the united states. when you have a group like hq ap, very focused on taking down

and -- a plane, passenger or cargo, we have seen several activities by them over the course of our 10 years. you have to manage that risk. that is an example of the kind of things that we are managing to keep the traveling public. >> -- safe area did >> the book out about flight screening. permanent emergency. i feel like i hear you saying that even though you like to do shoes or liquids, it does not seem like it is in the near future. or is that part of the process and might eventually be feasible? >> option b. it is part of the process now, but we are working on technologies and formulating some pilot programs to see if

we can relieve that. in the meantime, this aviation system of the united states is a largest and most complex in the world. we are screaming and running 2 million passengers a day. who get onnk people planes worry about their safety. they note a are going to be safe. there is a value to that that we should all recognize. when the officer is looking at something or we are making a decision about who could be and what line, it is all done to keep you safe areas >> based on what you know about the technology, are we more likely to see a change in shoes are lit its first gecko >> -- shoes or liquids first gec? how about belt? >> realize it is easy to get into one of these programs. at that point you don't have to

go through the other screening mechanisms. there are a couple of people with microphones. i look forward to your questions. secretary, one of the things you are known for as a church around was rate relations with the sides of the aisle when he worked there. you maintained those even through traina, -- katrina. there is a book about the oranges of -- origins of dhs. it is for law students. after katrina they say that you did your own internal review of possible organizational structure. you did not call for basic change, but for the integration of a unified command. was there a possibility that fema would have been changed, gotten rid of? >> there was a.

of time early in the department where there was a lot of resistance on fema becoming part of the department. i believed it more after katrina them before that the answer was closer integration rather than separation. if you think about the capabilities you want in an emergency, fema does not have a lot of operational personnel. you want to integrate and deploy your customers, your tso, or other agents. some of the airframes and other equipment and bring that to support what is going on. the key here is planning. i used to get asked over and over, who is in charge ? the secretary of dhs would order all the elements of government to move around. that is not civilian eminence. in the united -- governance. unity of effort in the united

states. you cannot have unity of command. the way to bridge that gap is to have a planning and training capability to get people to understand what they have to do when there is a crisis areas the example i use is a baseball team. you train and exercise and play practice. when you are in the ballgame, the manager is not yelling instructions to the shortstop and third baseman. they know what to do because they played together. that was the model we try to bring to the department. >> there was some conversation about renaming fema. how close to become to that? >> i don't think it was very close. i find the least conductive part of what people do in washington in response to some challenges is moving boxes around or renaming things. [laughter] as if that is going to change them. you have to get to the actual mechanics. >> i want to go to josh

gerstein who covers a lot of issues. he has a question. >> good morning secretaries. for secretary napolitano, i wanted to ask you, the government's powers in this of counterterrorism makes certain people nervous. maybe a lot of people. i know you do a lot of these discussions talking to the public, and the book "kill or capture" that when the administration was talking about how much a chair with -- share with the public, you did not think it would be productive for the administration to be giving speeches about the legal rationale for his is for the program areas is that correct and could you lay out your philosophy on how much the public has a right to know about these matters balanced with the needs of operational security? >> i have not read the book. here is what i think the public needs to know.

in terms of kill or capture, these are among the most difficult decisions that are made. there is an emergency -- emerging policy framework around how those decisions are made. there is a legal framework which, when you read the law and read what the attorney general has said, there is a very run legal framework in which you can operate. the policy framework is and should be much narrower. that is the framework that people should have confidence it is being exercised and now that these decisions are made very carefully. >> christina next. first, we drill down on border enforcement. there has been a lot of publicity recently about some

releases of immigrant detainees. you are explaining there is a numerical issue. explain that. >> there is a story that ran last week that says we released 2000 detainees because of sequester. that is really not accurate. >> not a politico story. >> i want to put it out there. as in all things immigration, it develops its own mythology. we are constantly moving people in and out of detention. these are immigrants who -- illegal immigrants who for one reason or another, are judged better in detention been under some alternative. with sequester looming and the end of this continuing resolution in a couple of weeks, it is the perfect storm. we really have to manage so many different things because we

