Remarks for Secretary Tom Ridge at National Press Club

Release Date: 09/07/04 00:00:00

Washington, DC
National Press Club
September 7, 2004

Secretary Ridge:  Thank you, ladies and gentlemen.  Thank you.  First of all, I want to thank Doris Margolis and the Speakers Committee for giving me another opportunity to spend some time at this very important, very valuable forum with all of you.  

Sheila, thank you for your kind introduction.  I'm a little disappointed.  I brought so many members of my staff because we wrote in some applause lines that, if nobody else applauded, I figured they would be able to do that, but apparently, nobody's allowed to applaud.  So, I'll just tell them you don't have to applaud to those -- remember we rehearsed it so you don't have to deal with that stuff.

It's great to be with you today and I thank you for giving me an opportunity to be part of the National Press Club Speaker Series.  As you will hear me mention later in my remarks, the security of our nation is furthered by the work of responsive, accurate, quality journalism.  

The reporting of National Press Club members on 9/11 and thereafter has well exceeded that standard.  Nearly three years later, as we have seen since 9/11, in your reports of chilling acts of terrorism, from Beslan to Madrid, Riyadh, Baghdad, and of recent natural disasters, Hurricanes Charley and Frances, your dedication to getting the story, getting it right, and getting it to the world is a good thing for this free country and our nation thanks you.

A little more than three years ago, speakers who came to the National Press Club had a difficult task.  The shock of a nation was apparent as we all struggled to find words that could express our grief, our anger, and our sheer disbelief at the depth of inhumanity demonstrated by terrorists on September 11th.  

And yet, there was no struggle in expressing our collective resolve, never a question that we would rise from this adversity, and not one call needed for national unity.  Our resolve, our courage, our solidarity, it was all there.  That is the character of a country terrorists profoundly underestimated.  

It is the way of free citizens; it is the way of patriots who first joined together more than 228 years ago to fight for the chance to call a land a country, to call a people free, and to call a way of life “America.”  It is the way of citizens who, as Thomas Jefferson once put it, understand the hardships, the duty, and yes, the glory, in uniting in “common effort for the common good.”

The tragedy of 9-11 reminded us something important about ourselves: that despite great hardships in our nation's history, a Civil War, two World Wars, despite terrible, heart wrenching catastrophes -B this great republic has always endured.  And that in facing new hardships such as a new enemy, a new war, a challenge of epic proportions, not only are we all equal to the task.  As citizens, we are all joined to it, united in the common effort for the common good.  

Three years after 9-11, I can tell you that working in common effort for the common good is the way of homeland security.  And when I say homeland security, I'm not speaking of a federal strategy; rather, the mission and the mandate of a nation.  

Homeland security in the 21st century is really about the integration of a nation or nations, everyone pledged to freedom's cause, everyone its beneficiary, and thus, everyone its protector.  It's a philosophy founded on the planks of shared responsibility, shared leadership, shared accountability.  A new notion of federalism led by national leaders, but also governors and mayors and airline personnel, border patrol agents, the intelligence community, law enforcement, firefighters, business leaders, international partners, citizens and freedom-loving people everywhere.

And so, that is why today, three years after a searing and sobering tragedy, I want to speak to you not just about the department's progress, but about the nation's progress.  For it is a strong record of accomplishment made stronger by the shared commitment of ordinary, extraordinary citizens.  

Together, as a nation, we've reconstructed and unified programs, people and priorities in a way that has facilitated speed, openness and outcomes.  We joined together to seek out the most advanced technologies.  We've worked to reduce the vulnerabilities that were exploited on September 11th and think analytically about those that could be exploited in the future.  We've examined our critical infrastructure, our transportation systems, our borders, our ports, and, of course, the skies overhead. Nothing was or is beyond our scope of analysis and review.

We took the challenge head-on as a country and today, you can see and feel the difference in ways both large and small.  Permanent protections are in place that did not exist a year ago.  Some didn't even exist half a year ago.  And these protections make it harder for terrorists to attack us.

I have been given the opportunity to travel to cities large and small around the country and to countries around the world and I have seen some extraordinary things, including the hard work of dedicated people at our borders and our seaports and our airports, at our fire houses and our police stations, our hospitals, and our universities and research centers. That's where you'll find many of the heroes in the War Against Terror.  

From the 180,000 men and women with whom I work in this department to people in our hometowns and communities, to citizens in the vast corners of the globe, you'll find those who do the daily and sometimes dangerous work of keeping this country both safe and free.  You'll find those who have succeeded in bringing about exceptional progress in three years time.

