Previous IFPA-Fletcher Conferences

National Security for a New Era:
Focusing National Power

November 14-15, 2001
The Ronald Reagan Building and International Trade Center
Washington, D.C.

Address by Governor Tom Ridge

Dr. Robert L. Pfaltzgraff, Jr.: Pleasure is very special, because I am also a Pennsylvanian, and lived in Pennsylvania nearly all my life. Governor Ridge—Tom Ridge, as we all know in this room, was appointed Director of the Homeland—of the Office of Homeland Security in October of this year. Previously, he had served as Governor of Pennsylvania. He was elected Governor for the first term in 1994. He was re-elected in 1998, and served there for nearly seven years as Governor. As Governor of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, he focused his efforts on education, land conservation and reconfiguration of the state's fiscal management. And I can tell you that taxes are still very low in Pennsylvania. It's a good state to be in.

Prior to becoming Governor, Director Ridge served six terms as the first Vietnam Veteran elected to the United States House of Representatives. He has also served as an Assistant District Attorney in Erie, Pennsylvania, and as an infantry Staff Sergeant in Vietnam, where he run—won the Bronze Star for Valor. So, it is with great pleasure that I welcome the new Director of the Office of Homeland Security, Governor Tom Ridge, to this meeting. (Applause).

Governor Ridge: Thank you. Just had to thank Bob for that kind commercial on Pennsylvania. Still where the roots are. Well, thank you for that kind introduction, and I also want to thank you for your thoughtful invitation to spend some time with you today. I want to thank General Shinseki and his staff for organizing this very timely and relevant event and, taking a look at the list of speakers and extraordinary public servants that you have invited to participate in this event, I feel very honored to address such a distinguished meeting.

All of you share the President's goal of making America a safer place for all of us to live and to raise our families. It seems fitting to be at a conference, then, with the theme of focusing the instruments of national power. The principal challenge for homeland security is, in fact, to focus all of the resources at our disposal, federal, state, local and private, to safeguard our country from those who try to do us harm.

Unfortunately, nothing compels us to focus like a tragedy. The events of September 11th created a shared sense of urgency, and a common sense of purpose. That sense of purpose has fueled a national response that has been immediate and comprehensive. Recovery efforts in New York City and at the Pentagon, handling the anthrax challenge, identification, treatment, decontamination, investigation. Addressing urgent economic needs, airlines, insurance. Restoring effective commercial services, air travel, mail. Restoring public confidence while instilling vigilance.

For two months, we have been focused on our response and recovery from the terrorist attacks on our country. Federal agencies have mobilized to protect our critical infrastructure. The FAA took immediate steps to secure our airports. We've improved—aviation security has become a national priority, hopefully we—Congress will listen, and we need Congress to take action now to pass the Aviation Security Bill. The FBI has stepped up its counter-terrorist efforts with watch lists, threat credibility assessments. The Federal Emergency Management Agency is running a 24-hour Operation Center, and staffing health service support teams. The FBI has taken on a new mission with the intelligence community that is prevention of terrorist attacks. The Department of Energy is accelerated its oversight and joint coordination on nuclear material control and security enhancements. The Environmental Protection Agency has significantly increased its efforts to protect our water supply. The Coast Guard is patrolling our nation's harbors, nuclear power plants and other critical infrastructures. And, in addition to pursuing our nation's military objectives overseas, our Department of Defense is making a critical contribution to protect our nation's citizens and infrastructure, as well. Army National Guard soldiers and airmen are protecting our airports and patrolling our skies. The Department of Justice has created our new Foreign Terrorist Tracking Task Force, which will help us in our effort to protect American citizens from the shadow enemy that we're up against: people who would use America's open and welcoming tradition of hospitality and generosity to hide their real motives, their real intent, committing atrocities against innocent people.

