Other transcripts

Transcripts

March 20, 2003

Host: Michael Grant
Topics:
"First Thursday,"
Governor Janet Napolitano's monthly interview on HORIZON
In-Studio Guests:
Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano

>> Michael: Tonight on "Horizon," it is our monthly visit with Governor Janet Napolitano. Tonight the Governor will discuss the war's impact on our state, including an alleged specific threat against the Palo Verde nuclear generating station. Although we are at war, there are still plenty of legislative issues to discuss with the Governor, including the resolution of this year's budget shortfall.

>> Good evening, I'm Michael Grant. The first Thursday of every month will feature a visit from Governor Janet Napolitano on "Horizon." Her visit this month was delayed because you'll note this is not the first Thursday, due to special programming here on Channel 8. On "First Thursday, the Governor on Horizon," she'll discuss the big issues facing our state and in tonight's case, the world. In addition, we will ask the Governor questions submitted by our viewers. Our first question gets to our main topic tonight. "My question is what is your take on the war with Iraq, and what kind of impact will it have on Arizona?" Here to answer that question and many others is Governor Janet Napolitano. Governor, good to see you.

>> Janet Napolitano: Good to see you.

>> Michael: Well, what's your take on the war and what's the impact on the state?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, I think my initial take is, you know, we're there now, we need to support our troops abroad. I hope it is a quick effort, and successful. We have a number of Arizonans over there in combat status and we're very concerned for them and for their families here. Yesterday I met with the spouses of a number of our National Guard people who have been called up over the past months and talked about some of the issues they confront as, you know, their income earners and co-child caregivers are moved abroad or moved to a base elsewhere in the United States. So we're there now. Now, the other impacts are hard to tell. We don't know the length of the war. We don't know for certain what the outcome is going to be, therefore we can't with certainty measure its impact, say, for example, on the national economy and hence the Arizona economy.

>> Michael: We do have a couple, I suppose, historical precedents. We have the gulf war 10 years ago, and then we have 9/11, which falls in its own category. In both instances, one impact was an impact on Arizona's tourism industry. Would you expect the same thing?

>> Janet Napolitano: Yeah, we actually plotted out what happened after 9/11 and the Persian Gulf with respect to tourism, you know, what happened to people flying into the state and that sort of thing, and we've been working with our Office of Tourism and local departments of tourism to try to mitigate impacts of that, even in advance of the war.

>> Michael: I read your comments as you're not fully behind the war. Am I reading too much into your comment that we are there now?

>> Janet Napolitano: No, you're reading too much into it. I think that it's unfortunate that diplomatic channels were not more successful. I think we all wish that would have been a preferred way to resolve this, but you know, this is a decision made at the highest levels, and I think ultimately it will be in best interests of the country.

>> Michael: Okay. Let me shift to today's story. I think it started in the "Washington Times", if I recall correctly.

>> Janet Napolitano: Right.

>> Michael: It was undermined. Then it came back to life. It concerns a threat, alleged, against Palo Verde nuclear generating station. I realize you can't talk completely freely about it, but is it a valid alleged threat?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, I can't talk about the specific intelligence we have. This I think all started because this week I sent the National Guard out to provide additional protection of Palo Verde in response to a request from the Department of Homeland Security, which I think gave the identical request to every Governor who has a nuclear power plant in their state, and I will tell you and I will tell the viewers out there that Palo Verde is very safe. It's probably about the safest place in Arizona right now, but we have provided it some additional security, just to make people even feel more secure about it.

>> Michael: There are a number of factors that help with Palo Verde. It's remotely located.

>> Janet Napolitano: Right.

>> Michael: As you've indicated, it is incredibly sturdily constructed and, of course, if the worst should happen, it is only moments from Luke Air Force Base.

>> Janet Napolitano: That's right. And within the plant facilities itself, and I've been in that plant facility. I've gone through their security operations in place before this week, and there are multiple kind of fail-safe protections there. So, you know, we provided some additional guard out there, and they will remain until at least we go off heavy orange, which is really what we're on right now, but we also have been in touch with our federal colleagues about Hoover dam, Glen Canyon dam, the ports. We've been in touch with the railroads and the utilities, all of the things that comprise what's known as critical infrastructure to make sure that everything is tightened down, batten down the hatches, so that people can continue to go on with their lives, which is what they should do while we are in hostilities abroad.