One need only look at the vast scope of information-sharing and critical infrastructure protection.  And let me be clear, part of our mission is to turn information into courses of action which we can then communicate to those who can immediately ramp up security.

As the 9-11 Commission so rightly framed it, “The need to know has been replaced by the need to share.”  And in fact, widespread information sharing is the hallmark of the nation's new approach to homeland security.  That is why we have developed new tools for communication that reach horizontally across federal departments and vertically to our partners at the state, local, territorial, and tribal levels as well as out to the private sector as well.

Just this morning, for example, I visited the Department's National Targeting Center.  The NTC looks at information from both internal and external sources and combines it with intelligence and threat information to ensure that potentially dangerous people and cargo are targets before they ever reach our shores.  It's really the centerpiece, the critical mass, the driver to securing our land borders, sea and airports.  

Three years ago, the concept of a National Targeting Center, let alone the capability for such a center did not exist.  But after a year and a half on the job, the NTC, along with our partners in the intelligence community, have identified more than 800 different individuals who were subjects of interest for reasons associated with terrorism.  And during the period of heightened alert last December, the Targeting Center played a vital role in analyzing information that helped us protect airline passengers at the time of increased threat.  

They're not here, but I do have to give public credit and recognition to the extraordinary leadership of Commissioner Rob Boehner and his team.  They've done an extraordinary job out there.

Galvanizing these efforts is the new Homeland Security Operations Center, a 24-hour-a-day, seven-day-a-week nerve center, is now a part of our permanent infrastructure to protect this country.  Now, obviously, this nerve center would not be an effective tool without the participation of our partners, state and local partners with whom we can and do communicate on a daily basis, sharing information at both the classified and the unclassified level to enhance security, all of which widens the communication channels that were so limited, in some places nonexistent, three years ago.  

One of the ways we both give and receive this input is through the Homeland Security Information Network.  We launched it this spring.  This is a real-time collaboration system that is already being used by more than a thousand individuals who have access to it through our computers to report incidents, crimes, and potential terrorist acts to one another, but also to the Department of Homeland Security.

It's like an instant messenger system for law enforcement and other public safety officials across the country.  Already, we've reached full connectivity with all 50 states.  Remaining territories, counties, and others will be linked to the system by the end of this year.

Now, interestingly, the idea of this network and the plan was developed in its early stages by officials in the state of California and the city of New York.  They brought us the idea, they helped us advance the concept and as a result, multiple jurisdictions, disciplines and emergency operation centers now receive and share the same intelligence and tactical information.  They can all operate on the same -- at the same situational awareness level.

In fact, last New Year's Eve, from our first -- from our operation center at the department, I was able to watch firsthand the state, county and emergency operation centers reporting to us online, sharing their information and operational picture in real time as that evening of high threat progressed from the East Coast to the West Coast, starting with the operation center in New York City, moving to the mid-America, through Las Vegas and out to L.A.  Again, the connectivity is real-time, 24-hours-a-day, seven-days-a-week, into our ops center.

It's a forward leap in progress, when you think about it.  Three years ago, some of our nation's most vital structures were protected by a “No Trespassing” sign planted on a firm fence.  But now, we take information, map it against the infrastructure, and place protections where they are needed most.  

The scope is huge, from the safety of our food and water supply to the power plants that run energy to our homes, from the backbone networks of our financial services sector to the route of every hazardous material truck on the road, from every facility and structure and roadway to the people who work and use them.  

But two-way information flow, combined with the speed of action, not to mention strong, strong partnerships and leadership in the private sector have significantly increased the security of our most critical assets in three years time, again making us safer than we have ever been.

It's important to note: these are tools of prevention and protection, tools designed to stop an attack before it ever takes place.  We have also given great attention to tools of response.  Achieving coordination throughout the first-responder community is one of the greatest challenges facing our country.  Many of us know that part of the tragedy of September 11th was that equipment did not work across jurisdictions and disciplines.  

Fire department radios couldn't transmit to police department radios.  Firefighters rushing in from other cities and even neighborhoods were, in some cases, unable to assist because the couplings that attach hoses to hydrants simply wouldn't fit without an adaptor.  These problems cried out for a solution.  They were not compatible, these couplings and the hydrants, on their own.  They needed the adaptor.