So, as I've said, we are working to respond and recover from the events since September 11th. It is crucial, as response and recovery efforts are, the country can't focus exclusively on the present and, therefore, neither can the Office of Homeland Security. We must seize and maintain an initiative. We must begin to improve and strengthen our domestic security for the long term. Our adversaries must respond to our game plan, instead of us responding to theirs. So, as we make this transition, we must focus on the larger mission of the Office of Homeland Security, and that is to create a comprehensive, national strategy for homeland defense. Notice I said national, not federal. The national strategy the President envisions will involve all levels of government, federal, state and local. It will tap the creative genius and resources of both the public and the private sector. We have begun working on the national homeland security strategy. The ultimate plan will include a comprehensive statement of all activities to secure the United States from terrorist threat or attacks. That's the language the President used in his Executive Order establishing the Office. We need to be able to detect and deter terrorist threats before they happen and, if America is attacked again, to be able to trigger a seamless system of rapid response and recovery.

As all of you know, the first step in developing a strategy is to identify your goals. This is as true in homeland security as it is the military. Our national strategy for homeland security will identify our objectives in both precise and, as importantly, measurable terms. What does that mean? It means performance, not process. We're going to know exactly what needs to get done, and we're going to know when we got it right. The second step in developing a strategy is identifying your needs. This means find the gap between where we are today and where we seek to be tomorrow. The third step is to fill those gaps. Our national strategy will focus all the instruments of national power at our disposal. Where we find cracks in the system, we will repair them. Where we find strengths in the system, we will work to enhance them. When you're dealing with people as audacious and as calculating and as determined as—and as evil as terrorists, no system will ever be 100 failsafe and perfect. But, we're going to try to get as close to perfect as possible. Our strategy will be forward-looking. This will require doing things a little bit differently than we have in the past. This will require innovation, discipline, patience and resolve, and a willingness to re-think traditional mission and traditional relationships. The Defense Department takes a long-range approach to its budget needs. Homeland Security will do likewise, with a multi-year budget plan, a plan that cuts across all agencies, a plan that addresses—not only addresses present urgent needs, but also works to get ahead of the threat. In other words, we will prepare not to fight the wars of the past. We must create a blueprint to win the wars of the future. I know a lot of speakers during this conference have identified many of the challenges that the country face, and I look forward to—personal and professional level to continue the conversation and the dialogue that they had and began with you, with those who are working with us in the Office of Homeland Security. The effective solutions to these challenges must combine the best contributions from professionals across government and the private sector. Let me give you just a few examples of what must be done as we develop a national, comprehensive, long-term strategy.

We need to give our nation's first responders, the firefighters, the police, the medical professionals and other emergency officials the tools to do their jobs better. Before September 11th, many in our country never thought of these men and women as first responders as the first line of defense in our homeland security core. Today, every American understands their critical mission. We would never send soldiers into harm's way without proper training and without proper equipment. We owe the same commitment to our domestic first responders, our domestic first line. Our first responders nationwide need standardized training, procedures and equipment that allow them to communicate with each other in crisis. We intend to enhance cooperation across the federal government. We're even considering merging some of our agencies. We also need a stronger national bio-defense strategy that strengthens the public health system, increases the ability of local hospitals to handle major public emergencies, and better protects the nation's food supply. We've got to find better ways to quickly share threat information, not only across the intelligence community, not only across the federal government but, with my experience over the past seven years—but to spread it across and then down to Governors, States' Attorneys General, Mayors and local and state law enforcement.

Obviously, there is much more to be done, and our plan will address that. Creating a national homeland defense strategy has never been done before. The challenge is great, but I'm absolutely confident we will succeed. Much has changed since September 11th. But, one thing that hasn't changed is our resolve as a nation. Those who attacked us thought it—to crush our spirit, might bring us to our knees, make us cower with fear. But, they misjudged us, and not just a little. They so thoroughly miscalculated our response that it gives a whole new meaning to that classic comeback, "you'd have to be living in a cave not to know." They know now, and with all of us working together, we will prevail. So, I think we need to get to work. Thank you very much.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Thank you much—very much, Governor Ridge. We now have an opportunity for some questions. Who would like to be the first? Please raise the lights in the room so we can see. There's a—announce yourself here. Let's take this one here, and then second one will be from here. Wait for the microphone, and please give us your name and proceed with your question.

Audience: Thank you. Adam Nixon with NBC News. There's word that the House and Senate conferees may have just moments ago reached an agreement on airport security. So, I'm wondering, in light of that, how quickly do you think that we'll be able to establish a sort of acceptable risk in airports and in air travel, and how quickly will passengers begin to see an improvement in that regard?