don't have a budget. the normal ebb and flow accounted for many of those releases. these are people who are removed or bonded out, whether status was changed, whatever reason. for sequester, getting ahead of that looming deadline, career officials made the decision that there were some very low-level low risk detainees that could be put into a supervised release program. that is what happened. we will continue to do that, recognizing, on the one hand congress says you have to maintain 34,000, and then we are not going to give you the money with which to that area also no flexibility to move money from another account to handle that. we will manage our way through this to identify the lowest risk detainees and put them in some alternative to release.

>> related to sequester or not? >> several hundred were, but not thousands. >> let me make an observation. with respect to the political environment within which we work, you have had three secretaries that had to do triage because congress cannot kind a way to create an integration policy -- immigration policy. whether they released 2000 or not, what about this, what about that, secretary chertoff and president bush tried to do it. there appears to be a bipartisan coalition around immigration formed. let us clear. the job of the secretary of homeland security with regard to securing the orders would be a heckuva of a lot easier if united states congress would forget about the partisanship and for get -- come up with a comprehensive immigration plan. [applause] >> you were president bush's

point person on immigration along with secretary gutierrez. you are at the white house, getting your marching orders. that was the last 10 there was a big ever made on immigration. we are getting a new push. what was learned? >> to follow up on the point tom made, i used to struggle with this. there is a resistance to recognizing that things have gotten better area i will not tell you that we have a perfectly secure border and you could have one, but if you look at a series of different metrics over a. of the last 10 years, there has been a steady improvement in the ritual of the border. -- control of the border. number two at college is really self-defeating. the main lesson is this -- never

technology -- acknowledge progress is self-defeating. the main lesson is, enforcing security and that it won't go away once you have some amnesty. that is the lesson of 1986. the business elite -- community has a need for less skilled work that americans will not do. the reality is, you have these agricultural workers coming in. i have never met a person is said to their graduating high school senior, i want you to be a lettuce picker when you grow up. americans do not want to do that. the third piece, you do have to have a resolution for the people here you legally who have otherwise been law-abiding that will give them some path to straightening themselves that with the lot and having a more sustainable situation where they are actually able to

contribute to this country. if you make achieving those goals a priority then you get reform. >> what are the mechanics of moving something on the hill? >> what happened in our. of time was, the president was late in his term and his ability was diminished. we have hope of starting a second term. -- president obama starting his second term. his time between getting the agreement and getting to the floor really allowed a lot of erosion from the right and left for people who did not like the plan. you have to move quickly. you do have to send a message that things have improved. you have to put facts out there so people understand that while we have not accomplished border security, there has been a lot

of progress. that has to be part of a message. >> signal if you have a question. i will ask a twitter question coming in from live stream land -- how is the deterioration of our manufacturing base a third of jobs in the last decade, created new homeland security threats? >> at think there is a lot to be said to restoring manufacturing in the united states. you can look right to the homeland security arena and take a look at critical pieces of our infrastructure that we have offshore area -- offshored. to problems in the electric grid, other areas, the dependency on foreign sources of some basic manufacturing goods is a security problem.

whoever referenced that, it is legitimate to say in the 21st century, we have to be more progressive than think about ringing these kate -- asic capabilities back. -- basic capabilities back wax transformers, they are all made overseas. we have lost mistake production. they are big and expensive and take a long time to move. they are so big that you have to get governors to find something for waving highway weight limits. after sandy, we needed transformers. that whole process set into some of the delay in getting the lights turned back on. that is one example we run into. we have to say, that is the reality. we are not going to rebuild the manufacturing capability for transformers in the near future.