Now, there are immediate steps we are taking in the short term to improve connectivity in a crisis with the first priority being on communication.  Earlier this year, we identified technical specifications that will allow first-responders to communicate with one other during a crisis -- and this is interesting -- regardless of the frequency or the mode of communication.  This system, quite simply, is a technology translator.  In other words, whether information comes in from a landline, radio or some form of wireless, it's interpreted and then goes back out in the same language in which it came.

But we also needed and are working together toward a permanent solution, one that will not only help us respond to terrorist incidents, but also a criminal event or a natural disaster and private sector ingenuity will help us address everything from full spectrum communications to standards for equipment our first-responders use.  The private sector has responded with both innovative and promising ideas.

As you can imagine, securing our homeland and protecting our citizens is a huge task.  We must guard thousands of miles of borders, shoreline, highways, railways and waterways.  That has required broad-based security protocols, ones that can continue to welcome the free flow of trade and travel, but also keep terrorists out.  Understandably, three years ago, such a level of security against terrorism was not a high priority.  

Think about it.  Before September 11th, we never looked in a container of cargo until it reached our shores, though nearly 20,000 containers arrive through our ports every single day.  Today, while we're having lunch, there are U.S. inspectors in Rotterdam, Singapore, Hong Kong and 22 other international ports of trade working alongside our allies to target and to screen cargo, adding yet another layer of protection for our ports, our products, and our people.

Before September 11th, ticket agents simply asked who packed a traveler's bag.  You remember that.  You walked up to the counter, the well-intentioned individual on the other side said, because this was a security protocol, “Has this baggage been in your possession since you left the house?”  How many of you said, “No, a total stranger gave it to me when I walked into the airport today?”

In the sense of things, we thought we were doing the right thing, just making that appropriate inquiry.  Today, we have deployed newly trained screeners and thousands of federal air marshals.  We've hardened cockpit doors on the aircraft; we've introduced state-of-the-art technologies which, from the curb to the cockpit, have made airline travel safer.

Before September 11th, visitors at our borders faced an inspection process with three distinct individuals and three distinct processing lines.  Today, we have unified that process to prevent “One Face at the Border” and have deployed advanced technologies, the US-VISIT system, the student exchange system, special lanes for pre-cleared travelers and cargo and more.

Let's look at the US-VISIT system.  When I spoke here in May of last year, we actually laid down the marker publicly in May of last year, when this idea had languished literally for decades in this town.  I said, publicly, we would have a new system in place, ahead of schedule, and they were going to add something to it called biometrics by the end of the year.  Obviously, when I got back to the office, there were a couple of people that got a little nervous, having made such a public commitment.  But we met the deadline because it was important to do so and because we told Congress and the American people we would do so.

And because of the leadership of my colleague, Undersecretary Asa Hutchinson, as well as a dedicated team -- and you've met the team leader, Jim Williams, who has done an extraordinary job with his team and he's with us today -- that we now have a US-VISIT system.

And what does that kind of leadership get you?  Well, I'll tell you what.  Had we stayed with the original deadline, we would still be six weeks from introducing the program.  But because we acted swiftly and we included biometrics, more than eight million people have been admitted to the United States with biometric identification of their identity and more than a thousand people have been matched to watch lists.  And again, speed of action and the hard work of many extraordinarily dedicated people have made America safer.  

Let me say at this juncture that we understand that privacy must be preserved.  That was an obvious concern as we negotiated an important agreement earlier this year with 25 of our European allies to permit the legal transfer of passenger name record data.  Our European partners have full assurance that the data would be used properly, discretely, and with the privacy rights of travelers appropriately safeguarded.

Now, some travelers to our country, as many know, are students.  We have a SEVIS program that deals with them as well.  And we know foreign students add great value to the body of research and collective culturalism of our nation's schools.  Last spring, I met with political leaders in many Asian countries: Singapore, Korea, Thailand, many of whom actually studied in the United States.

And all of them made eloquent pleas that the United States continue to ensure their citizens access to our nation's colleges and universities.  We reassured them that we will always preserve the welcoming mat to legitimate students.  Last year, we used the SEVIS system to confirm and welcome 300,000 students.  There were 200 that we didn't welcome.  We turned them away at the border.  We have no idea what their intentions were, but we certainly don't think they were going to go to school.

We can't forget that three years ago, several of the 19 hijackers passed through our borders with false student visas.  So, we have made the necessary steps to retool our student exchange visitor system so that it is, indeed, more secure, but also more efficient and much more user-friendly.  

