Yes We Are Safer

Last week, the nation marked the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks in solemn fashion, focusing on memorials and reflection, rather than on point scoring. Too bad Richard Clarke couldn’t manage to do the same.

Clarke, the official in charge of antiterrorism efforts before 9/11, commemorated the anniversary of the attacks by publishing a finger-pointing screed in U.S. News and World Report.

Clarke’s argument went something like the following: Here we are, seven years after 9/11. We haven’t been attacked. But we could be. Al Qaeda still exists, Bin Laden remains at large, and terrorists still commit terrorism. We’re backsliding, and no safer now then we were then. On the home front, our borders are still porous, we’re still not screening people, and security grants are too much about pork and not enough about real risk.

Clarke is mostly wrong.

In fact, we are safer today than we were seven years ago. We haven’t been attacked since 9/11 in part because we have destroyed al Qaeda’s headquarters, enhanced our intelligence assets across the globe, captured and killed terrorists on nearly every continent, and partnered with our allies on information sharing and other security-related efforts.

Today, al Qaeda no longer has a state sponsor. Contrary to Clarke’s claims, most of its original leadership has been captured or killed. It is losing in Iraq -- thanks to the surge and to the Awakening movement among the Sunni tribes--and its savage attacks on innocents have reduced its popularity there and across the Muslim world. Muslim scholars and clerics are increasingly condemning its beliefs and behavior as a desecration of Islam.

This progress has come because we abandoned the practice of treating terrorism solely as a criminal matter – exactly the kind of September 10 policy that Clarke celebrates in his article.

Closer to home, the Department of Homeland Security has made clear progress that belies Clarke’s claims.

At the border that Clarke thinks is so porous, DHS has built hundreds of miles of fence and will double the size of the Border Patrol. We’ve also deployed fingerprint-based screening and radiation portal monitors at all of our border entry points.

To protect against a repeat attack, DHS has built nearly two dozen layers of security into our aviation system, and it has developed comprehensive security plans for other critical infrastructure.

Clarke claims that the executive branch has proved incapable of managing new terrorism programs to success. Tell that to US-VISIT – a massive government IT project that compares fingerprints of travelers to a database of millions and does it in 30 seconds for officials all across the country and the world. We got it up and running from scratch, despite the doubters. And it’s so successful that we’re expanding it to collect all ten prints and to compare them to prints found in terrorist safe houses around the world. We’ve done all that since Dick Clarke left government – and without a word of support from him.

Despite his claims of backsliding, it’s DHS that has been battling complacency, and Clarke who seems to have been sitting on the sidelines.

We’re the ones who’ve been fighting for the carefully targeted, risk-based homeland security grants he favors. It’s Congress that has added billions and made them less risk-based. Has Clarke criticized Congress or praised DHS for our risk based approach? If so, I missed it.

On our southern border, DHS’s fence-building and increased border enforcement have been hampered by local NIMBY (“not-in-my-backyard”) forces and advocates for illegal immigration. Did Dick Clarke speak out against them? Not so I’ve noticed.

To secure our northern border, we’re implementing tougher document standards, and we were ready to require all travelers to produce a passport or passport-equivalent by the end of this year. Where was Dick Clarke when Congress decided to push back that deadline to mid-2009? I don’t remember an op-ed then complaining about how porous this would make our Canadian border.

Clarke says that terrorists who look European have been trained by al Qaeda and may have European Union passports and clean identities unknown to intelligence agencies. He thinks such people could enter the United States almost as easily as did the 9/11 hijackers. It’s indeed true that during Dick Clarke’s tenure, Europeans could come to the US without any opportunity to screen them before they were in the air. As of this January, though, no foreign travelers other than Canadians will be able to come to the US without supplying -- in advance -- the information we need to screen them. At last, we’ll have the time and information we need to investigate risky travelers (and to prepare a rude surprise for terrorists who try this route). That’s all happened since Dick Clarke left government, and without any support from him.

There’s no question that Dick Clarke contributed to strengthening our national security, but his recent assertions are not only incorrect, they disrespect the work of many national security professionals he once called colleagues. That is indeed unfortunate.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Information Sharing: Vital Building Block Toward a Safer and More Secure Nation

We all know how catastrophic the results can be when the right people do not get the right information at the right time. That is why we have made information sharing a national priority, and here at the Department of Homeland Security, a critical part of our mission.

Virtually everyone at DHS has a role in information sharing, which is an essential weapon against threats to the homeland. As those who want to do harm to the nation become more sophisticated, we, too, must be more creative and develop innovative ways to thwart potential attacks. We must continue working to develop coherent policies, create effective governance structures and break down any barriers that prevent us from building sustainable networks and relationships that will secure the nation -- not only now, but in the years to come..

The recently released DHS Information Sharing Strategy exemplifies the Department’s commitment to doing exactly that. A first-of-its-kind document for DHS, the strategy provides direction and guidance for all of the Department’s information-sharing initiatives. It describes how we can transform DHS into an organization that promotes an environment where information is shared in a strategic, efficient manner.

The Strategy is based on a set of five guiding principles:

1. Fostering information sharing is a core Department mission.
2. The Department must use the established governance structure to make decisions regarding information-sharing issues.
3. The Department must commit sufficient resources to information sharing.
4. The Department must measure progress toward information sharing goals.
5. The Department must maintain information and data security and protect privacy and civil liberties.

The DHS Information Sharing Strategy is more than a piece of paper. By articulating our priorities in such a fashion, we are sending a clear message: information sharing is no longer optional; it is a vital building block toward a safer and more secure nation.

While our Information Sharing Strategy is a huge step forward, it is only one of a number of ways DHS is moving ahead. One of our most notable accomplishments to date has been the creation of a set of high-level governance structures that will ensure the Department continues to advance with information-sharing initiatives in a unified, coherent fashion.

The Information Sharing Governance Board is an executive-level body that drives Department-wide information sharing initiatives to completion. The Information Sharing Coordinating Council is a working-group made up of action officers from across all DHS Components, ensuring every sector of the Department is represented in information-sharing efforts.

But strategies, policies and governance structures are not enough. We must also work to address cultural barriers that exist across the Department. As the Secretary has said, “We are One DHS.” In order to achieve this vision, we are blending the many tactical missions of the Department. This led us to develop a set of Shared Mission Communities that will cut across the Department and build relationships based around common missions and not organizational structures.

Beyond DHS, we must share information with all federal, State, local, tribal, private sector and international partners as well. That is one reason our Strategy is not only consistent with, but complementary to the President’s National Strategy for Information Sharing, as well as the United States Intelligence Community Information Sharing Strategy.

To sustain a robust federal information sharing environment, we maintain close relationships with the Department of Defense, the Department of Justice and its Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Program Manager for the Information Sharing Environment and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, to name just a few. However, our responsibility to protect the homeland requires successful partnerships which extend beyond the federal government. We wholeheartedly support the state and local fusion centers across the country with personnel, training and funding. The centers provide deployed DHS analysts the opportunity to work side-by-side and exchange information with their state, local and tribal counterparts, and law enforcement and public safety officers. To date, the Department has deployed 25 intelligence officers to fusion centers across the country with plans to have a total of 35 in the field by the end of the year.

To foster collaboration and share best practices and lessons learned within the fusion center network, DHS sponsors the Homeland Security State and Local Intelligence Community of Interest (HS SLIC), a virtual community of intelligence analysts. Its membership has grown significantly in the past year with members now representing 45 states, the District of Columbia, and seven federal departments. We have also established a HS SLIC Advisory Board, which includes state and local leaders of the HS SLIC to advise the Office of Intelligence and Analysis leadership on issues relating to intelligence collaboration with our non-federal partners. Through the HS SLIC, members are able to post intelligence products so that there is effective vertical information sharing between the states and the national Intelligence Community and horizontally between the states. Fusion center analysts across the country meet via teleconference weekly with their DHS counterparts to discuss homeland security threat issues. Through these activities, DHS is making the HS SLIC a significant contributor to the National Strategy for Information Sharing.