now we have to do our planning around that. inc. about, if grid is down what is our plan? >> on the immigration point, one way to create jobs is not to export highly skilled engineering and technology graduates to their home countries. allow them to stay here will create jobs. i reside in california last week, it boggles the mind how many smart folks there are out there using their ingenuity to create businesses and that creates jobs. to do that, we have to continue to bring an smart folks, not send them away. >> if we could stately green card to those undergraduates and graduates in certain does ones and ask them to stay, that is the notion that we need a broad and immigration policy that gives people with talent the opportunity to stay here and

utilize their talent to advance our interests. >> i would like to hear from the three secretaries in the evolution of the acquisition program. there has been some high-profile failures, some successes, i would like to know about how it evolved into what the future might be and what the current state of the acquisition community within dhs? >> we will take one of you on that. >> i will do it. that evolution has been one of the largest ones of the last few years. in nuts and bolts of the department did not exist as they were knitting it together. procurement, human resources, those kind of things. here is what we have moved to. we have an acquisition review board that is intradepartmental.

they look at acquisitions of $1 million or more. we have an apposition program officer training capability now. we train our acquisition officers on what it is we are looking for. what our processes are. that part of the department put good governance around acquisition. which is what you want. that being said, when you are dealing with new technologies in a new domain that have to be scalable and something as large and complex as united states, you are bound to have some failures. that happens. what you want to do is have an acquisition program that allows you to ascertain as early as possible whether something will really work or not.

cut it off as quickly as you can want a decision is made that, we thought this would be really great and allow us to do x y and z. turns out, it does not work or is very expensive for whatever the reason. >> secretary chertoff also has a book. in your book, you talk about -- looking ahead, the greatest threat we face is a faltering of result. the subtle encroachment of complacency. how worried are you about that? >> it is a challenge we all face. it has probably gotten harder in the last years. the department is a victim of its own success. years go by where there has not been a hijacking or successful attack on an airline in the u.s., not another 9/11, thank

god. there is a tendency for people to wonder, why do we need all this? we recognize we need to adjust risk. that is a good thing. what is not realistic is to somehow believes, because there has not been a successful attack and people have not tried, given the nature of the defenses we have, but that means the problem has gone away. the occasional efforts recede to penetrate our defenses, like the printer plot involving a jet a couple years ago. it is a little bit like being vaccinated against polio. everybody got vaccinated 50 years ago. polio is still out there. it does not mean we stop vaccinating people it would not come back. the answer is, we do need to ask ourselves, do we need everything? but we should not kid ourselves, the threat has not gone away. >> what is the biggest threat

ye? >> the two things i worry about most, a biological attack, we have had when in this country. it could easily be one that would occur again. and a cyber attack, where the tools and capabilities of the adversary have increased. at the same time, we put more and more of what we do on the internet area not just the information, but the actual operational systems. those become potentially vulnerable. >> the president in conjunction with the state of the union address put out a executive order. how do you work with the hill to work with that order? >> the order recognizes the role of dhs.

in the civilian world, it has lead responsibilities particularly for the private sector to identify and protect the nation's infrastructure. that is very confident with our requirement in the physical world to protect the nation's core infrastructure. we are implementing that order. we planned that implementation for quite a while. we work with the nsam, the fbi. there are certain things that cannot be done by executive order. we'd like to have the same hiring flexibility for those in the cyber realm that the nsa has. they are able to make different kinds of offers and hiring packages then you would if you follow normal civil service rules. that has to be done by statute three at next -- statute area did >> i am delighted the

president signed that order. implicit in the order were a couple of problematic observations. the notion that the private sector has not invested to protect our critical infrastructure. all three of us have worked with the private sector. they have invested billions of dollars. the second thing, there are some good things, a lot of good things, but the notion that in 2013 the president has to sign an executive order compelling the federal government to share unclassified information when it is directed to a specific target -- it makes me wonder, where have we been for the past 10 years ? and began from the sharing of information.