Today, we keep the welcome mat on full display, but keep those who are merely posing as students out of our country and I might add, we've had enormous cooperation from the colleges and universities throughout this country in order to effect this program.

And for those immigrants who are contributing and enriching our country, we continue to improve the system to help make their American experience as easy and uncomplicated and as user-friendly as possible.

Every day, we must operate with the knowledge that our enemies are changing based on how we change.  And as we shore up one vulnerability, they're likely to look to uncover another.  That is why science and technology is key to winning this new kind of war. For instance, we are developing new resources for detecting the presence of nuclear materials in shipping containers and in vehicles.  We have deployed the next generation of biological and chemical countermeasures, BioWatch, which is a set of broad-based detection tools, is uniquely sensitive enough to not only alert people to the presence of dangerous pathogens, but also to facilitate evacuation.

We've worked hard to be ready to save lives after such attacks.  Three years ago, for instance, our national stockpile of medications to protect Americans against a bioterrorist attack was drastically undersupplied.  Today, we have stockpiled a billion doses of antibiotics and vaccines, including enough smallpox vaccine for every man, woman, and child in America.

Close collaboration with our universities and private labs are key to this progress and that's why we've worked quickly to establish the nation's three Centers of Excellence.  They are up and running and soon, there will be a fourth.  

Again, all players, all citizens are vital to the security and common good of our country.  Three years ago, our communities were hindered by a lack of financial resources and equipment when it came to shoring up their protective measures.  But since March 1st of last year, the Department has allocated or awarded more than $8.5 billion for our state and local partners around the country.

It's money that has enabled community officials to purchase much-needed equipment and training for both terrorist as well as natural disaster events: air sampling devices in California, incident and recovery planning software in Arizona, chemical detection equipment in Nevada, mobile command posts in New Hampshire, K9 bomb teams in New Jersey, urban search and rescue equipment in Ohio, chemical agent detectors in New York, bomb detection robots in Florida, and the list goes on and on and on.

In addition, we've also launched the National Incident Management System, or NIMS, the nation's first -- and the nation's first response plan.  Now, these two documents probably are not seated at the table next to your bed at night and I doubt many of you are very familiar with them, but the men and women whose job it is on a day-to-day basis to plan and prepare for either a terrorist incident or a natural disaster or a horrendous criminal act find these absolutely indispensable to their work.

And the fact is, we now have a single NIMS, a National Incident Management System, and a National Response Plan is most welcomed by them and I salute, again, Bob Stephan, who joins us today as well as his team for their exceptional work.  And as a result, instead of 50 individual state plans, we now have one unified procedure that everyone has embraced, so that those with responsibility for protection at all levels of government and the private sector understand their roles and their responsibilities in the event of a crisis and have the tools they need to carry them out.

Let me also underscore that individual citizens are just as integral to combating terrorism as any state, local government, or private company.  The Ready campaign was launched a little over a year ago to encourage people to get prepared; in other words, make a plan, make a kit, stay informed.  

And people are doing so, but we think America needs to do even more and more Americans need to prepare to respond.  So, this September is National Preparedness Month and this month, 82 organizations, as well as all 56 states and territories will encourage millions more people to be prepared and get involved and join in the common effort for the common good.

I also want you, our nation's press corps, to know that we appreciate your efforts to improve the country's capabilities to talk to people during a crisis.  We all share the same goal in a crisis of getting people accurate information as soon as possible.

We've had some national roundtables with print, broadcast, and radio media on how we can do this better.  And recently, we held the first of 10 regional tabletop exercises to lead journalists, government officials, and experts through simulated terrorist scenarios.  The first one was a successful effort and, I think, demonstrated that we are all still learning how to inform the public without creating panic or confusion.  And we must continue to improve this information process by working together.  

And finally, let me emphasize again that the success of homeland security is not only about the integration of a nation, but also nations, plural.  Strong partnerships with our allies around the world give us insight into the enemy so we can better target our defensive measures both here and away from home.  

These collaborations have led to numerous arrests, financial freezes, and other disruptions of plots and plans of those who attempt to hinder and to bring their form of terror and destruction to our vast global community.  To the terrorists, we simply say that when it comes to your actions, your brutality, the world has come together and we are coming after you.

A year and a half ago, the nation talked of goals and today, as you've just heard, we talk of results.  And I hope you consider this merely a brief glimpse, just a snapshot of some of the progress that we've made as a nation.

