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

A Tool We Need

Could it be that the Illinois state legislature wants to prevent businesses from using the best available tools to determine whether new employees are illegal aliens? I certainly hope not, but that’s precisely what a new state law is poised to do. The recently authorized changes to Illinois’s “Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act” will place restrictions on the ability of employers in the State of Illinois to enroll voluntarily in our Department’s electronic employee verification system (E-Verify) to check the legal status of workers. This is wrongheaded. It’s also unconstitutional because it is preempted by federal law. That’s why today the Department of Justice filed a lawsuit on behalf of DHS to overturn the state law (PDF 13 pages - 82 KB).

E-Verify (formerly known as Basic Pilot) is an online system that allows employers to check whether a new worker’s name and Social Security number are valid and the person is authorized to work in our country. The system is easy to use and free of charge. It’s also popular, with more than 23,000 companies enrolled nationwide, including more than 800 in Illinois.

And you can see why: E-Verify enables employers, in real time, to determine if the name, Social Security number, and other identity information that a new hire provides for his or her I-9 form match information in federal databases, giving them certainty that the people they’re hiring are authorized to work in the U.S. It also will allow employers to compare photos on ID documents provided by a new hire against the photos in state or federal records, thus preventing the use of fraudulent or stolen documents.

Why, then, would the State of Illinois want to prevent employers from using this valuable tool? Critics in the legislature claim that E-Verify takes too long, contains inaccurate data, and might cause workers to be wrongfully terminated. Some also complain that employers might use it to discriminate against citizens or legal immigrants on the basis of their ethnicity.

Let’s take these one by one.

• First, in 90 percent of cases, E-Verify returns an initial response within seconds. That seems pretty fast to me.
• Second, while I’ll be the first to admit that no system is perfect, the data in E-Verify isn’t “inaccurate” – instead, it reflects the data in Social Security Administration and DHS databases. And this actually results in a benefit to employees: E-Verify gives people notice that they might have to correct their information in our databases if the government's records are wrong because of things like a transposed number or misspelled name. This is important because it helps ensure that their Social Security benefits are properly credited.
• Third, employers are not allowed to fire a worker on the basis of an initial E-Verify check. In fact, federal law explicitly states that no worker can be fired until a final determination is made concerning his or her work eligibility.
• Finally, the law requires that employers use the system in the same way for all their new hires, and employers that use the system sign an agreement that says they will treat everyone the same, regardless of race, ethnicity, or national origin.
  

These are all important aspects of the program. But there is a larger issue at stake with the Illinois law. The American people have been loud and clear about their desire to see our nation’s immigration laws enforced. We are taking aggressive steps to do that – increasing worksite enforcement cases and bringing serious criminal penalties against employers who hire illegal aliens. We’ve also sharpened our existing tools, and, yes, we’ve given employers better tools like E-Verify. But we will not succeed if we are stopped at every turn by lawsuits and legislation that frustrate, slow down, or attempt to derail our efforts.

Why now? Many Illinois businesses have already signed up for E-Verify, and others may want to. We’ve asked the Department of Justice to file this suit because those businesses should have certainty that the federal program they’re relying on won’t land them in trouble with Illinois.

Of course, states are free to pass laws that they believe are in the best interests of their citizens. But when those laws interfere with my Department’s ability to uphold and enforce our nation’s immigration laws, or they deny employers tools they badly need and have asked us to provide, then we are fully prepared to fight for what we believe is right and necessary.

Michael Chertoff

For Yourself, Your Family and Your Community

As part of my job, I am frequently reminded of the dangers America faces from disasters, both natural and man-made. From hurricanes to terrorist attacks, they can strike suddenly and without warning, leaving behind a devastating trail of lost lives and property.

Astonishingly (to me), according to a recently released Harvard study, 31 percent of people in high-risk coastal areas would refuse an evacuation order in the event of a major hurricane. Even as Hurricane Dean approached, one-fourth of potentially at-risk Texans surveyed said they would not evacuate, either.

Over the past year, people across America have lost their lives and property due to damage caused by floods, tornadoes and wildfires. Today many Americans remain in a state of denial when it comes to disaster preparedness. Americans must be prepared for all types of disasters including the threat from terrorists, who can attack without warning and cause catastrophic damage and loss of life.

To help America handle disasters better, our Department is striving to promote a new culture of preparedness.

One way we’re doing this is through our annual National Preparedness Month, which we promote every September. Throughout this month, with the help of our Ready campaign, we have been encouraging everyone to develop their own individual and family preparedness plan, including an emergency supply kit, a family emergency plan, and emergency information. This is common sense which we owe our families.

But is it enough to encourage people to help themselves and their families in the event of an emergency or disaster? Shouldn’t we also want them to help their neighborhoods and communities? That’s why, throughout this month, we’ll also be highlighting our work with Citizen Corps, a nationwide movement of volunteers who are donating their time in precisely that way. (See my op-ed for further discussion.)

Through a network of state and local councils, Citizen Corps programs give volunteers a chance to do such things as assist law enforcement, acquire terrorism awareness education and basic emergency response skills, provide medical and public health expertise, and support fire and rescue departments.

Clearly, judging from that list, those who wish to join Citizen Corps will have a good menu of opportunities to help. They will also be satisfied in knowing that they are building community pride and patriotism, acquiring skills to help them take better care of themselves, their families, and their neighbors in a crisis, and reducing the burden on fire fighters, police officers, emergency medical technicians, and others who risk their lives and safety for all of us each day.