homeland security is a consumer of information. now, 20 years after we began using the internet, we have a president who says you are allowed to share unclassified information. it is almost unthinkable that we had to come to this point. that shows you the problem inside the federal government vis-à-vis sharing rascal -- relevant information. for raising the visibility of cybersecurity, good, but the first or second provision in the executive order shows you the challenges that secretary napolitano and the private sector have going forward. >> that is an important point. it is an area where legislation would be helpful. >> there is a network of rules and laws governing what the intelligence community can look

at and not look at and talk about and not talk about. they grew up in a age when things were simple and i married that make no sense in a world in which -- binary that make no sense in a world we live in now. you limit a some of that and allowing a freer flow of information would be a big step forward. >> efforts to pass a law last year were not successful. what can be done differently this year? >> a lot of interest on the hill still. we were disappointed that congress did not act last year. we move forward. one of the things that did happen was a number of members of congress began being educated on what cyber really means. what cascading effects can

occur if cyber networks are interrupted were taken down. you're dealing with a congress whose base of knowledge is quicker than we were a year ago. there is still a lot of bipartisan interest on the hill to see what they can do to fill in the gaps. who will support that effort and do whatever we can. >> how optimistic about a cybersecurity lot this year? >> i would not put odds on it. there is a lot of interest. >> if it doesn't happen, that will be why? >> that is hard to speculate on. we are talking about the nation's core critical infrastructure. that information sharing from us to them and them to us is really what we need to have. if we get prompt notice of them seeing unusual signatures or behaviors on their networks, we

have the wherewithal at the civilian level, as we rely with proper safeguards on technology from the nsa, we to have the ability to mitigate the threat and figure out whether it is going to other institutions and mitigate that area d. >> there is a lot in the pipeline. a lot is part of your empire area how high a hierarchy is the year?ecurity lot the syriaw ths >> very high. our number one priority in terms of legislation is immigration. it is high time for immigration reform. we support both houses in that regard. >> it is a good bipartisan group. they are committed to resolve differences between both parties. i am optimistic areas if not this year, by the end of next

year. >> improved metrics of the border. are you concerned that some of those have to do with the downturn in the economy? the economy picks up thomas you can have more trouble at the order? >> that is a legitimate concern . the last two years were record amount of manpower technology. you can always do more. i have worked that order for 20 years ar. in terms of a huge effort in the country down there, that has been happening. numbers prove the case. the numbers for illegal immigrants is down. as the economy comes back, we are going to see more attempts to try and get into the united states for jobs.

this is one reason we need to address the immigration system at large. we need a better way to deal with employers who hire illegal labor. need a culture of compliance. we also need to let more people in legally. sick too small, too low. make no sense in most cases. we need to deal with fisa reforms of people can come into our country illegally through our ports. >> you do expect more illegal encroachment across the order? >> we are preparing for it, it could occur. this is why senator harper said -- congress does not need to give us more buckets, and needs to fix the ship. >> as part of your number one priorities, part of the three

leaf clover he was referring to , more enforcement will be part of that package. what needs to be done that isn't being done? >> we need to continue to put technology at the border. some off the shelf technologies that are immediately deployable. >> like what? >> things that could be deployed at night. different kinds of sensors, radar that could be moved around. and whole menu of things that make sense that the physical border. we are going to continue to put that down there if we can, given sequester. it is our intent to keep focusing on the border, recognizing, the major driver of demand -- there are two. the large one is economic.

they want to come here to work and support their families. another is drug demand. we want to focus on the narcotraffickers. we need to deal with the economic side area at >> a significant part of the challenge of those who come in legally and overstay. that is part of having a system that is effective. the technology has matured an awful lot in five or six years. >> as part of the package of the immigration bill, the immigration gang came up with one component that has been talked about. senator schumer said he was explicitly for it. some kind of electronic means of verifying employment.