Another initiative in which we are contributing significant leadership is with the Interagency Threat Assessment and Coordination Group (ITACG), which was established at the direction of the President and the 9/11 Commission Act to facilitate increased sharing of terrorism-related information between the national Intelligence Community and our state, local, tribal, territorial, and private sector partners. By pulling together in one place state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal homeland security, law enforcement, and intelligence officers at the National Counterterrorism Center, the ITACG now serves as a focal point to guide the development and dissemination of federal terrorism-related intelligence products through DHS and the FBI to our State, local, tribal territorial, and private sector partners.

Through these and other efforts, I envision an environment where all of those vested in the protection of the nation are working in concert. I am pleased with how far we have come to develop effective technological solutions as well as reduce the cultural barriers that once impeded the flow of information--much progress has already been made.

Building trusted relationships takes dedication and patience. Creating a cohesive environment within an organization as vast as DHS and the federal government at large takes commitment and perseverance. Protecting our nation from the myriad of threats that we face takes courage and resolve. We are and must be up to the task.

Charlie Allen
Under Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis and Chief Intelligence Officer

Clear Benefit

As reported in today’s Washington Post, two recent Congressional reports claim that our Department lacks a comprehensive strategy to protect the American people from the threat of nuclear and radiological weapons and materials, and that our efforts to guard against biological threats are poorly coordinated and have “unclear benefit.”

While we welcome Congressional oversight and thoughtful, balanced recommendations and even criticism, these reports and comments widely miss the mark. They are based on outdated and incomplete information.

Far from lacking a strategic plan or clear goals, the Department, in cooperation with federal, state, local, and international partners, has developed and is implementing a comprehensive Global Nuclear Detection Architecture to prevent the entry of radiological and nuclear weapons or materials into the United States. This architecture is intelligence-driven, and built around a multi-layered strategy that starts overseas, continues at our borders, and is maintained within the U.S. interior.

It begins with securing the international supply chain and working with our partners overseas to prevent illicit nuclear or radiological material from being smuggled into the country. Through programs such as the Secure Freight Initiative, our officers are working with their foreign counterparts overseas to scan U.S.-bound containers for radiation as they move through international ports.

At home, we are scanning cargo at the ports of entry and closing gaps along the land, air, and sea borders. We now scan almost all incoming containerized cargo for radiation at our major seaports. We also scan 100 percent of truck cargo entering the United States from Mexico and more than 90 percent of the truck cargo entering the United States from Canada. Just a few years ago, we didn’t scan any of this cargo for radiation.

But our efforts do not end here. To counter the threat of terrorists attempting to smuggle material aboard small planes, last year we launched an initiative to begin scanning trans-oceanic general aviation aircraft arriving in the United States for radiological and nuclear material. We also recently completed a Small Vessel Security Strategy to address the risk of small boats smuggling dangerous material, and we have been testing radiological and nuclear detection equipment in various maritime locations on the West Coast. This is in addition to equipping every Coast Guard boarding team with radiation detection equipment.

To protect the interior of the country, our “Securing the Cities” initiative is integrating radiation detection capabilities within the New York City urban area, and we are testing fixed and mobile radiation detection systems for commercial trucks traveling on U.S. highways.

Finally, we working with the Department of Energy, industry partners, and others to enhance security for licensed, high-risk radioactive sources, and we are promoting the design and production of non-nuclear alternatives for industrial devices that currently use radioactive sources.

To be sure, these efforts are not complete. But they do reflect a balanced and strategic defense designed to identify and address remaining gaps and vulnerabilities in our detection capabilities and make wise investments of taxpayer resources to draw down the risk of WMD.

Beyond radiological and nuclear threats, we also have made strides to improve our detection of dangerous biological agents. Our BioWatch program is now deployed in more than 30 major cities nationwide to monitor the air for harmful biological agents, giving us a robust detection capability. BioWatch works hand-in-hand with our new National Biosurveillance Integration Center, which analyzes data to quickly determine potential health and security threats.

Under BioWatch – which did not exist before 2001 – the Department has provided guidance to all participating jurisdictions on preparedness, response, and environmental sampling so that they can build their own concept of operations and operational plans around BioWatch. We have specific cooperative agreements with each of the participating laboratories to use their space, but we pay for our staff, test equipment, and chemicals used to analyze the BioWatch samples. And we are now beginning to deploy our next generation of quicker, less expensive BioWatch detectors.

Perhaps those who say that BioWatch has “unclear benefit” need reminding that our nation already suffered an anthrax attack in 2001. Our ability to quickly detect and characterize these kinds of biological agents is critical to saving lives and minimizing the impact. I think most Americans would agree the benefits of such a system are indeed clear.

Michael Chertoff

Dollars and Sense

Today we announced nearly $80 million in grants that will help states and territories strengthen the security of their driver’s licenses and identification cards. This allocation brings the total amount we’ve provided for REAL ID implementation to more than $361 million; and, if Congress approves our budget request for next year, that number will grow to $511 million.

I think you’ll agree that more than half a billion dollars is a significant investment and is indicative of our pledge to help states implement this important security measure. Of course, this is in addition to our regulatory changes that reduced state implementation costs by roughly 73 percent. But, instead of discussing dollars and cents, I want to focus on the big picture and share with you some reasons why secure identification is so imperative in the 21st century.

First, I’m sure we can all agree that in our post-9/11 world, it’s vital to keep identity documents out of the hand of terrorists. (In case you’re wondering, 18 of the 19 hijackers on 9/11 had U.S. licenses or IDs – many of them easily obtained through fraudulent means).

Second, speaking on behalf of identity theft victims, I think we can also agree that there’s a growing need to address the ease with which anyone can obtain a driver’s license or create a fake one, rob someone of their identity, and disrupt their life for years.

And third, when you board an airplane, wouldn’t it be comforting to know that your fellow passengers are, in fact, who they say they are, and their actual identities match what is listed on their IDs?

Of course.

The arguments for having secure identification speak for themselves. That’s why the 9/11 Commission recommended closing this glaring security loophole, and that’s why Congress passed the REAL ID Act in 2005.

Since then, we’ve been working with states to implement these minimum security standards in a balanced, sensible fashion. Part of this involves providing funds, maintaining flexible deadlines, and partnering with states on a host of technical issues that will bring our long-neglected identification system into the 21st century.

The bottom line is that this is a shared responsibility--not a federal mandate or a national ID--but a collective response to an obvious problem. Secure identification makes it much more difficult for identity thieves, criminals, and potential terrorists to harm us. At DHS, we’re continuing to work with states and territories to do everything we can to close this gap and protect our citizens.

Stewart Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Setting the Record Straight on REAL ID (Part III) – Too Much Spaghetti

Critics of REAL ID often misrepresent what it is and what it is not. Probably the most egregious myth is the claim that the law creates a national ID that Americans will be required to carry.

Wrong. REAL ID is simple. The regulation requires that states meet minimum security standards when they issue driver’s licenses and identification cards necessary for “official purposes,” like getting on a plane or entering federal buildings. That’s it. The federal government’s role is to make sure that states meet minimum standards of security, so that banks and airports in one state can count on the quality of licenses issued in another.