>> Michael: If I recall correctly, Hoover Dam was closed for a number of months after 9/11. Have they actually closed Hoover Dam at this point in time?

>> Janet Napolitano: They've closed it to certain kinds of traffic. One of the things I've been working on was in Washington D.C. at a meeting about securing federal funding so we can complete the bypass and remove the whole problem of traffic going over the top of the dam.

>> Michael: An issue that was raised recently was this whole issue of soft targets. I'm sure they've been on radar screens before, but people pointed out that one of the real problems that exist are soft targets like shopping malls, office buildings and other things that are not routinely equipped with security measures that we have been talking about on a nuclear generating station or a dam or other things. How much of a concern is that?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, there are always concerns. And what we have to hope is that through the increased intelligence and surveillance that's been going on since 9/11 and increasing cooperation among federal agencies and between federal and state law enforcement agencies that we have a much better intelligence base with which to predict and prevent a soft target from actually being attacked. But, you know, we're not going to shut down our shopping malls, and we're not going to shut down our other facilities because, you know, we're going to live our lives. That's what we need to do.

>> Michael: Incidentally, another question from a viewer here. "Are our local counter-terrorism efforts coordinated nationwide? That's one of the prime reasons for the homeland security cabinet level agencies.

>> Janet Napolitano: That's right. And I will tell you, even, for example, last night, around 9:00, 9:30, I got a call. The White House wanted to get all of the governors on the line

>>> Janet Napolitano: We had the White House. We had the Department of Homeland Security. We had the National Security Council briefing everything that had gone on that day and what was expected -- yesterday, and what was expected to happen today. There has been an incredible effort to make sure that states and localities and the feds are coordinated and exchanging information. It is not perfect yet. It's very difficult. You're talking, you know, the United States we have 32,000 police departments, for example, just the sheer logistics of it are mind numbing; nonetheless, it's much better than it was on September 11th.

>> Michael: What about the border? Did you send any additional National Guard contingents down to the border?

>> Janet Napolitano: I did not. We spoke with the person who is in charge of all of the ports along our border, and what we were told is that federal agents who have had other responsibilities are being deployed down to our border, in part because they are going to be doing more inspections and things of that nature, and we want to keep the lines moving. We don't want the lines to get hours and hours longs, because there is a lot of legitimate commercial traffic that needs to go to those ports and that's vital to our economy that it happen. So those resources are being moved down there as we speak.

>> Michael: But it leaks like a sieve, doesn't it? The immigration issue that we have, it certainly seems logical that one out of a hundred of those people or one out of a thousand out of those people unfortunately might be a terrorist?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, and you know what, if you look at the Arizona border and how it is geographically constrained, there is always going to be the possibility of people crossing illegally, bringing contraband over illegally, but nonetheless, I think that we can do a much better job of policing a lot of -- particularly the vehicle traffic that comes through, because it has to come through on the roads.

>> Michael: Where are you and George Cunningham on the war budget?

>> Janet Napolitano: We have a number of scenarios. I don't call it the war budget, but I do think that as we go into the next couple of months, we need to be prepared to deal with different contingencies. We have thought through four different kind of war scenarios and working with economists and the models we use. George is working on that analysis now. Some of the models actually would predict that the economy would take an immediate upturn. That's just something I will be talking over with legislative leadership once we know better what the situation abroad is.

>> Michael: The budget. You delivered to the legislature in January, one of the points of criticism of it was what many consider to be an overgenerous estimate of growth in state revenues. I think it was around 3-1/2 percent or so, particularly given these times. I realize you just said there is one scenario where revenues go up, but given most probable scenarios, are you rethinking at all that projection of state revenue?

>> Janet Napolitano: No, I think that's a very good projection. We're in constant contact with economists here at Arizona State University who, you know, keep inputting new data and so forth to see if we should make a move off of that. That 3-1/2 percent is not only consistent with what we're coming out with at the state level, but it's consistent with what the national forecasters are saying for Arizona. It's consistent with President Bush's own budget and his economic forecasts for next fiscal year. He predicts a 3-1/2 percent revenue uptick as well. We feel comfortable about that.