No doubt, there are those who would be tempted to say we can do more and you would be right.  But after three years, in every way possible, we've made a real difference in securing our people, our way of life, and our homeland.  The successful integration of people and technology for a greater purpose has had a genuine result.  Thanks to the new layered protections across land, air, and sea, our nation is safer, stronger and better protected than ever before.  

Yet, we must continue to be aggressive and move forward, for there is still plenty of work left to be done and we will get it done together.

I have seen the depths of personal commitment to our country in so many, many ways through heroic feats of bravery, through daily diligence to duty, and through the call of citizenship.  

At a naturalization ceremony in Los Angeles, I witnessed thousands of people from more than 140 countries as they were sworn in as new citizens.  Last year we helped more than 600,000 people become citizens and interestingly enough, 8,000 of whom were already wearing our country's uniform.  They had awaited citizenship, but had not waited to fight for freedom's cause.

The joy of liberty, the character of a welcoming nation, the resolve of a willful people; when will terrorists realize they have no foothold in a country where freedom is ever and always on the march, where people have long united, as Jefferson knew we always would, in common effort for the common good?

We are citizens of the world and on September 11th, 2001, nearly 3,000 citizens of more than 80 nations lost their lives.  We will not forget them.  We will long honor them by pledging all we are and all we want to be to the fight against terrorism.

America is a strong, great, and free nation.  For Americans do not live in fear.  We live in freedom and we will never let that freedom go.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Cherry: We have a lot of questions, so Secretary Ridge will appreciate it if we can get as many through to you as we possibly can.

Secretary Ridge:  Yes, no, maybe, I'm sure.

Ms. Cherry:  Recent tragic events in Russia    we've got quite a few questions on Russia--recent tragic events in Russia underlie the risk of the four A's:  anyone, anywhere, anytime, in any way can be a victim of terrorism.

How do we deal with the homeland and global threats without unduly restricting cherished liberties?

Secretary Ridge:  Our mission is to preserve our freedoms while we secure our homeland.  I mean, that's basically the primary mission of the Department of Homeland Security and the goal and the intent of this country.  We will not sacrifice those liberties and freedoms.

And within our department, Congress very appropriately set up a, within our department, a privacy office and a civil liberties office, and every single day as an administration and every single day as the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, before we walk down any path, any new initiative, we take a look at the possible impact on any of the liberties and freedoms that we enjoy, and we will not sacrifice those liberties in the effort to combat terrorism.

When we start making those concessions to combat terrorism, the terrorists begin to win, and we cannot afford them to have any kind of victory whatsoever.

Ms. Cherry:  Are there any plans to expand the registered traveler program to non-frequent flyers?

Secretary Ridge: We have five pilot programs around the country where individuals have volunteered to submit personal information to us so we can verify that they are not terrorists.  Once these five pilot programs are completed and there's a 90-day shelf life, we will come back and see whether or not the registered traveler program is appropriate for frequent travelers.

At some point in time, once that first decision is made as to whether we expand it, and it's expanded, I would think it would be very appropriate to expand it to include those men, women, families who don't travel as frequently; but the goal is to design a system that the traveling public has comfort with, that we can balance the security concerns we have and the privacy concerns that a lot of people have.  We think the registered traveler program with frequent flyers is a good place to start, but that could also be a prequel.  That could be the first step of enlarging it to not only other frequent travelers beyond the pilots, but potentially down the road, the citizens that even travel casually.

Ms. Cherry:  This person asks, in defending the homeland against the terrorist threat, how do you reconcile the stringency of the measures applied to, say, Europeans upon entry to the U.S. relative to Mexicans or Canadians who have huge land borders with the U.S. but are largely exempt from such measures?

Secretary Ridge: Well, first of all, we have historically an unusual and unparalleled relationship with our friends and neighbors to the north and the south.  That doesn't mean that there haven't been substantial changes in how we deal with the flow of people and cargo across both our Canadian and Mexican border.

Since the end of 2001, beginning of 2002, we have worked very, very closely with the law enforcement community, the intelligence community, the commercial community in both of those countries to devise new systems and new protocols to pre-clear people coming across the border, to pre-clear commerce across the border, to the extent that we have offered incentives to those companies that would agree to a certain protocol with regard to their supply chain, send us the information with regard to the contents of the truck, we vet all the drivers, and we have with both partners to the north and south a fairly comprehensive border protection plan that engages both sides in assuring us    and we get better and better every day    that we will facilitate the legitimate flow of people and goods, and yet have sufficient protection and ever-increasing protection against the illegitimate flow.