Governor Ridge: Well, I think - first of all, I'm very encouraged by this late-breaking news. I just asked for them to speed up resolution of this matter 10 minutes ago, and they've responded. (Applause). I think it's pretty clear that the anxiety and concern that consumers have that's shared by the President and everybody else to enhancing as quickly as possible our airport security will give this a momentum that will expedite not only this measure, but some of the other things that we're doing in relationship to aviation security. So, I'm very encouraged by that, the fact that they've reached an agreement. I know that it's something that the President—we've had several conversations about, and the President is very much engaged in what's going on in Afghanistan. But, he is very much engaged in what's going on in this battlefront, as well, and that'll be good news received by all of us. I might add, they won't put it in place by the time I fly to New York this afternoon, but I'm still pretty comfortable flying to New York, though.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Next question is over here?

Audience: Erin Winegrad, Inside Washington Publishers. Yesterday, General McCaffrey suggested that the National Guard ought to be redesigned to focus on homeland security. And that may mean, for instance, dissolving heavy armor units and increasing military police, WMD response teams and medical teams. Could you please give us your assessment of that proposal, both as a Governor and as Director of Homeland Security?

Governor Ridge: Well, as Governor, I'm very proud of my 28th Division, my crew back in Pennsylvania. They've worked very hard; they've got some of the highest marks in the National Guard Bureau for readiness. They've been deployed 30 or 40 countries over the past six or seven years. So, I appreciate very much their commitment and their resolve and their desire to be part of the national effort, whether it takes them overseas or keeps them protecting their—the homeland of Pennsylvania or the United States. One of the individuals that I noted was on your speaker's list was General McCaffrey, and I'm anxious to talk to him about that, and a variety of other matters.

I think as we look at the role the Department of Defense plays in homeland security, at least at first blush, the most obvious component of the DOD force structure, to have a role with domestic security will be the National Guard, and we will have to work within DOD, with the Governors and others to identify what that role would be. And if it requires changing the configuration of some units or re-deploying some of the assets in a different way, certainly that's got to be something that we want to consider, and we will consider. Not going to resolve it right now, but clearly integrating in a more complete and, perhaps, even some aspects a different way, the National Guard and the Homeland Security something we need to consider and will consider.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Who would like to have the next question? Right over here, yes, please? Wait for the microphone, please.

Audience: Good evening. Avon Williams, with the Department of the Army Office of General Counsel. I've been reading a lot lately about how certain members of Congress are ready to load up the money truck and back it up to this concept called homeland security and dump a load in your lap.

Governor Ridge: Well, as long as they dump it out in front of my office, it's okay with me.

Audience: But, it seems to me that—and I also heard a lot yesterday about how much is needed to strengthen our national security, and especially to improve the status of our forces and commit assets to the Army, hopefully. But, the President seems to be a little bit more reluctant to just turn on the spigot and start spending money willy-nilly, and I was just wondering if you could shed some light on what some of his budget priorities might be in this regard?

Governor Ridge: Well, first of all, the Congress of the United States, both caucuses, both chambers are trying their very best to assess their priorities and be a part of our country's effort to beef up homeland security. So, they've identified some priorities, and there's some fairly large price tags associated with the kinds of things that they want to do, both in the short and the long term. The President has made it very, very clear from the first day that I was introduced to the Cabinet, the first day we had the homeland security meeting that—over which he presided, that the priority for the country for the time is the war against terrorism, and that has, you know, one war, two battlefronts. We're engaged right now in Afghanistan, we're engaged in the United States. And I think the President asked, and it's reflected in the supplemental-the agencies to say what do you need to accomplish? What are the additional funds you need to get between now and the next of the year, the first part of the next calendar year? They responded. I think there's somewhere between 8 and $9 billion that are going to be available for law enforcement. They're beefing up the public health capacity, infusing some technology into different departments and agencies. They'll expend those dollars in the next 60 or 90 days.