States will still control their licenses and the personal information they collect. And, they will have plenty of flexibility in setting the license’s design, physical security features, and issuance procedures. These minimum standards will make it harder for terrorists to take advantage of the weak security of a particular state, the way Timothy McVeigh did when he used a fake South Dakota license to rent a Ryder truck in Oklahoma to bomb the Murrah Federal Building.

Don’t want a REAL ID? Don’t get one. If you don’t need a driver’s license or similar ID today, nothing in the REAL ID Act requires you to get one. In fact, the federal government does not have the authority to regulate how or whether a bank, grocery store, retailer, or school requires REAL ID. States and private companies make those determinations. So, given that states will have control over the production and issuance processes, the design and features of the card, and the data stored, how can anyone argue that REAL ID is a national ID? In short, they can’t, but that does not stop them from trying.

REAL ID is one of the last 9/11 Commission recommendations that still remains to be implemented. All but one of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers carried some form of government-issued ID, mostly state driver’s licenses, many of which were obtained fraudulently. In the planning stages for the attacks, these documents were used to rent vehicles, evade law enforcement, enroll in flight school, and board airplanes on that fateful day.

The 9/11 Commission was dismayed, like the rest of us, by how easy it was for the hijackers to beat the system. That’s why the Commission recommended that “(s)ecure identification should begin in the Untied States. The Federal Government should set standards for the issuance of birth certifications and sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.”

Critics of REAL ID have been busy throwing a lot of spaghetti on the walls. They’ll tell you it’s a national ID, it invades privacy, or that it’s too expensive. Spaghetti throwing is almost a pastime in the beltway. It is also an indication that one lacks valid arguments. So, absent that validity, they’ll throw out a bunch of poor arguments and see which ones stick.

But, REAL ID is too important for these sorts of myths or games. I have commented on some of them in earlier blogs, and I’m still waiting for a convincing argument in favor of insecure identification. If you have one, I’d sure like to see it.

For more information on REAL ID, visit: www.dhs.gov/realid.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Setting the Record Straight on REAL ID -- Part II Privacy

Is REAL ID a threat to privacy? There are critics who will say so. But, these same critics can’t and won’t tell you precisely how REAL ID threatens privacy. There’s a reason for that. They have no evidence. The facts are that REAL ID will actually increase privacy protections for Americans, and in several concrete ways.

Under REAL ID, state Departments of Motor Vehicles (DMVs)--not the federal government--will continue to control driver’s license data. And, thanks to REAL ID, that data will get additional protection from disclosure. State DMVs will meet tough new security standards for that data.

State security plans must address, among other things:

• the physical security of the facilities and materials used to produce licenses,
• the design and security features on the cards, and
• the security of how the public’s personal information is managed.

In addition to the "Driver’s Privacy Protection Act," which will continue to bar states and their employees from selling or releasing personal information, the DHS Privacy Office has established a set of best practices for the protection of this information. These best practices provide guidance to the states and raise the bar for state DMVs beyond what was previously required by federal or state law.

Another myth we sometimes hear – "But, won’t REAL ID create new links between DMVs, who will now be checking to make sure that drivers don’t hold licenses from several states? Doesn’t that create a risk of hacking, and identity theft?" Here again, the argument does not hold any water. Law enforcement officials from every state can already log into DMV databases check the validity of a license when they perform a traffic stop. And, for the past 16 years DMV officials have run checks for commercial licenses to keep truck drivers from holding multiple licenses. To date, there’s not been a single reported privacy violation.

If you've ever been the victim of identity theft, there's a one-in-three chance that the thief used a fake driver's license to commit the crime. It’s very simple. Making licenses harder to forge will make this crime harder to perpetrate.

For example, REAL ID requires all states to verify birth certificates by going to the source – the states where the certificates were issued. It calls for electronic confirmation of the data on the certificates, making it much more difficult for an identity thief to create a fictitious identity using a forged birth certificate.

There will always be folks who yearn for a simpler day – before Google, before the Social Security Number, and before telephone books. No doubt all of these innovations have had an effect on privacy. But, they’ve also made modern life far more convenient.

There will also always be folks who yearn for a world where ID isn’t necessary. But, we don’t live in such a world. And, pretending we can live without ID will simply make the lives of the criminals, or even terrorists, easier.

A Public Opinion Strategies poll taken last year shows that 82 percent of the American public favors secure identification to prevent terrorism and identity theft. Most all Americans currently reside in states that are well on their way to secure licenses. There’s still time for the remaining three states to get on board, and provide their citizens with a powerful protection against identity theft.

Thanks for reading. I’ll check in with other thoughts on the topic soon.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

REAL ID – Plain and Simple

The driver’s license is the most commonly used identity document in the United States. Originally designed to verify that you’re allowed to drive, it is now the primary identification for almost everyone over the age of 16 in the United States. It’s used to enter federal buildings, board airplanes, prove your age, and it’s even used in some states as a debit card.

Like it or not, Americans rely on driver’s licenses for every day life. That’s why the security of state licensing systems is so important. And, licensing systems are only as secure as the weakest link.

Unfortunately, we learned this the hard way. Twice.

First, in 1995, when Timothy McVeigh was able to create a fake South Dakota license with ease; all it took was a manual typewriter and a kitchen iron. He used the license to rent a Ryder truck in Oklahoma and destroy the Murrah Federal Building. Then, on September 11, 2001, eighteen of the nineteen hijackers carried government-issued IDs – mostly state driver’s licenses, many obtained fraudulently.

The 9/11 Commission recognized that it’s too easy to get false identification in the U.S. That’s why the Commission determined that “(s)ecure identification should begin in the United States. The federal government should set standards for the issuance of birth certificates and sources of identification, such as driver’s licenses.” Congress responded with the REAL ID Act of 2005, which requires the federal government to set standards for the identifications it accepts.

At its core, the regulation requires that, in order for a state’s ID to be used to gain access to federal facilities, airplanes and the like, the state must implement strong security standards in three areas.

1. First, the state must apply better standards when verifying the identification of those applying for driver’s licenses.


2. Second, states must increase the physical security features on the driver’s license card by making it harder to alter or forge (e.g., optical variable devices, ultraviolet features, micro-printing, fine line duplex patterns, and other features that cannot be reproduced using commercially available products).


3. Finally, it calls for the security of the production facilities and materials used in the production of licenses, as well as the security of the DMV databases.

In recent weeks, we've heard myth upon myth and anecdote after anecdote to counter the mounting momentum in favor of REAL ID. Fifty-one jurisdictions, to include forty-six states accounting for 97 percent of the licenses issued in the United States, are already on the road to driver's license security. That’s because Americans want identity protection, and it’s because they recognize that knowing who a person is matters. We still live in a world where airplanes and passengers are a target of choice.

That’s where REAL ID comes in. Plain and simple.

As I write, four states have yet to commit to secure licenses for their citizens. The good news for these state leaders is that there’s still time to get on board. I’ll have more to say about this in the coming days. In the meantime, thanks for reading and I look forward to your comments.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

Our Commitment to National Security

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) is committed to protecting national security as we go about our mission of providing the most fair and transparent immigration service possible to our customers.

Let me repeat just one part of that phrase to remove all ambiguity – we are committed to protecting national security. USCIS will never put expediency ahead of national security.

Recently, we modified our policy regarding the adjudication of applications for permanent residence, commonly know as green card status. USCIS will favorably adjudicate those applications where the cases are otherwise fully approvable and FBI name-check requests have been pending for more than 180 days. These cases will not be approved unless the applicants are otherwise eligible and have cleared the FBI fingerprint check and the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) check. In the unlikely event that the FBI name check produces actionable information against an applicant, DHS will initiate removal proceedings.