>> Michael: JLBC panel says flat may be optimistic but maximum 1%?

>> Janet Napolitano: I will say with all respect, I haven't seen a single economist or a forecast be that pessimistic.

>> Michael: Let me touch on -- and you already mentioned meeting with reservist families. One thing that's come out recently is the number of police officers that have been -- that are being lost to the reserves. Is that a -- is that a concern?

>> Janet Napolitano: One of the things I did yesterday was I directed our adjutant general to make an analysis of the police departments, fire departments and the like. We've had about 1400 servicemen called up so far. We don't know how much more will be called up, but so far, I'm not getting any information that it is really hurting our ability to provide basic law enforcement.

>> Michael: Any promise of additional federal monetary support --

>> Janet Napolitano: I wish.

>> Michael: -- in these times? I know the Mayor of New York City, I think, was talking to the administration about that earlier this week.

>> Janet Napolitano: Yeah, I was too, as were the governors when we were on the phone with Secretary Ridge and he volunteered before any Governor raised it -- he said, look, I know the states are in fiscal crises, I'm not the only governor dealing with a big budget deficit, and I think the intent is that the administration is going to go to the Congress and seek an additional appropriation for the war, and what we are going to do is work with Department of Homeland Security to see if in that request for a supplemental, they will include increased assistance to the states. We're covering things and additional personnel costs over time. All of those sorts of things add up, not only for the states but for the cities and towns as well.

>> Michael: Okay. Well, let's turn to some legislative issues at this point in time. This year's budget put satisfactorily to bed in your opinion?

>> Janet Napolitano: Yes, I think the 2003 budget, we put satisfactorily to bed. I think it was overall a very reasonable compromise on how to get there, and now we're all rethinking and looking at 2004 and getting ready to get back to the bargaining table.

>> Michael: How has this process worked or not worked as the case may be, because I've heard both sides of this story, where you meet one-on-one with Speaker of the House, Jake Flake, and Ken Bennett, without staff there, as I understand, the three you have sit down, talk about the process. Is that -- does that work?

>> Janet Napolitano: It's actually a larger group. It's the speaker and the majority leader of the house, so it's Speaker Flake and Majority Leader Farnsworth. It's the President of the Senate Bennett and the Majority Leader Bee. The Minority Leader of the House John Lorado and Jack Brown and me. And I made the suggestion that we should do this without staff, because we are the elected officials. We are ultimately responsible for what happens, and that's primarily how we negotiated the 2003 budget until we got to the very end when we needed some technical staff inside the room to help us with fund balances and some of the more small item issues that are implicit in the budget.

>> Michael: That's one of the monkey wrenches that I heard about the process, was that as the group would get down to smaller issues, you would say, well, okay, what's this number and everyone would stair blankly at each other and then you would have to recess to get a technical person who would supply that.

>> Janet Napolitano: That was only one meeting and after that, we decided no, let's have -- I have the head of my OSPB, which is my budget office. They have the guy that's the head budget guy for JLBC, and let's have those two individuals in the room, but the primary purpose and the thing that needs to be -- cannot be understated is the fact that we all sat down together, we're all elected office holders. We come from much different backgrounds and very different philosophies and perspectives, but we were able to deal with each other and get through and get a 2003 budget that passed with nary -- only one or two dissenting votes in the legislature. I haven't seen that happened in a long, long time.

>> Michael: Legislature critical of you because you said on the campaign every dollar should be on the table, they said fine, we think federal dollars ought to be on the table too, you vetoed.

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, it's silly. They knew it was going to be vetoed. Jane Hull said don't send it to me I'm going to veto it. We receive federal funds that basically are directed where they need to go. They go primarily to law enforcement, but they go to other programs as well.

>> Michael: AHCCCS?