You probably heard—you probably even use the expression, "if you have 100 priorities, you don't have any." I mean, you really have to decide what's the foundation when you're developing a national strategy. Build the foundation, and then the floor is on top of that. What the President has asked and instructed me to do is, is having identified the immediate needs of the agencies, taking a look at the budget that the White House is preparing now for fiscal year '03, and take a look at that. And then, he has kept open the possibility, if I get back to him, of a-since that budget would take a year to be implemented, if there's some other immediate needs that I thought were worthy of consideration in an early year supplemental, to come back to him with that kind of proposal, as well. So, I think the President is saying we need to address the response and recovery effort completely. We did that. We need to address the immediate needs for the next 60 or 90 days. We've done that. Take a look at next year's budget, and if you think there's some needs that need to be met but can't be met—shouldn't be met waiting a year, then come back to me with that proposal, and that's exactly what we're doing.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Is there a question from over here? Let's go to that side of the room, then, please.

Audience: Governor Ridge, as a former Fire Chief, I applaud you every time I hear you talk about the value of the first responders in this war on terrorism. I applaud your resolve there. The critical need of the first responders is the—is to have the ability to communicate with all the federal, state and regional agencies that are brought to bear in bringing events back to normalcy. The Federal Communications Commission has allocated radio spectrum that is not yet usable because it's blocked by the broadcasters. There's 10 percent of that spectrum that is set aside to be used one day for interoperability. But, our best estimates are it's going to be, at best, 2006 before that spectrum is available to be used. Is there any resolve now to move that deadline forward so those local agencies and federal agencies can use that spectrum? Thank you.

Governor Ridge: It's a very appropriate question, because that total seamless communication system is really integral, not only on the front side with sharing the intelligence so you can detect and prevent an incident, but it's also critical, frankly on the down side, if a terrorist act occurs, so you—enhances your ability to respond to it. The only resolve that I can give you is mine, because I believe that interoperability is critical to the completion of either task. And I'm going to do everything I can to make sure that that process in some kind of seamless communication system is developed ASAP. I mean, I just—it's a very high priority within our office. We've talked to Mayors, we've talked to Police Chiefs, we've talked to fire departments, we've talked to emergency management agencies. I'm very proud of Pennsylvania's. We had a good one. We had a good communication system down to our 67 counties and down to our local communities. Not everybody has that capacity. And even if they had them, they weren't necessarily interoperable. So, FEMA is out there taking an assessment of the 50 states. Part of the assessment is the communication capacity, because we do want to make it seamless as quickly as possible.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Yes, sir? Yes, over here? Please?

Audience: Hi, Governor Ridge. Bob McClure, Army Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. During your talk, you mentioned the possibility of perhaps merging several federal agencies under your plan for homeland defense. Would you care to indicate which those might be, and would that include possibly also the Coast Guard or the INS Border Patrol, which now report to separate Cabinet Secretaries?

Governor Ridge: I think it's very important for the Office of Homeland Security in conjunction with both the Executive and Legislative branch, as I said in my remarks, to take a look at how we did business in the 20th century and how we want to do it in the 21st century. I'd like to put it in this context: on September 10th, we had agencies and departments who had missions —to deal with national security and economic security and personal security. And that mission has been complicated by the new threat that we see evident since September 11th. So, as far as I'm concerned, wherever you have multiple organizations that seem to be tasked to the same general area, for functional improvement, for economic improvement, for security enhancement, we ought to at least take a look whether or not we need to merge functions, merge agencies. And I may say that's not necessarily on the borders. I mean, you've got—you know, you've got agricultural inspectors across couple different agencies. One agency does chickens and pigs, and another agency does vegetables. I mean, they're just - the (inaudible). We need to have inspectors. We need to have food inspectors. But, the question is, and we need to consider this in light of homeland security, whether or not we want to have multiple organizations basically tasked with the same responsibility, or if we couldn't be—enhance our security, improve our efficiency, and maybe save a few bucks and put them someplace else for enhanced security if we merged functions. And, the nice thing about realigning some of these agencies, there'd be more direct accountability, too. So, I like —so, it's an intriguing idea we're going to this year or next year be looking at a couple variations.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Okay. Next question? Right down here, please.