Again, you deal with the European Union and other countries a little differently.  Historically, pre-9/11, we thought that the huge bodies of water kept us relatively immune from any kind of attack that we thought we might incur.  No one ever imagined the magnitude and the inhumanity of 9/11, but since that time, working with our partners, not only within the European Union, but around the globe, to make sure that commercial aviation, wherever the airplane originates, and commercial shipping, wherever the original port of call, that our shipping and our aviation is secure for all countries and for all people.

One of the areas that I am-- that I see and sense and feel that great progress has been made is the acceptance by most of our colleagues, most of the countries around the rest of the world, that there is a collective approach, a universal approach will be the best to secure safety of not just U.S. citizens, but their citizens, as well.  That's why we're working more closely than we've ever worked together before on authenticating documents, verifying identities.  Every single day brings the world closer to accepting biometric standards to help us make sure that the people and goods that flow across our borders are safe and secure so we can keep the terrorists and their weapons out.

Ms. Cherry: Several similar-themed questions, and the theme seems to be, is it true that    oh.  Is it likely that we'll have a pre-election al Qaeda attack in the United States?  They pertain to whether or not it could be in our schools, in our VA hospitals.

Do you have any comment on those?

Secretary Ridge: Well, we remain very concerned about the possibility of attack during the election process, during this particular time.  There was a consistent, credible reporting stream that talked about disruption of our democratic process, so we must remain as vigilant and aware and concerned about that consistent, credible, and general reporting.

When we had specific reporting, we went up to orange in three regions and within the financial service sector, so we remain concerned about that possibility.

And every day that we don't have an attack gives us one more day to put in new systems and new protocols to make us a little safer.

I mentioned the national targeting    national targeting center today.  Right now, we're working off of watch lists that the law enforcement community has and anti-terrorism watch lists that other agencies have.

In the next couple weeks, we'll be able to expand that because the FBI will have a presence in the national targeting center, and conceivably if a name comes up that we have some concern about, but the individual is not on the watch list, hasn't    but may be subject of an investigation, we'll be able to match that name with the name of the individual we're concerned about.

So every single day when we buy more time, we have a better way to deploy people and technology in the integration of a national effort to make us more secure.

You mentioned the education ideas or systems to prevent terrorist attacks on our schools.  Unfortunately, we've had to concern ourselves as parents about our children in their schools long before 9-11, in the aftermath of not only Columbine, but there was a series of shootings around the country where schools, both public and private, have adapted much more stringent security measures, access to and from the schools, unfortunately, in many schools, metal detectors at the doors.

So again, from the lessons learned overseas, whether it's relative to a school, hospital, or anything else, if we can apply them to making America more secure, we will.  There's where the intelligence sharing and information sharing among our allies has not only given us more information about who the terrorists are, where they are, and how they operate, but unfortunately, we learn from the tragedy associated with a lot of these events that have occurred around the world over the past three years, as well.

So one of the new tools of communication from the Department of Homeland Security down to the state and locals, the homeland security advisors and the like, are bulletins and advisories where we learn something based on what occurred in another part of the world and we transmit, pass that information down to people who can use it to make their communities and their schools safer.

Ms. Cherry: Another set of questions.

How do you assess the level of terrorist threat generally to cities outside Washington and New York?

Also, some local officials in Washington, D.C. have complained of an overreaction to the security alerts issued last month, such as the vehicle checkpoints on Capitol Hill, saying that no known threat requires this disruption.  Please comment.

And last, with millions of commuters stuck in rush hour traffic every day in major cities across the country, why is gridlock not considered a security threat?

Secretary Ridge:  If gridlock was a security threat, we'd have been dealing with that about 50 years ago around some of these communities, and I think I understand the concern, particularly as it relates to potentially the need for a community to evacuate.  I mean, we can appreciate that.

There may be some, but I must tell you, very, very limited circumstances where that actually would be the course of action that would be recommended, but I assure you, particularly in the Washington capital region and some of the other major urban areas, looking at evacuating some or part of the community depending on the kind of attack is something that's part of planning that they do every single day.

I would tell you that we assess the level of terrorist threat outside of Washington and New York, which will always be at the top of the list    I mean, that's just a fact of life.  I'm not telling you anything.  It's not news.

New York City, for obvious reasons    the impact on the economy and al-Qaeda has always talked about the disruption or the undermining of our national economy.  It's not just the iconic nature of New York City.  A lot of the stock exchanges, the financial services community drives not only our national economy, but the international economy    and Washington, DC, the nation's capital, will always be targets.