a code for an enhanced social security card with a biometric device. what is the likelihood that we will wind up with that? will be inknow what the final package. i don't think the gang of eight has lighted upon that. i think something in that realm, maybe not exactly a social security card. something else. something in the realm that allows employers to hire illegal labor. it allows those applying for jobs to make sure that they have the right identification. something that is easy, inexpensive, everyone can use, that is what we are aiming for. there will be a biometric association. >> talking about ciber, there has been so much publicity recently about china hacking into news organizations, what is being done now that we know

where a lot of this hacking is coming from? >> the issue of attribution is easier said than done. just because an attack may emanate from china -- that attribution has to be done very carefully. at this point, we are in a world where the issue of hacking originated from china is a very serious issue. it needs to be viewed as such. billions and intellectual property and other things. in the cyber world, it is one of our chief problem's. >> before you say goodbye, we do a little bit on the personal side. governor, you are personal friends with arnold palmer, you

are a big golfer. give us a tip. [laughter] ,> don't cheat on your handicap it does not give you any benefits. >> was arnold palmer like to golf with gecko >> he is a real delight areas -- delight. his success as an applet is overshadowed by his personality and commending us. he likes people who like golf. he remains very competitive at 80 plus years of age. i remember watching him on the black and white tv. my dad and i were part of arnie's army. one of the benefits of public service. i only know one king, it is arnold palmer. >> secretary chertoff, on april 7 i am running my first race, a 10 mile or -- 10-miler.

you run 10 miles for fun. what do i need to be doing echo >> i take my hat off, you are starting with a 10 mile race. most people start with a 5k. >> go big or go home. but my basic tips, be careful what you eat the night before and the day of areas don't break in a new parachute is when you run the race. get there early so you can get position to calm before, and try to have fun. cripes what should i do in the five weeks gecko >> -- five weeks? >> you do not want to over train. >> is a true that on one airplane flight you read to robert carroll books? >> yeah. i finished "master of the senate" and moved to the most

recent one. anybody interested in history or how legislation moves and how big ideas can be forged within government. phenomenal books. >> you are the u.s. in arizona, attorney general, governor, you are now working in washington -- what did you learn from "master of the senate?" >> it was a different day and time. 24/7 news cycle changes the dynamic care. a lot. one of the things that you appreciate, you normally do not get the whole policy done in one fell swoop. sometimes you have to take this much, then this much, then this much.

we saw that with the civil rights act. they were building on each other. at the other thing you that the timing is critical. when politics and policy online is when you have your best shot at getting something done. which is why i am cautiously optimistic that comprehensive immigration reform is doable. it needs to be done. we need to get it done now. >> this will come as a huge surprise to your two predecessors and people in this audience, but your dream job is not to be secretary of the department of homeland security. in the past, you said that your dream job to be commissioner of major league baseball. is that -- >> that would be great area. i follow how the teams are doing. i think the nationals will have

a great season. [laughter] [applause] >> we will end on that. the two secretaries were kind enough to sign their books. who is an alumnus of the ridge administration? you got a book. the chertoff administration? you've got a book. >> i have not written a book. [laughter] >> yet. thank all of you out in live stream land. they did to my colleagues who made this possible. i like this 10th anniversary background we have here. thank you for coming out so early. thank the three tenors, three secretaries for a fantastic conversation. [applause] thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> coming up, "washington journal." >> one of the things i don't mention the oak but always grabbed me was a report in the hope consulting report of one of the focus groups. they interview a guy, i think his name was mark, and he encapsulated the mentality pretty well. he said, i don't do research because i know that charities are going to do some good. where i put my time in research is things like products. i am buying a microwave, i would

do research. i do not research charities. that is the prevailing ethic among the owners -- among donors. all charities are not alike. there are good ones come about once, once in the middle. we have to get money to the best me. so they survive and the others do not hurry at >>"with charity for all" author ken stern, sunday night at 9:00 on book tv, this weekend on c-span two. coming up on the next "washington journal", congressman tim murphy talks about trying to bridge gaps in federal mental health programs. then, they talk about the economic impact on sequestration. sequestration. later,