Audience: Thank you, Governor Ridge. David Litt, State Department Political Advisor, U.S. Special Operations Command, and a native born Pittsburgher. Have you had any...?

Governor Ridge: You didn't move down here to become a Redskin fan, did you?

David Litt: That's enough. Have you had any thoughts or discussions about how the State Department might help you do your job better, for example, enhancing the way Consuls adjudicate visas, and—or other ideas?

Governor Ridge: Well, just some preliminary thoughts. You can well imagine when you're a group of men and women in the military. The idea is to push the perimeter for your enemy out as far as you possibly can, just keep pushing him and pushing him. And if we could push terrorists into the North and South Pole, that's-I mean, or maybe even off the planet. But, the idea is that we've got—if we can expand that perimeter and identify potential risks and potential terrorists outside our borders, outside the Northern Hemisphere, I think we will have enhanced homeland security. It's interesting, a couple of things that are already going on now. Again—a lot of times, I think the government is accused of being slow to respond to a challenge. But, I know that your Consular offices and the INS have already begun to share different kinds of information so that once you've identified somebody that's getting a visa, you can make sure that when that person shows up allegedly with that visa is actually the same person. There is where—we have enormous opportunity, I think, over the years ahead to infuse technology as we expand our perimeter and reduce the risk of terrorism. I mean, biometrics used as far out as possible to make sure that people who get the visas get them, and that they are the same people who show up at our doorstep with the visas. Biometrics can help us with aviation security, biometrics can help us as we try to move and facilitate goods and commerce across borders. So, the infusion of technology, again, with talented, dedicated people will help us a great deal. But certainly, the State Department is a significant part of the equation. We are open. We invite. We're welcoming. We trust. Millions and millions of people come across our borders, so—and we want to change that, because we are—but for Native Americans, we're a country of immigrants. And that's very unique. That makes us very special. But, it also, I think, has made us very vulnerable. So, the State Department and—will be an integral part as we try to push that perimeter forward.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Next question? As you think of additional questions, one question that I would have for Governor Ridge is to ask him to reflect upon the public information issues that arise—that arose when the anthrax problem came upon us a few weeks ago. How—what is the balance that one draws in giving information to the public in order to inform the public, but at the same time, not to alarm the public unduly? How do you reconcile that dilemma, Governor, if I might ask?

Governor Ridge: I basically, if I could just frame that question, believe the greatest fear is fear of the unknown. And so, if you can give appropriate and timely and relevant information to the public, generally, dealing with that kind of crisis, while it may not be complete, and it remains even incomplete as we speak today. But, as we have discovered more information, we revealed more information. And I think that's in—I framed the large answer to a question, obviously. It may be on an ad hoc basis. We're not going to necessarily share all intelligence.

Narrator: That's good.

Governor Ridge: And all the things we're doing to enhance homeland security. But, on something like that, a public health crisis, I think our ability—we are best served if we fill in the gap. Where there is no knowledge in public information, I think more often than not we're better served if we fill the gap.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Thank you very much. Is there one more question, or two? Yes, please, back here.

Audience: Bob Branna, National Security Fellow from Harvard's Kennedy School. Welcome aboard today, Governor Ridge. We're glad to have you. Several previous speakers have indicated what—at least in some of their views may be a very serious requirement for your office to be able to influence the budget priorities, or perhaps even the budgets themselves...

Governor Ridge: Correct.

Audience: Of other agencies that you seek to coordinate. Well aware of the political minefield that this question must pose, I wonder if you care to comment?