This is not only good business, but it is also the right thing to do. The policy change better aligns the background check screening processes between DHS agencies. It’s worth noting that 99 percent of all FBI name check results are received within six months. Through process improvements, we fully expect all name-check results to be obtained within that period by the end of this year.

There is no change to the normal background scrutiny conducted on every application for any immigration benefit. All applications are checked through IBIS to gather information from a multitude of law enforcement agencies. It should also be noted that there has been no change to the name-check policy pertaining to naturalization applications.

As a department and as an agency, we are committed to providing immigration benefits and services as quickly as possible to eligible applicants. But, let’s be clear -- we will not shortcut our procedures or processes to the detriment of immigration integrity or national security.

Emilio T. Gonzalez
Director, USCIS

Ignorance is Not Bliss

Last week, the New York Times Science section ran a column that posed the question: What is more dangerous – al Qaeda or homeland security?

Pointing to a recent study about cardiac health problems caused by anxiety, columnist John Tierney suggested that continuing elevated threat levels – and changes in security measures – may spur anxiety-based heart damage that harms more people than al Qaeda.

I’ll admit that I began to read the article expecting at the end it would be tongue in cheek. But this didn’t turn out to be satire. The Times seems to feel that where terrorism is concerned ignorance is, if not bliss, at least tranquility.

Of course, there are a couple of quick points to be made. Contrary to Mr. Tierney’s assertion, the United States Government does not frequently change the alert level, and when we do we explain as fully as possible why.

I could also point out that the Times’ advice suggests that the newspaper itself may be a bigger cause of anxiety-related heart disease, what with the recent reporting about foiled terrorist plots in Spain and Germany, and, less happily, the Bhutto assassination, and bombings in Pakistan and Algeria.

But I want to take the Times’ point more seriously, because it is an example (more obvious and outlandish than usual, perhaps) of an increasing strain of intellectual denial when it comes to terrorism.

As I have often said, our approach to terrorism must be balanced. Neither complacency nor hysteria is appropriate in dealing with a global struggle that will be with us for the foreseeable future. The right answer is to acknowledge the threat, manage the risk and make the necessary reasonable and cost-effective investments that we need to secure ourselves and respond if necessary. And averting our eyes from the threat of terrorism will seem very hollow when the abandonment of security leads to tragic losses that cannot be ignored

We certainly debate about what the right balance of security is, but does it make sense to pretend that what we read about doesn’t exist? When facts become uncomfortable or upsetting, should we ignore them? On the Times’ theory, we should also not discuss preparing for pandemic flu or major catastrophes.

The anxiety caused by a 21st century in which technology has given terrorists and militants unprecedented destructive capabilities is very real. The constructive approach to that anxiety however, is not to wish it away or pretend that it doesn’t exist. The correct approach is to confront the danger, be transparent about the facts, and build real capabilities that assure us that we have maximized our chances of averting or minimizing harm. These are the kinds of behaviors that calm--rather than promote--anxiety.

Ignoring the danger leads neither to bliss nor tranquility. Rather, we should recognize that in a world where man-made and natural hazards exist, the most constructive outlet of anxiety is to motivate solid, intelligent, and balanced preparation.

Michael Chertoff

Building an Effective Bio-Defense Capability

Over the next year, members of our Department will be increasingly talking about the need for Americans to resist complacency in the face of terrorism. There is no question that in some areas of the United States, the sense of urgency to do what is necessary to protect our country from terrorism has begun to wane in the six years since 9/11. Evidence of this can be found in the recent calls to delay new identification requirements to cross our borders; demands to relax current restrictions on liquids in carry-on baggage at our airports; and attempts to put off – or even eliminate – new measures designed to create secure driver’s licenses across our country.

Complacency can be a normal, healthy response to an immense tragedy like 9/11. No one wants to live in a perpetual state of fear or anxiety. But as a nation, it would be irresponsible to pretend the terrorist threat has subsided or that our enemies are no longer interested in waging war on our country. Our job at DHS is to resist complacency. We have not forgotten the need for constant vigilance against the terrorist threat and every day we work diligently to stay ahead of those who would harm us.

One area in particular where we have accelerated our efforts is developing an effective national bio-defense capability to guard against the release of a biological agent that could kill or severely injure tens of thousands to hundred thousands of Americans. Many of these biological agents are not difficult to grow or disseminate over a wide urban area causing thousands of people to become severely ill or potentially die.

Our approach to bio-defense is well defined in Presidential Directives issued by President Bush over the last several years. Our goal is to understand and increase our awareness of such an attack while the perpetrators are still abroad, and thereby prevent an attack from happening. To this end, we have deployed detection systems that monitor the environment for biological agents to provide the early warning necessary to prevent large numbers of causalities and deaths. We are also standing up a robust capability to monitor the status of animal health, human health, food, water, and the environment.

Working closely with the Department of Health and Human Services and other partners, we are creating a nimble and robust response structure to have medicines that can be distributed to people in the event of an attack.

With our colleagues at the Environmental Protection Agency and local environmental health agencies, we must be able to achieve environmental recovery from biological agents that can contaminate cities, buildings, homes, and the environment for years.

These are all complex challenges that require significant planning across all levels of government, multi-year investments in research and technology, and a comprehensive strategy that recognizes the individual needs of cities and states. Moreover, we must set national priorities so that our investments give us a level of national coverage, meet operational needs, and allow us to stay ahead of evolving threats.

We understand that a large-scale biological attack could be far more devastating than even the attacks on 9/11. As that tragedy moves further into the distance, we must remember that our enemy is patient and willing to wait years or decades to strike us when we are most vulnerable. We become more vulnerable as our sense of urgency and vigilance wanes. I can assure you that the committed public servants in our Department will not lose focus as time passes and we will continue to do what is necessary to protect the American people from the full range of threats we face.

Jeffrey W. Runge, M.D.
Assistant Secretary for Health Affairs and Chief Medical Officer

Let's get Real

A key feature of modern society is the widespread presence of tangible proofs of identity, such as driver’s licenses and other government-issued IDs.

Our need for these documents is clear. Modern life consists of countless interactions among strangers and to guard against the dishonest or dangerous ones, it helps to have concrete evidence of who we all are.

But just as we need these documents to verify people’s identity, so must we verify the documents themselves. From potential terrorists trying to gain access to critical infrastructure, to illegal immigrants aiming to get jobs and stay in this country, to con men wanting to steal our identity, there are plenty of individuals who are obtaining these documents illegally or creating bogus ones.

Given this threat, the case for more secure forms of identification is compelling indeed. The 9/11 Commission recommended it; Congress has mandated it; the American people overwhelmingly support it; and now, my department has taken a big step forward toward achieving it.

In accordance with the REAL ID Act of 2005, yesterday we unveiled a set of uniform standards to help our states advance this national imperative.

Under these new standards, driver’s license applicants must furnish documentary proof of who they are and that they’re here legally. States must verify that the documents are legitimate, issue REAL ID licenses that are tougher to tamper with or counterfeit, and work together to prevent people from receiving licenses from multiple states. Department of Motor Vehicles offices must protect their operations and databases from identity theft and other nefarious activities.

Many states are already taking steps to secure identification and we will grant extensions for REAL ID implementation to those who need them and are making genuine progress.

To help defray the states’ implementation costs, we’re making $360 million available -- $80 million in dedicated REAL ID grants and $280 million in general homeland security funding. We’ve cut these costs by almost three-quarters by extending the enrollment deadline three years -- to December 2017 -- for Americans who will be 50 years of age or older as of December 2014.

As a result, the average cost increase for issuing a REAL ID license will be just $8 per person, or just $2 a year. For most Americans, that’s a price worth paying to secure our identity documents. But for a vocal minority, led by the ACLU and like-minded groups, it is not. Rather than an urgent necessity, they depict secure identification as an egregious violation of privacy.