But wherever we have a densely populated region that has a critical infrastructure that can be turned into weapons of mass destruction, we have concerns about their security measures, the preventive action that they've taken, and precautionary measures that they have built into their system of protection.

That's why Congress, I think very appropriately, gave us additional monies to distribute, under the theory that if you have a densely populated area that's subject to a threat, that has critical infrastructure, we ought to give more money to those communities, and we've done that, sensitive to an enemy that's looking to inflict catastrophic losses; and the easiest and most likely place that that would occur would be in a densely populated community.

And I would just say that I know some local officials have complained of the overreaction, the security alerts issued last month.  I think the Capitol Police have taken it upon themselves, again, given the work that's done up there with the Supreme Court and the Congress of the United States, to enhance the security measures in the national capital region.  We're just all working together as closely as we can to make sure that we ramp up security, but not in a way that impedes not only the flow of commerce internally, but there's a way of life here that people enjoy, but we want to keep attracting visitors.  That's a huge part of our    of this region's economy.

And I would say to you that the Congress created a national capital region coordinator.  Tom Lockwood is doing a great job.  And again, these and other concerns are something that we put in the mix and communicate with Virginia, Maryland, and the officials in DC on a day-to-day basis.

We're always looking to ramp up security, but at the same time, trying to regularize and make people in a particular community more comfortable.

We still have to, we're not going to, we don't want to ramp up security to the point where we can't enjoy our communities, and obviously, it's a balance, and people are unhappy with the balance, and we'll continue to do the best we can.

Ms. Cherry: Mr. Secretary, this person asked if a hostage event occurred in this country similar to what just occurred in Russia, which governmental agency would take charge of the situation?

Secretary Ridge:  Well, that's a good question, because the Department of Justice and the FBI is--clearly has, in terms of the number of people that have been trained and deployed to deal with those situations in terms of any other law enforcement agency in the country, are best equipped to do it, but I daresay it would be a collaborative effort, much like the collaborative effort that occurred when we were all taken hostage with the snipers.

Here, frankly, at the National Capital Region, the local police and some of the state police were front and center.  We worked quietly and collaboratively with them, so I would say    and the answer would depend on the circumstances    I suspect the FBI would take the lead, but not to the exclusion of some extraordinary partners we have within the law enforcement community around the country.

Ms. Cherry:  A follow-up to that, if I may.  What , is there a phone number, is there a web site that you can recommend today in case there is an emergency?  Where should the average American call if something happens?

Secretary Ridge:  It's very interesting.  The homeland security advisor from Pennsylvania is here, General Keith Martin, and he just showed me a public relations tools that they have developed up there with an emergency response plan and number.

I think if you distill it all down, whether your state has a particular plan or not, the best thing to do is just to call your local police department.

There are some of us--all of us within homeland security appreciate the talents and the experience and the intuition of the local police.  I'm absolutely convinced that one of these days we will have a significant incident or incidents prevented because somebody on patrol, some man or woman wearing blue will have been given enough information, combined with their own instincts and experience, to do something to disrupt the plot.

So I think that we don't need a centralized number.  The best thing to do is pick up the men and women who on a day-to-day basis protect your community.

Ms. Cherry:  This person next says, many emergency medical services and emergency medicine representatives are concerned about having their voices heard.  With the administration's emphasis on prevention, their concern is that law enforcement is sometimes built up at the expense of EMS.  Please comment.

Secretary Ridge:  Emergency medical services and everyone related to that community has been and can continue to be one of the principal beneficiaries from the $8 billion-plus that are out there.

When we do training, planning and training exercises, either on a national scale with the top off or regionally or locally, we always include and have and will continue to include medical services.  You cannot prepare for a terrorist attack without being inclusive, and I don't think anybody in that community should be concerned about anyone in Washington losing sight of their invaluable mission.  They have been and are an integral part o four planning and preparation and response process, and they will continue to be, and they are    and I know a lot of states, as their develop their state plans and distribute those dollars, have made sure that the emergency services folks get their share.

Ms. Cherry: Do we need a national ID card and should it include biometrics?

Secretary Ridge:  The legislation that created the department specifically prohibited a national ID card, but I must tell you that there are areas where identification, and cards including biometrics, are needed and part of our mission in homeland security to get done.

We are obliged to come up with transportation worker identification cards.  We literally have hundreds of thousands of people who not only have access to potential points of vulnerability, but are driving trucks with hazardous material and the like.  We're in the process of doing that.