Governor Ridge: Sure. Actually, I've addressed this question with everybody on the Hill, because members of both parties, some friend of mine whom—with whom I served several years ago say you need statutory priority, you need budget authority. And my request to them at this point was, for the time being, based on my belief that I've got all the statutory authority and all the budgetary authority I need. I've got the President of the United States saying very specifically to the Cabinet we're fighting one war, there are two battlefields, one overseas, one in the United States. And we work, and have worked very, very closely with Mitch Daniels. I mean, we have—and I think you're going to see a budget, the first budget. We did—obviously we're not involved six months in advance in planning the budget, but we're intensely involved right now. And you will see this budget reflect a—the work of the Homeland Security Office, and the priorities of the Homeland Security Office. And to that extent, the President has given instructions, and OMB Director Mitch Daniels has been very cooperative. I would say this, and I've said to my—again, I said this to my former colleagues on the Hill. At some point in time, even if they decided to merge some of these agencies and create an office that, in part, dealt with homeland security, every President in the future should be assisted by someone serving in this capacity. The model's after the National Security Council. There are multiple departments and agencies that are integral part of our national defense. You have Cabinet heads responsible for them, but you need someone as an Assistant to the President to coordinate much of that activity. And, given the fact that so much of homeland security cuts across multiple departments and multiple agencies, you're never going to be able to create a single unit or, from my mind, even two or three units where you just can silo homeland security functions. So, I think you're always going to need an Assistant to the President for Homeland Security. And if they choose to create another agency, if they choose to create a Cabinet position, that's fine. But, I'm not applying. I already have a job, and I like it. I've already got a job.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Is there a final question?

Audience: Governor Ridge, I have a question up here, sir.

Governor Ridge: Yes?

Audience: I'm Lisa Burgess, the Stars and Stripes Senior Pentagon reporter. I'm up here.

Governor Ridge: Yeah, I got you. I used to read Stars and Stripes back in the late '60's.

Audience: I realize it's early in the process, but could you give us a little bit better idea of what you're looking to the military for in this? What types of questions are you asking, and what parts of the military are you looking to for some answers?

Governor Ridge: Well, first of all, we've already looked for support from the Department of Defense. Many of the assets that they have as part of their force structure have been—will be deployed, at least on a temporary basis, for homeland security. We will look to the Department of Defense because of the nature of the BCNR threat, the biological, the chemical, the radiological and the nuclear threat. The Department of Defense has been looking at those issues, and doing research in developing equipment because of potential use of those kinds of things on the battlefield. Obviously, there is enormous knowledge and experience to be gained and applied to helping, for instance, our first responders. And I think you can go down to potential integration in a different way of the National Guard into homeland security. So, the Department of Defense has been a great ally as we've responded to September 11th. And since that time, we've used their laboratories, in many instances, on the anthrax investigation. So, we've deployed a lot of assets and a lot of people and, frankly, we've been working in some areas for application overseas that we have to pull back and see what you've learned and what you've done, and how they might be applied here, as well. So, we've got a great partner in the—in Secretary Rumsfeld, a great leader, and we've got a lot of work to do together, and I'm confident it'll get done just that way.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Believe we have time for one more question. Is there one more question? Over here, yes, please? Air Vice-Marshall Thompson.

Audience: John Thompson, UK Defense Attaché. Governor Ridge, that was extremely interesting. Earlier in the year, we had a crisis in the United Kingdom with Foot and Mouth disease. We don't have any problem with calling in our regular servicemen rather than just National Guard, to help out the other agencies in a situation like that. Do you ever see the Title 10 being changed to enable regular forces to be deployed?

Governor Ridge: I think the use of regular forces probably be at the very—would be the last resort. I mean, there are so many other ways that we can respond, including the Guard and the Defense and, candidly, in—with—one of the unique challenges I have is that when you create a national system, not a—you create a national system over a federal government, which means that you've got other governments and other levels of government that we have to work with and coordinate that activity. There are some places that some of my governor friends would prefer to use law enforcement officials or National Guardsmen—excuse me—are presently being deployed, just because they think there is a division of labor that's more appropriate for law enforcement in one area and National Guard in the other. But, I do think that the long-term, the use of regular Army, the—a force is absolutely in my mind, the Secretary of Defense mind, the President's mind. That is the last deployment. We've plenty of other resources we can deploy first or in intermediate stages.

Dr. Pfaltzgraff: Let me now, on behalf of all of us, express our heartfelt gratitude to Governor Ridge for being with us today. I know that he has a very busy schedule, and is going to New York, I believe, after this. We appreciate your being here, Governor, and we thank you very much for this informative talk, and we wish you the very best. We're going to miss you in Pennsylvania, but we know you're doing good work here in Washington, D.C.

Governor Ridge: Thanks a lot. Thanks so much. Thanks, all.

(Applause)