>> Janet Napolitano: Some to AHCCCS. Some to DES. Anyway, they want to appropriate, they went through this whole laborious process, which they can barely get through the appropriations that they have to do for state funds, and it would be a big legislative interference with the executive's administrative ability. I did use that as an opportunity for a veto and they are taking my campaign comment out of context. What I meant was we have to look at all issues. What I said with respect to federal funds is, look, as we do the budget and we do the 2004 budget, as other funds come in, those should be transparent to you so we know overall the total pie that we are dealing with, particularly for the larger agencies. That's a lot different than putting every dollar from Washington D.C. through this process in Phoenix which can only be described as tortuous.

>> Michael: Isn't there some flexibility in those funds, though? I know many of them are -- I assume the vast majority are earmarked in AHCCCS.

>> Janet Napolitano: They didn't write the bill that way. They wrote the bill to cover everything. It wasn't -- like I said, Republican and Democratic Governors in the alike have vetoed that thing the day it comes up, and I followed the historic tradition.

>> Michael: Is that a classic struggle between the executive branch and the legislature?

>> Janet Napolitano: Yeah, and I think we'll see wrinkles on it as we go through 2004. There is a separation of powers issues here. The plain fact of the matter is I was elected to manage these agencies and that's what I intend to do.

>> Michael: Are you concerned about overspending by the Department of Economic Security? The allegation is that it overspent by $48 million.

>> Janet Napolitano: Let's not use "overspending" as a pejorative in this sense. What the Department of Economic Security was confronting was the fact that in a down economy, more people become eligible for their programs. They are the safety net agency and so, yes, we had enrollment growth and subsidized child care. Yes, he had enrollment growth in some of the other programs that they run, but it's not like somebody was putting money in their own pocket, for example.

>> Michael: No, no.

>> Janet Napolitano: It's a function of enrollment growth. I think as we go forward into 2004, one of the things I'm going to have to break the habit of is there has been a habit to underestimate enrollment growth on all of these programs and then shriek foul when in fact more people, which everybody knew more people were going to be eligible, actually, are enrolled. That's an unhealthy dialogue. We need to be realistic about the fact that we have a lot of families in Arizona who need help. They need help with job training. They need help with child care. They need help so that they can participate in the Arizona economy, and hopefully that help is temporary, but it's also necessary.

>> Michael: But let's take the day care example. As I understand it, DES not only continued to enroll children who as part of the entitlement side of the program, but those that did not have to be enrolled, despite the fact that the legislature had not funded it for the additional dollars last fall. Is that appropriate?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, again, I think you have to understand exactly the course of dealing. You know, it's like contract law. You have the actual contract, but then you have the course of dealing between the parties, which really sets the context. And the context here was that DES repeatedly from last fall on was telling the legislature and Governor Hull, the numbers. These are the numbers. And nobody said "stop"; right?

>> Michael: Didn't the -- didn't they say, sorry, here's $3 million?

>> Janet Napolitano: No, they said here's $3 million and come back -- they punted to this legislature essentially. The last legislature punted to this one, you know. So --

>> Michael: Did DES come back in January, though?

>> Janet Napolitano: Yes, the legislature was fully informed of this. That's not really the point in my view. The point is that when you say the optional category, you're talking about working families at 165% of poverty line. That is hardly any money at all. Many of those people wouldn't be able to work without getting a child care subsidy. Then they go, we just pick them up again on the welfare roles because they would quit their job. Many of the clients in this particular program are single mothers who wouldn't be in it but for the fact that they are not getting child support. So they are caught between, you know, a rock and a hard place. So let us not pretend that this didn't really affect working families and children of working families. And in an era where the business community here and others are all talking about readiness for school, school readiness, early literacy, all of those things that we want to build in Arizona, well, child care is an important part of that as well.

>> Michael: I understand. I assume, though, that as a routine matter, you think that agencies should live within their budgets?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, I think agencies should be well managed and that as many dollars as we can ought to go into the services that are appropriated for and I've taken significant -- that's one of the reasons I ordered one of my first efficiency reviews to be of DES. It's a huge agency, a very complicated agency, but it's one where I think we can achieve streamlining and management improvement and we are working on that right now.

>> Michael: Politics, 2004 presidential primary. You've moved it up to --

>> Janet Napolitano: February the 3rd.

>> Michael: Explain to me how this works. The legislature, of course, is threatening to defund the primary. I guess it costs about $3 million or so. This is a concept they did not discuss in 1996 and 2000.