Their position defies both logic and consistency. Have ACLU officials ever objected publicly to the presence of driver’s licenses and other ubiquitous forms of identification? Of course they haven’t. How then can they protest against every effort to secure these documents from fraud and falsification? Do they support insecure identification?

Privacy is indeed at stake here, but it’s the ACLU and their allies who pose the greatest threat to it. Without REAL ID, Americans will remain vulnerable to one of the most egregious privacy violations of all – identity theft.

Under our plan, the new licenses that States issue in 2011 will have to comply with REAL ID security standards.

Michael Chertoff

Real Progress on Real ID

All but one of the nineteen 9/11 hijackers carried government-issued IDs – mostly state driver’s licenses. The hijackers found it easy to obtain these documents, often by taking advantage of an underground network that services illegal workers.

The 9/11 Commission was as dismayed as the rest of us by how easy it was for the hijackers to beat the system, and it recommended an overhaul of the way states issue such documents. Congress responded with the REAL ID Act, which sets minimum standards for states to issue IDs.

Unfortunately, while many states have begun to secure their driver’s licenses, others have been slow to do so, claiming that security improvements are too costly. In any event, we do not think that the cost of secure identification is too high, especially compared to the cost of keeping the current system, which helped not just the 9/11 hijackers but millions of illegal workers who use fake documents to get jobs in the U.S. and identity thieves who take advantage of easily forged ID to invade the privacy and ruin the credit of tens of thousands of Americans each year.

At the same time, we recognize that the states do need time and help to build a more secure system for issuing driver’s licenses. DHS has found two ways to provide relief to the states while sticking to the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation.

First, after listening hard to the states’ concerns, we have recognized that the federal standards for secure licenses will need to give the states more time and flexibility. We hope that the new regulations, to be released in the next several weeks, will cut costs substantially. Based on the new flexibility, states as far apart as Arizona and New York have recently signed formal agreements to implement REAL ID, and we expect others to join once the regulations are published.

Second, today the department is issuing grant guidance to provide direct assistance to the states in meeting the new requirements. One of the new security features in the REAL ID act is a requirement that states double-check the documents that allow people to get licenses. There’s no point in having hard-to-forge licenses if they can be obtained by an easily forged and unchecked birth certificate.

The best way to stop such forgery is through an electronic network that allows one state to double-check birth certificates or licenses issued in other states. By allowing states to query each other’s records, we can avoid creating a consolidated database while ensuring that the data is kept up-to-date. (Such a system is already in effect to make sure that unsafe truckers don’t get commercial licenses from a dozen different states to beat the “points” system.) The federal government is taking the lead in getting such an electronic network off the ground. Today we are issuing grant guidelines that will give states access to $31 million dollars that could be used for that purpose. Once it’s built, all states will be able to hook up to the system, so all will benefit. An additional $4 million will help states electronically check birth certificates.

This is a good day for our nation’s security. It has been a long time coming, but REAL ID is finally building a head of steam. In the past few weeks, we have reached agreement with New York and Arizona on implementing the law and issued a blueprint for building an antifraud network. In the coming weeks we will provide detailed and flexible standards for improving the security of driver’s licenses across the board. And one of the last unimplemented recommendations of the 9/11 Commission will be on its way to completion.

Stewart A. Baker
Assistant Secretary for Policy

A Year of Achievements

This afternoon I had the privilege of giving remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on our department’s accomplishments for the year and our priorities for 2008.

By any measure, 2007 was a year of strong progress and maturation for our department. From border security and immigration enforcement to passenger screening, critical infrastructure protection, and emergency response, we launched important initiatives to strengthen America’s security and we began to see the fruits of our labor in many vital areas.

To keep dangerous people from entering our country, we reached a landmark agreement with the European Union to share advance passenger information on international travelers. We also began collecting 10 fingerprints from foreign visitors at our international airports, which allows us to run more comprehensive terrorist and criminal watch list checks and identify unknown terrorists. We implemented new rules to improve screening of private international aircraft. And we strengthened passport requirements for air travelers in the Western Hemisphere.

To keep dangerous things from arriving here, we launched our Secure Freight Initiative to scan overseas cargo for radiation. We expanded our Container Security Initiative to 58 foreign ports so that our inspectors can screen cargo before it departs for the United States. We installed Radiation Portal Monitors at our land and sea ports of entry to prevent radiological materials and weapons from entering our country. We also seized record amounts of illegal drugs at our borders and at sea.

In addition, we strengthened critical infrastructure protection. We began implementing tough new chemical security regulations to protect chemical facilities from terrorist attack. To protect our ports, we provided port workers with a secure, tamper-proof TWIC credential. We deployed behavioral detection officers to more than 40 of our nation’s airports. And we expanded information sharing with our state and local partners through our participation in fusion centers.

In the area of emergency preparedness and response, we retooled and restructured FEMA, giving its employees better tools, logistics and tracking systems, and more effective disaster registration capabilities. We also hired full-time directors in all 10 of FEMA’s regions. As a result, FEMA’s response time was faster this year and the organization was widely praised for being on the scene quickly during the California wildfires and other disasters.

And to improve the department’s management and operations, we strengthened our information technology oversight and contracting, gave our employees new resources and on-line training tools, and moved forward to consolidate our headquarters operations into a single campus.

Next year we’re going to build on our success in these and many other areas. In particular, we’re going to continue to strengthen security at the border and enforce our nation’s immigration laws. We made a lot of progress this year to build fencing, hire new Border Patrol agents, and strengthen interior enforcement. Next year we will build even more fence, hire more agents, and deploy new technology at the border.

We’re also going to implement new secure identification requirements as part of our Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and we will release final regulations for secure driver’s licenses under the REAL-ID Act. Secure identification was a 9/11 Commission recommendation and remains one of our best tools to prevent terrorism and identity theft.

Finally, we’re going to accelerate our efforts in the area of cyber security and we’re going to continue to institutionalize our department and work with Congress and American people to do our level best to protect this nation.

Of course, behind every one of our accomplishments this year stand the 208,000 men and women of the department. These achievements would not be possible without their resolve, the continued support of our public and private sector partners at every level, and the American people.

Happy holidays and thanks for reading.

Michael Chertoff

Fighting Terror: A New Consensus

It’s time to bury the myth of American divergence from the rest of the world in the fight against terrorism. Contrary to popular opinion, we are constantly working with our international partners to create a better, safer world.

Late last week I spoke in Dublin, Ireland at the Institute of European Affairs and then met in Germany with my security counterparts from six European nations, with the goal of strengthening transatlantic cooperation.

As I stressed in Ireland and in Germany, I remain struck by how remarkably our paths converge.

For starters, most nations, including those of Europe, clearly grasp the danger that terrorism poses to them and to our entire global system of security, safety, and prosperity. They know that Osama Bin Laden, his cohorts, and their ideology have become a major threat to the freedom- loving world. They recall the bombings in Madrid and in the United Kingdom (UK), and the thwarted plot against transatlantic airliners in London last year.

Our paths also converge on three key principles on how best to respond. First, nations are realizing that security begins beyond our own borders and ports of entry. So, we’re stressing the importance of partnerships with other nations. And our allies join us in pursuing a strategy that seeks to manage risk, not to eliminate it, since complete eradication is impossible.

And finally, there’s a growing consensus that information is a critical tool for applying these principles in an effective, risk-based way. By collecting only a few pieces of key commercial information, we can zero in on the handful of potentially dangerous individuals, without violating privacy rights or harming commerce by inconveniencing the vast throngs of legitimate travelers.