One of the things we're looking    we are doing, looking at within the administration is a set of basic requirements for federal employees and contractors that work here.  We're in discussion with the National Governors' Association to see if we can come to some agreement where at least on the driver's license there is an agreement among    and this is tough to do.  It's a federal system.  You don't mandate this, and it's a challenge we have.  But the National Governors' Association wanted to take it on.

Are there certain pieces of information that all states would require to be included as part of their driver's license?  Because that is the most commonly referred to piece of identification that people are more often than not inclined to use.

So no national ID, but what we have an opportunity to use biometrics, and particularly to identify people who have access to certain areas    nuclear power plants and airports and the like, or the driver's license    we're working toward a little more regularity and a certain standard that we would be able to use across the board.

Ms. Cherry: Secretary Ridge, I'd like to present you with this certificate of appreciation for coming to speak with us today.  Thank you very much.

Secretary Ridge: Thank you very much.  Thank you.

Ms. Cherry: And I'd also like to present you with your third non-threatening National Press Club mug.  One more for a set.

Secretary Ridge: Very good.  Very good.

Ms. Cherry: I'd like to ask you    skip the usual humorous question at the end and follow up with two other more serious questions.

First is, is there a danger that terrorism is providing a new military-industrial complex?

And second, why doesn't the increased personal data collected for security put travelers at risk for identity theft, and if so, what safeguards would protect against this threat?

Secretary Ridge:  With regard to terrorism producing a military-industrial complex, we are far, far removed from, I think at least, at this juncture, of seeing this massive and I would argue very appropriate investment in our country's security with the military.

But clearly, DHS cannot generate the science necessary to fill gaps or strengthen weaknesses that we still    that we view as still existing out there, but our science and technology community primarily in the private sector, but the academic institutions and the like, can help fill that void.

So I think it's very appropriate that one of the startups within our huge department is a science and technology piece that will give us access to not only some of the research that they're doing in the military that has application to our security, but also to generate some new lines of technology that will help make us safer and more secure.

And I add that they, like a lot of other things, probably have applications in areas in addition to security.  That's one of the more interesting, and I think welcoming consequences of the investment we're making in homeland security across the board.  If we beef up the public health system because we're concerned about a biological attack, aren't we just better and healthier as a country because we ought to have a more robust public health system?  So whether the microbes are thrown at you from a terrorist or mother nature, it's a good investment

We are obviously doing a lot of other things that I believe will have application elsewhere.  $8 billion in training and equipment and exercises, sure, in response to 9-11, but absolutely will make our communities safer and better prepared to deal with another terrorist attack or criminal event, a natural disaster, so    and I think the same thing applies to our looking to the private sector primarily, but to the academic community, in encouraging them, the innovation and the entrepreneurship to come with some ideas to help  us make us more secure, because I'm confident they'll have applications elsewhere.

And why doesn't the increased personal data collection for security put travelers as risk for identity theft?  Good question.

Part of what we are doing with our pilot program, where we have the five pilots on the registered traveler program, about 2,000 people at five sites, is looking at ways to secure this information so that it cannot be compromised and cannot be the subject of identity threat.

What we're using now, people have access to it.  There's a limited number of people that have access, and it is encrypted, and so if we monitor both of those very carefully in time, I think we will develop a confidence level among people who would be willing to submit this additional information to us.

We'll save a few seconds as they go through the lines.  They'll still have to go through the metal detector and the like.  But in the aggregate, saving a couple discrete seconds for every traveler gives us more time and enables us to use the time and more people in the technology and focus it on the travelers and the luggage we know nothing about.

So we will protect the privacy through limited access and encryption.  We save minutes, and in saving those    saving time and personnel, we can target it toward those people and luggage that we know nothing about, and that ultimately enhances security, as well.

Ms. Cherry:  Thank you.  I think we have a couple of seconds.  I can ask you the final question, and that was, this person says, "Hi, Tom."  Must be someone who knows you.  "Any new color codes. like fuchsia, lavender, puce, or chartreuse?"

Secretary Ridge:  No.

Ms. Cherry: Somehow, I knew we'd have the time for that answer.  

I'd like to thank you, Secretary Ridge, for coming today again, and I'd also like to thank National Press Club staff members Melinda Cook, Pat Nelson, Joanne Booz, Melania Abdoe, and Howard Rothman for organizing today's lunch, and I'd also like to thank the National Press Club library for their research, and with that ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

###

This page was last modified on 09/07/04 00:00:00