>> Janet Napolitano: When it was a Republican primary, it was okay. Somehow when it's a Democratic primary, it's not. Nothing partisan about that whatsoever.

>> Michael: No, I understand that there is a lot of politics going on there. But my question goes to -- I don't understand how if they defund it, if there is no money for it, how can it go forward? How does that work?

>> Janet Napolitano: Well, they have to actually -- if you read the law that sets up the primary and gives the Governor the discretion to move the primary, it's basically self-executing. It says the Secretary of State shall request, and the legislature shall appropriate the amount necessary for the primary.

>> Michael: I see.

>> Janet Napolitano: They have to repeal that law. I think they'll have a difficult time doing that.

>> Michael: Is it possible that the Republican majority that passed that back in 1995 -- I guess it might be rethinking that concept?

>> Janet Napolitano: Let's remember, that law was passed because they wanted to have an Arizona primary for Phil Grant when he was a presidential candidate. And I've kind of jokingly said to some of my Republican colleagues, if you don't want to pay for the primary, I'm going to send the Republican party a bill for last two because only the Republicans could participate in them.

>> Michael: The point has been made for a long time that moving Arizona up in the queue is good for Arizona.

>> Janet Napolitano: It's very good for Arizona.

>> Michael: It's probably impossible to estimate the value New Hampshire enjoys from its role, and I take it you agree with the analysis?

>> Janet Napolitano: Agree with the analysis that the Republicans made when they first established our primary that we need to be national players. We are a growing state. We need more national attention, not less, and we're already seeing what the effect of just this one administrative change has made. All of the Democratic candidates have been flocking in here. They are all going to have headquarters here. We're going to have an exciting presidential year and that means some Arizona issues will take prominence on the national stage. That's good for Arizona.

>> Michael: Now explain to me the request to the debate commission to hold one of the three debates here,

>> Janet Napolitano: One of the big four. In the presidential general election, there are three presidential debates and one vice presidential debate and actually Mayor Giuliano in Tempe has been working on this in putting in a bid for Tempe, for Arizona state to host a debate, and I have added my name and efforts to that. I think it would be a great thing for Arizona. It would be great advertising for Arizona. And it could be very exciting. So it doesn't, you know, it's certainly not a done deal, we're just in the beginning of the process, but I think we have a pretty compelling case to make. New, growing, vibrant western state with a diverse population, let's have a debate here.

>> Michael: I think last week, had the fire summit up in Prescott -- is my timing off?

>> Janet Napolitano: A week ago Monday.

>> Michael: Here's the perception I got from the press report, but I was not there. It sounded to me like one of the primary issues was not really materially confronted, and that's environmental appeals that will slow things like forest thinning and other operations. Was that issue confronted or not?

>> Janet Napolitano: It was talked about, and -- but also a number of issues were talked about. We talked about the need for thinning. We talked about timber salvage and timber salvage operations. We talked about prevention, but also talked about response and cross-training responders for what could be a very bad fire season. Talked about the bark beetle and its impact on forest health and there was consensus on a number of things. There was consensus on thinning in the urban wildland interface. There was consensus on bringing in some commercial interests to help us deal with the salvage of small diameter trees. There was consensus on some of the issues affecting forest firefighting and where people and equipment is deployed. Other things we need to keep talking about are bringing people to the table, and we will be hosting on the Governor's web site in the next, you know, 30 days, an action plan about how we're going to do that as we go forward and confront some of the more contentious issues.

>> Michael: Governor Janet Napolitano, we appreciate your time. We'll see you next month.

>> Janet Napolitano: You bet.

>> Michael: Tomorrow, join us for a special "Horizon" at a special time to accommodate PBS coverage of the war. "Horizon" will air at 6:30 instead of 7:00 tomorrow night. Joining us will be veteran broadcast journalist Hugh Downs who will give us his perspective on media coverage of the war. And following Downs' appearance, journalists will bring us up to date on the latest local news. That is tomorrow, a special edition of "Horizon" at a special time, 6:30, instead of 7:00. Thanks for being here on this Thursday evening. I'm Michael Grant. Have a great one. Good night.