Through using personal name record (PNR) data, we can identify previously unknown individuals who are dangerous. In cases where we have no travel data, we will be using our new 10-point fingerprint program to match visitors’ prints against latent prints we’re collecting from battle fields, safe houses, and terrorist training camps abroad. And to guard against dangerous operatives masquerading as innocent visitors, we are creating secure identification through our Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

Other countries now have adopted strikingly similar approaches. Earlier this month, the European Union released a proposed requirement for its member states that mirrors our own rules for PNR data usage in border management processes. The UK has embarked on a seven-year eBorders program. Ireland will roll out a similar program to secure its common travel area with the UK. The Netherlands, Portugal, Germany, the UK, and Malaysia have expedited entry and/or registered travel programs enabling pre-approved travelers to move quickly through passport control. Australia has long had an Electronic Travel Authorization program to facilitate travel while mitigating risks associated with visa-free travel. Japan has begun recording the fingerprints and photos of all foreign visitors.

When it comes to security, no two nations can ever be exactly alike, but clearly convergence is accelerating. Together with our international partners, we are working hard to enhance security, here and across the globe.

Michael Chertoff

A Question of Balance

DHS representatives are often asked whether it is true that whatever is done to strengthen security must be at the expense of privacy, as if it were a zero-sum game. As Secretary Chertoff said in Montreal before an international conference of the data privacy community, such a balance is subjective and fails to recognize that privacy can and must be preserved while securing the homeland. Reasonable people want security and privacy, and would prefer not to assign a relative value to each fundamental right.

Moreover, adopting the balance paradigm effectively denies the ability of our leaders and institutions to craft policies that achieve both of these aims. Why assume the tradeoff, when we can adopt policies and employ new technologies that support privacy and security alike?

DHS policy is to uphold both privacy and security, because both are fundamental rights and one positively impacts the other.

Consider for example, the fair-information practice principle of transparency. DHS posts its System of Record Notices and Privacy Impact Assessments on our website. These documents inform the public what personal information the government is collecting; how it will be used and shared; what consent, access and redress rights the individual may have; how the information will be protected; and how compliance with these protections is audited. Privacy is enhanced by revealing what the government is doing, and security is enhanced by DHS supporting systems intended to protect the public.

In his prepared remarks to the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on December 5, 2006, Fred Cate, Distinguished Professor and Director of the Center for Applied Cybersecurity Research at Indiana University, noted that he had been “struck by how closely connected privacy and security really are.” The thrust of Cate’s remarks was that good privacy protection not only can help build support for the appropriate use of personal data to enhance security, it can also contribute to making security tools more effective. I agree with Professor Cate. Protecting privacy while protecting the homeland builds public trust in our institutions. I see privacy and security as compatible and supporting partners in our mission to use information effectively to protect the homeland.

Hugo Teufel
Chief Privacy Officer

Chemical Security: Publication of the List of Chemicals of Interest

Today, the Department of Homeland Security’s published the final Appendix A to the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards in the Federal Register. Appendix A is essentially a list of chemicals that, if stolen, could be turned into a weapon, or, if released near populated areas, could potentially harm or kill hundreds or thousands of people. Appendix A is important because it defines the universe of sites and facilities that will enter the first step in DHS’s regulatory process, and, if those sites and facilities are determined to be “high risk,” could be required to meet federal security standards under the rule.

The chemical sector is an essential part of America’s critical infrastructure and economy. Chemical facilities, and facilities that use or store chemicals, are responsible for the production of food, medicine, safe drinking water, energy and fuels, plastics, electronics, and other everyday items. Our national and economic security, as well as our present standard of living, depends on the continued production and transportation of chemicals and the vitality of the sector. The law Congress passed, and our regulatory structure, will raise the level of security at high-risk facilities without crippling these important industries.

Publication of Appendix A triggers a 60-day clock: If a facility possesses a chemical listed in Appendix A at or above the quantity noted, it is required to complete and submit to DHS a Top-Screen assessment by 60 calendar days from today, or January 22, 2008. (If a facility later comes into possession of a listed chemical at or above the quantity noted, it will have 60 calendar days from that date to fill out the Top-Screen.)

Once DHS has information from the Top-Screen, it will make preliminary determinations as to which facilities present “a high level of risk”—the facilities that Congress authorized DHS to regulate. Facilities determined to be high risk will have to conduct vulnerability assessments, and, based upon the risk the facility presents, develop and implement a site security plan that meets DHS’s performance standards.

This journal entry is one of many ways that DHS is reaching out to remind facility owners and operators of their responsibility to comply with the regulation and complete the Top-Screen. We at DHS take our charge to ensure the security of Americans very seriously. Terrorists are quick to take advantage of vulnerabilities, and we have seen chemicals exploited offensively overseas. The requirements set forth in Appendix A are sensible, workable and thorough, and we will vigilantly enforce these standards to protect our homeland.

Robert B. Stephan
Assistant Secretary for Infrastructure Protection

A Visit to the Middle East

This past weekend, I traveled to the Middle East to participate in several events with our servicemen and women and to meet with a number of our allies throughout the region. I visited Iraq, Bahrain and Jordan, and on the way back, met my European counterparts in London.

I’d like to share with you some highlights from the past few days.

On Veterans Day, I had the privilege of administering the Oath of Allegiance to over 170 U.S. soldiers at a naturalization ceremony in Iraq. They were born in over 50 countries. Ironically, the ceremony took place in an auditorium formerly used by Saddam Hussein as a movie theater. But most remarkably, these brave men and women were willing to leave their native homes and put their lives in danger to defend America before they were naturalized American citizens.

After Iraq, I went to Bahrain and met with several U.S. Coast Guard members who are assisting in Operation Iraqi Freedom. There, a small unit is doing a tremendous job securing ports in the North Arabian Gulf, augmenting U.S. Navy security forces, training Iraqi sailors and marines, and protecting Iraq’s oil infrastructure, which is crucial to overall reconstruction efforts. In addition to Coast Guard forces, DHS has Customs and Border Protection personnel stationed in and around Iraq to help train Iraqi soldiers and strengthen their border security efforts.

DHS personnel deployed overseas are directly enhancing our security at home. By working closely with Iraqi, American, and Coalition Forces, they are helping to stabilize a fledgling democracy, creating a safer Iraq and therefore a safer Middle East. And a safer Middle East means a safer world for us and our allies. These young men and women are also goodwill ambassadors, setting an example and forging relationships that enhance America’s reputation in Iraq and the Gulf.

But America also has a responsibility to extend its protection to vulnerable populations, including those in Iraq. And, of course, our greatest duty is to those who are at risk because they have worked side by side with our military and civilian personnel. So I also visited a refugee processing facility in Jordan to examine what we are doing to process Iraqi refugees seeking asylum in our country. We are processing Iraqis faster than any other nationality and the pace is increasing. At the same time, we have to remain thorough in our screening procedures, so terrorists and criminals do not exploit our refugee process to sneak into the country. DHS, U.S. State Department, and Jordanian officials are equally committed to this goal.

Thanks for reading.

Michael Chertoff

Marine Safety and Security--Two Sides of the Same Coin

Since the attacks of 9/11, the Coast Guard has adapted to meet the growing needs of the nation and the challenges surrounding new and evolving threats of the 21st century. We have grown and taken on new missions while moving from the Department of Transportation to the Department of Homeland Security. Some members of Congress and within the commercial maritime industry have expressed concern recently that the Coast Guard’s emphasis on protecting the homeland from terrorism detracts from other Coast Guard missions, like our marine safety program.