If you want to learn more about how you can help yourself, your family, and your community to be better prepared, feel free to contact Ready and Citizen Corps.

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

Brazenly Prepared

Maybe the New York Times is miffed because I’ve criticized their article about the 9/11 anniversary ("As 9/11 Nears, a Debate Rises: How Much Tribute Is Enough?" Sept. 2, 2007). But Thursday's editorial page featured a broadside against our Department of Homeland Security that was a perfect storm of misrepresentation and misunderstanding. Titled, “Department of Brazen Bureaucracy,” the Times charged that we had “flouted” Congressional lawmakers by “claiming” that the Secretary (whether me or my successors) has the responsibility to coordinate national emergencies. The Times also editorialized that our proposed national response framework worsens bureaucratic inertia by creating 15 regional disaster areas with 15 separate plans.

I wish the writers had done their homework. They’ve misread the law and the new national response framework. Worse yet, they are arguing against the very type of detailed planning that is required if we are to successfully confront the wide range of emerging catastrophic threats that can surface in our new century. And this is where the danger of pre-9/11 thinking arises.

First, let’s clear the legal underbrush. Contrary to the Times, the Secretary of Homeland Security has the legal authority to coordinate federal domestic emergency response. This is made clear in both the Homeland Security Act of 2002 which established the Department and the 2006 Amendments to the Act mentioned in the Times editorial. The amendments state that the Administrator of FEMA “shall report to the Secretary” and “is the principal advisor to the President, the Homeland Security Council, and the Secretary for all matters relating to emergency management in the United States.”

All of these statutory elements are captured in – and consistent with – the new national response framework.

Accusing us of flouting laws which they misread is, however, the tip of iceberg of what’s wrong with the Times editorial piece. There appears to be something deeper going on as well.

It’s revealed by a parting shot in the editorial, where it charges that DHS will feed “bureaucratic inertia” by creating “15 regional disaster areas with separate operational and strategic plans.” This just misreads the new policy. The national response framework, in fact, does not create 15 new geographic regions with separate plans. What we are doing is creating 15 different nationwide plans to deal with 15 very different types of disaster scenarios that are concrete threats to our country. This planning effort includes not only upgrading plans for traditional disasters, such as major earthquakes and major hurricanes. It embraces planning to address newly emerging risks, such as multiple attacks by improvised explosive devices; an attack by radiological (“dirty”) bombs; food contamination; cyber attack; and pandemic influenza.

Developing, training to, and exercising plans for multiple threats and very different threat scenarios isn’t a recipe for “bureaucratic inertia” as the Times asserts. It’s simple common sense. The plan for mass evacuation from an approaching major hurricane must be very different from the plan to shelter in place and minimize human contact during a biological attack. And both of these plans would be very different from the plan to mitigate a cyber attack. It would be reckless indeed to believe that one plan can fit all these varied threats.

Why are we broadening the nature of planning like this? Simply put, before 9/11, the main focus of FEMA was natural disasters. But our current 15 planning scenarios reflect the fact that we live now in a post-9/11 world. Natural disasters remain at the forefront of preparation. But so, too, must bomb attacks like those in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Biological threats also cannot be ignored. Congress’ purpose in establishing a broad-gauged Department of Homeland Security was precisely to integrate the ability to respond to all hazards, including those posed by 21^st century terrorism and the existence of weapons of mass destruction. We owe the public a planning process that takes account of these new hazards.

Perhaps this truth is inconvenient to the Times writers. But nostalgia for a time when terrorist WMDs were not a real risk is not a reason to return to pre-9/11 thinking.

Michael Chertoff

____________________________

P.S. We are delighted by the positive response to our journal and the wide variety of topics raised by our readers. In the coming weeks, we will address as many of these topics as possible.

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

Comment Policy

We welcome your comments on postings at the Department of Homeland Security Leadership Journal. Comments submitted to the Department of Homeland Security Journal will be reviewed before posting.

This is a moderated Journal, and the Department retains the discretion to determine which comments it will post and which it will not. We expect all contributors to be respectful. We will not post comments that contain personal attacks of any kind; refer to Federal Civil Service employees by name; contain offensive terms that target specific ethnic or racial groups, or vulgar language. We will not post comments that are spam, are clearly off topic or that promote services or products.

We will make our best effort to promptly post those comments that are consistent with the Comment Policy, but given the need to manage federal resources, moderating and posting of comments will occur only during regular business hours, Monday through Friday. Comments submitted outside of business hours will be read and posted as quickly as possible. To protect your own privacy and the privacy of others, please do not include phone numbers or email addresses in the body of your comment.

For the benefit of robust discussion, we ask that comments remain on-topic. Department leadership will discuss other topics in the future.

What This Journal Is Not

• This Journal is not to be used to report criminal activity. If you have information for law enforcement, please contact your local police or see Report Incidents.
  
• Do not send in questions or status inquiries about your specific immigration or citizenship case or questions about your passport or visa. Contact USCIS directly regarding citizenship, and the State Department regarding international travel.
• This is a thought journal, not a substitute channel for services or general questions. See "Contact Us" on www.dhs.gov, to get help from the Department and components.
  
• Reporter questions will not be posted. Reporters should contact the Press Office through their normal channels.

Any opinions expressed here, except as specifically noted, are those of the individual authors or commenters and do not necessarily represent the views or policies of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Thank you for reviewing the Department of Homeland Security Leadership Journal comment policy.