I am committed to our long-standing legacy missions as much as I am to our expanded homeland security mission, especially since marine safety and security are not mutually exclusive. They are both vital to our national interests and must be closely coordinated to be effective. The fact is, safety and security are two sides of the same coin. It is precisely that paradigm that makes the Coast Guard so effective and efficient. We employ a unique combination of military, humanitarian, and federal law enforcement authorities and capabilities to keep our waterways and critical maritime infrastructure safe and secure. Our greatest strength is our responsive, flexible and adaptive character. We are always ready – for all maritime threats and hazards.

In the past six months alone, Coast Guard men and women have responded to the call for help on the high seas from mariners and ships hailing from across the globe – from the Bering Sea to the Gulf of Mexico. Like most emergencies at sea, these situations were complicated and required much more than simply rescuing mariners in distress. They involved crewmembers and cargos from around the world, as well as the potential for major oil spills.

Today, more than ever before, our safety, security and environmental stewardship missions are inextricably linked like the interwoven threads of knitted blanket. Remove one thread and the others begin to unravel.

Many of you may think of the Coast Guard as lifesavers and guardians. Saving lives is one of our first and proudest missions, but we believe preventing maritime disasters is just as important as responding to them when they do occur. The Coast Guard is a world leader in helping prevent accidents at sea and maintaining the security of cargo and ports. Our marine safety program is responsible for ensuring the safe operation and navigation of some 20,000 U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels.

Each year, Coast Guard inspectors conduct more than 70,000 domestic vessel inspections and 10,000 port state control exams to help safeguard maritime commerce, international trade and supply chain security. Trained investigators also conduct 14,000 casualty, suspension and revocation, and civil penalty cases annually to investigate marine accidents and violations. These investigations help prevent future maritime tragedies and leverage lessons-learned to make maritime commerce safer. All of these duties are carried out by a cadre of approximately 1,000 trained uniformed and civilian inspectors, investigators and port state control officers stationed all across the nation and around the world.

Our marine safety program needs to grow to keep pace with significant expansion in the worldwide maritime industry, and we are working toward that end. This August, I commissioned a review of our marine safety program and on September 25, I provided a comprehensive plan to Congress (Enhancing the Coast Guard Marine Safety Program). The plan outlines more than a dozen new initiatives under three broader program goals that I intend to pursue and implement with the support of Congress, in cooperation with the commercial marine industry. The first goal is to improve major marine safety program capacity, competency and performance. The second goal is to enhance service delivery to mariners and industry customers. The third goal is to expand outreach and advisory mechanisms for industry and maritime communities.

We are also modernizing the Coast Guard – improving our organizational structure so that in any maritime incident, we can get our folks where they need to be, with the right training and equipment, in the quickest way possible. To better serve the American public, we also brought together our rapidly deployable emergency response teams under one Deployable Operations Group command, whose skills and capabilities complement those of other Federal, state and local response agencies. Like the rest of the Coast Guard, these highly trained deployable teams carry out a broad range of safety, security and environmental protection missions.

As I told the Propeller Club of DC a few weeks ago, as we work to improve our Marine Safety program and our service delivery structure, we will remain focused on all of our core roles and missions. The Coast Guard will always be about protecting our citizens, our communities, the marine environment, and U.S. economic and security interests within our ports and inland waterways, along our coasts, and around the globe. Just as we have for 217 years, America’s Coast Guard will be there to keep all of us safe and secure.

Admiral Thad W. Allen
Commandant U.S. Coast Guard

Preventing IED Attacks

Earlier today I gave a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies on the Department’s efforts to prevent the use of improvised explosive devices (IEDs) against our country. All of us have seen the horrible images of our soldiers being attacked overseas by roadside bombs and other forms of IEDs. Over the past two decades, IEDs have been used by terrorists in attacks ranging from the U.S.S. Cole to the London and Madrid bombings to the Oklahoma City attack in 1995. IEDs remain a terrorist weapon of choice: they are easy to make, difficult to defend against, and cause untold death and destruction.

Our Department is 100 percent committed to protecting the people of the United States from IEDs. All of our counterterrorism efforts focus directly or indirectly on bombing prevention--whether that involves screening passengers for explosives at airports, checking cargo for radiological materials that can be used to make “dirty bombs,” protecting dangerous chemicals from theft, hardening critical infrastructure, advancing research and technology to defeat IEDs, or sharing information and intelligence with state and local partners.

These efforts are not scattershot or uncoordinated. Within the Department, we established an Office for Bombing Prevention specifically to work with other federal, state, and local agencies, as well as members of the private sector, to implement a national strategy to address IED threats. This office also sponsors TRIPWire, an information sharing portal that brings together bomb squad technicians, intelligence analysts, and state and local law enforcement to share expertise on the latest terrorist IED tactics, techniques, and procedures.

Our Science and Technology Directorate is also leveraging the vast knowledge and expertise of our nation’s science and research community to develop next generation IED screening tools and countermeasures. This includes technology to identify and alert authorities to suspicious behaviors that precede an IED attack, and developing bomb-resistant materials and barriers to minimize damage after an explosion.

At our airports, we’ve deployed a full complement of screening tools and procedures, from bomb-sniffing “puffer” machines to explosives detection canine teams to Bomb Appraisal Officers trained to look at a person’s behavior for signs of malicious intent. We’re also stepping up security requirements for chemical sites and facilities, small planes, and small boats operating in U.S. waters.

In all of this, we are making it harder for terrorists to acquire materials to make IEDs. We are educating state and local partners on the latest IED threats and techniques. We are working with the private sector to elevate security in and around critical infrastructure. And we are providing substantial resources, including $1.7 billion to date in grants for IED prevention, detection, protection, and response.

There is no guarantee against an IED attack, but we are raising our barrier against the use of this deadly terrorist weapon. Of course, an alert and informed public is a key part of our nation’s defense. We appreciate your continued vigilance and your support.

Michael Chertoff

The Battle for Our Future

Earlier today, I had the honor and privilege of speaking at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, the site for one of the greatest speeches of modern times, Winston Churchill’s “Iron Curtain” address.

Delivered in 1946, Churchill’s speech eloquently outlined Soviet communism’s threat to the free world and called for firm and principled resistance. Like his warning a decade earlier about Nazi Germany, his words that day were roundly criticized. On both sides of the Atlantic, Britain’s greatest statesman was called a fear-monger for his efforts.

A half century later, in 1996, the words of Margaret Thatcher, another great former British prime minister, were also unheeded after she had come to Westminster and warned of the rise of Islamic radicalism.

But as I mentioned today, time has vindicated them both.

Appeasing Nazi Germany in the 1930s led to World War II. Containing the Soviet Union following the Second World War led to its downfall. Downplaying the threat posed by Bin Laden a decade ago led to the horrific 9/11 attacks.

Incredibly, we face exactly the kind of complacency in our post-9/11 world that Churchill and Thatcher confronted in decades past.

As I said today, too many members of our “thinking” classes deny or downplay the fact that war has been declared against us by an ideology that is as ruthless and fanatical as that of Nazism or communism. Spread by a network of cult-like entities that span the globe, this ideology denies the dignity and humanity of its opponents, and sanctifies the slaughter of innocent people, especially mainstream Muslims, for rejecting its hateful and bigoted message.

Members of Al Qaeda and their fellow travelers seek not only revolution in their own countries, but domination of many countries. Beginning in the Middle East, South Asia, and North Africa, they seek control over actual territory where they can train, assemble advanced weaponry, impose repressive law, and plan further attacks against our nation and its allies.

How have we responded? Under President Bush’s leadership, we’ve destroyed Al Qaeda’s Afghan headquarters, deployed our intelligence assets globally, captured or killed terrorists on nearly every continent, partnered with allies on information sharing and intelligence, and adapted to the evolving threats we continue to face here and abroad.

By responding in strength, we’ve applied Winston Churchill’s words at Westminster to our enemies today. As Churchill said of the communists, “There is nothing they admire so much as strength and there is nothing for which they have less respect than for weakness.” Whether it’s Hitler or Stalin, Bin Laden or Iranian President Ahmadinejad—for ideological fanatics, weakness is provocative.

Were Churchill alive today, he would encourage us to maintain our resolve, preventing our enemies from launching further attacks, gaining control of nation states, and obtaining weapons of mass destruction. He would tell us that we must have a clear vision of the threat, not one colored by wishful thinking.

I’m also certain that Churchill would recognize that ours is ultimately a battle of ideas, a clash between the forces of reason and modernity and those of medieval fanaticism. Through the liberation and exercise of reason, we’ve witnessed wondrous things – the conquest of ancient diseases, the freeing of legions of people from poverty and starvation, and the unleashing of the information age. Ours is not a struggle against religion, for there is no necessary contradiction between reason and faith. Indeed, reason is God’s gift to humanity.

This is a battle that we must win, and one that calls on all of us to be engaged.

Michael Chertoff

A Global Approach

This week I traveled to Canada to speak with international commissioners from around the world on data privacy and to Mexico to meet with Mexican officials and governors from our border states. All this travel illustrates how global the mission of homeland security really is.

From protecting our land and sea borders to screening travelers and goods coming from other countries, a large part of our mission necessarily involves relating to and working with partners all over the world.

In pursuit of this mission, we are engaged overseas nearly as much as any department in the United States government. We have DHS personnel on nearly every continent and in many foreign cities. Our Customs and Border Protection officers screen U.S.-bound cargo at more than 50 overseas ports. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has more than 50 attaché offices in 35 countries that investigate human smuggling and money laundering cases. The Secret Service investigates counterfeit U.S. currency all over the world. And the Coast Guard works with the U.S. Navy to protect vital maritime assets in the Middle East, including in Iraq.

In our 21st-century global environment, people, goods, money, and ideas routinely move around the world in a matter of seconds and hours, rather than days and weeks. Unfortunately, so can terrorists. We need to look no further than to 9/11, where the plot was hatched in Central Asia, using recruits from Saudi Arabia who trained in Afghanistan, planned in Europe and launched their attack in America.

That’s why it’s vital that we continue to partner with our allies overseas to share information and develop international standards to combat the global threat we face.

Working together with our foreign partners to enhance security is clearly a win/win for both sides. When we screen cargo overseas and strengthen the security of the international supply chain, we’re not only keeping America safe, but also increasing the safety of countries where the cargo originates. And through advanced planning and coordination with these partners, we can mitigate the effects of natural disasters and help stop the spread of infectious diseases.

While globalization presents us with clear security challenges, it also provides opportunities to expand our cooperation with international partners to protect our shared interests. I’ll keep you updated on our progress as we work with our colleagues overseas, as well as those here in the U.S. to combat terrorism and keep the homeland safe.

Thanks for reading. I look forward to hearing from you.

Michael Chertoff

Privacy And Security

Scott McNealy, Chairman of Sun Microsystems, once said, “Privacy is dead, get over it.” He was referring to the unprecedented ability of people and organizations to access information about any one of us.

Privacy is certainly not dead, but our society must go the second mile to protect it. The question that my Department faces is how to do that in our post-9/11 world where the need for greater security is paramount.

I addressed that question today at a conference of privacy commissioners in Montreal. As I noted, part of the answer is obvious. The same terrorist organizations which plot to attack us want to wipe out our liberty, and we don’t intend to make their job any easier by doing it ourselves.

We view privacy as a fundamental human right and that’s why preserving it is an integral part of our mission. Ours is the first federal department with a mandated Chief Privacy Officer. Both here and abroad, DHS is highly acclaimed for its efforts to ensure that our programs are fully vetted for potential privacy violations.

But what about the tension between privacy and security? Is it true that whatever we do to strengthen our security must be at the expense of privacy?

It is not. Our efforts to secure our homeland need not harm our privacy. Rather, in many cases they can actually strengthen it.

A great example is our efforts to create secure identification. By creating secure driver’s licenses and travel documents, we can reduce the egregious privacy violation of identity theft.

Another example is the way we screen the estimated 80 million travelers who fly here annually from other countries. Our strategy is to collect a little information about each visitor--just enough to help us decide who might be a potential security risk. When compared to the alternatives–-searching everyone, searching no one, or the hit-or-miss strategy of random searches--we’ve found that this is the best way to maximize security while at the same time maximizing privacy.

Privacy and security are fundamental rights and we will continue to defend both in our post-9/11 world.

Michael Chertoff

Welcoming Iraqi Refugees

Today, Secretary Rice and I appointed two experienced leaders to serve as senior advisors for Iraqi Refugee Affairs within our Departments. These individuals will report directly to us and guide our efforts to re-settle Iraqi citizens seeking asylum in the United States. (DOS, DHS)

Welcoming refugees is part of our great American tradition as a nation of hope, freedom, and religious tolerance. Indeed, we have moved expeditiously to welcome Iraqi refugees. To date, we have re-settled more than 940 Iraqis and we expect that number to climb. We’ve also conducted or scheduled interviews with every Iraqi refugee for whom we have received a request from the Department of State – currently more than 4,300 individuals.

We are committed to accelerating these efforts. At the same time, however, we must be absolutely certain that terrorists or others bearing ill will against the United States do not attempt to take advantage of our refugee program to gain access to our country. Unfortunately, terrorists have a long history of exploiting other nation’s refugee programs.

We have a moral obligation to help the people of Iraq, especially those individuals assisting coalition forces and putting their own lives at risk. But we also have a responsibility to prevent terrorists from infiltrating our borders. Our new Iraqi Refugee Czars will make sure we meet both of these objectives, and that our re-settlement process moves forward swiftly and with our highest priority. We welcome your comments and appreciate your time.

Michael Chertoff

Is 9/11 Fading?

I’ve started this journal to open a dialogue with the American people about our nation’s security. I would like to hear your thoughts about the steps we’re taking to keep the nation safe. This way, we can learn more about concerns you have within your states and communities. And I want to hear fresh ideas and even constructive criticism about our Department. From time to time, I’ll take a moment to write about issues on my mind, and I’ll invite other members of the Department leadership to offer their thoughts as well.

Of course, yesterday our nation marked the six year anniversary of 9/11. For many of us, 9/11 is still fresh in our minds. The morning of the attack I was on my way to work at the Department of Justice, where I headed the Criminal Division. I spent the next twenty hours at the FBI Operation Center unraveling the first layer of the plot. We determined who the 19 hijackers were by listening to the messages some of the passengers left with their loved ones when they called in from the airplanes. Then we were able to determine where the seats were on the airplanes, and compared the seat numbers with the passenger manifests. That allowed us to identify the 19 hijackers. We then tracked their activities through car rental receipts, hotel receipts, and credit card receipts, and followed the money backwards. Ultimately the trail led to the Al Qaeda network.

Yesterday, I had an opportunity to visit the crash site in Shanksville, Pennsylvania to meet with 9/11 family members. I also spent time at a memorial ceremony in Washington, D.C. honoring first responders who risked their lives rescuing people at the Pentagon. I know these family members and responders will never forget what happened to our country six years ago. I am concerned, however, that for some Americans, the reality of 9/11 is fading.

The Department of Homeland Security exists to prevent a repetition of attacks like those on September 11th. I hope this journal will encourage you to remember why we’re taking actions to protect our country and why it is important that we never lose our commitment to the memory of the heroes of 9/11. I look forward to hearing from you and appreciate your time.

Michael Chertoff