G8 Summit and Related Issues

MR. BAILY: Welcome to the Foreign Press Center. Secretary Chertoff will make a brief opening statement about his trip to London, Berlin and Moscow, and then be happy to take your questions.

Secretary Chertoff, welcome.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Thank you for that introduction. Thank you for inviting me. It's my first appearance at the Foreign Press Center. I am pleased to remind everybody that I'm going to be leaving for Europe next week as part of the G-8 Justice and Home Affairs ministerial conference, which is a prelude to the ultimate G-8 summit later in the summer. And our focus is going to be obviously on issues of mutual security and prosperity.

Among the things I anticipate we will be able to talk about among the countries are the issues of preparedness, including avian flu preparedness, combating human trafficking, adopting new technology for better explosive detection during aircraft boarding, enhancing security on other forms of transportation like subways and railroads, working to mitigate radicalization and recruitment, promoting cybersecurity, combating electronic financial crimes and crimes on the Internet, more effectively frustrating terrorist financing operations and working more closely on critical infrastructure protection and consequence management.

Now, a lot of people say, "Well, you're Secretary of Homeland Security. You should be focused on the homeland. Why are you going overseas?" But the fact of the matter is that some people say charity begins at home; well, security begins overseas. We are more secure as Americans when we are working to elevate the general level of security around the world. And many of the activities we pursue here at DHS do involve interacting with foreign partners. That includes everything from strengthening corridor security to stopping human trafficking to preventing counterfeiting and, of course, ensuring the safety of all international travel.

Terrorism itself, of course, is global. It knows no boundaries, and therefore our security network has to match it in terms of its scope and reach. The network of relationships we establish with our partners, both public and private, become a critical element in defending the security of the world against terrorists.

At the same time, we want to make it clear that the world is a place that should welcome those who want to play, work and study in peace. And that's why Secretary Rice and I announced in January that we were going to work to encourage those who wish to visit the U.S. for purposes of enjoying themselves or studying or working, we want to encourage them to come to the country. We don't want our security measures to impede legitimate travel and legitimate tourism.

So we're working to expedite the visa process, retool and make our airports more welcoming, and develop smarter screening that raises security but also increases efficiency. One of the tools that we have embraced is US-VISIT, which has allowed us to use biometrics -- fingerprints -- to facilitate travel while promoting security. It's now operational in all of our permanent ports of entry, 115 airports, 15 seaports and 154 land-based ports of entry in the United States, and we are working on pilots in a number of these ports of entry for people who want to exit.

Since 2004, we've processed over 52 million travelers and intercepted more than a thousand individuals with prior violations of the law, including people suspected of rape, murder, drug trafficking and other violent crimes. Our goal is to continue to expand the system but also to make sure we keep pace with a system of redress for people who feel they are unfairly being impeded.

Another issue, perhaps somewhat more recently in the news, is passenger name records. I think you know that we do use passenger name records, which is information that is affiliated with the name of a traveler, as part of our multilayered level of security. The fact of the matter is PNR data is created by aircraft operators or their travel agents for each journey booked on behalf of a passenger. It's basically used for commercial operational purposes and contains such information as date of ticket reservation, date and place of ticket issue, payment details, contact details and travel itinerary.

The fact of the matter is this kind of information, while not particularly private, is critical for law enforcement authorities and immigration authorities to detect people who should not be allowed to enter the country or who pose a risk to others. A combination of operational experience, specific intelligence and historical analysis has enabled us to look at this kind of data to detect suspicious travel patterns or activity. Without this data, in effect, we are without our radar and we have no way of determining in advance who is coming into the country that might pose a risk.

Now, last week the European Court of Justice ruled that the existing agreement through which we exchange PNR data with the European Union was legally flawed based on a question of the EU's own adaptation of legal authority. It's a complicated case. I'm licensed to practice law in the United States but not in Europe, so I'm not going to interpret the case for you. We are studying the decision, obviously, and we want to work with our European counterparts on the way forward.

One thing that's clear about the ruling is that it ensures that there will be no lowering of data protection standards and no effect on passengers, no disruption of transatlantic air traffic and that a high security is maintained throughout the period until September 30th, 2006. So things are going to continue to operate during this period as before while we work to develop the appropriate response to this particular court ruling.

Finally, we have to recognize that just as security is international, so is preparedness. We face the possibility of cross-border threats, whether they be hurricanes that touch on a number of different countries or avian flu which could be a worldwide pandemic. We need to develop and integrate our cross-border preparedness and response tools so that we all are better prepared for whatever might come, even as we hope we may never face the threat of the magnitude of something like an avian flu pandemic.

In short, working together, we can continue to enhance our security practices without sacrificing our common values. The key is to bring all available resources from all the governments together to safeguard our citizens and the entire global community. And with that preview, I'm happy to take the questions.

MR. BAILY: If you would wait for the microphone and state your name and organization, I will go to TASS here in the front row, please.

QUESTION: Thanks. Andre Sitov, TASS, the Russian News Agency. Mr. Secretary, thank you for coming over to the FPC. We hope you do this again and thanks to the FPC for arranging this.

Obviously, I have a question about Russia. I guess you have listed your priorities for the G-8 meeting as such, right? Will you also have bilaterals with your Russian colleagues? And if so, can you tell us what you intend to discuss there? Can you also probably give us an example or two of what specifically has been able to achieve with your Russian colleagues? I know you've had some cooperation over the years. Thank you.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I do anticipate that we will have bilateral meetings and the opportunity to explore particular ways in which we can further cooperate. I know one of the things that the Russian authorities are very concerned about is how we can raise the general level of our transit security. I'm hoping we can exchange some information on technology and techniques that we can all use in terms of making sure that we are raising the level, let's say rail security, without breaking the system by making it so cumbersome that it becomes unusable.

One of our concerns is we've been interested in for a long time in being able to expand the cooperation by having a Secret Service presence in Russia. We're hoping we can pursue that as an important item from our standpoint. And of course the exchange of information is always critical. One of the things which we see if we look around the entire world is the best weapon we have in fighting terrorism -- which touches a lot of countries, including, obviously, Russia as well -- is to exchange information about terrorist groups so that the terrorists cannot live in the seams between countries and use that as a base in which to prey on innocent citizens.

MR. BAILY: Yes, sir. The third row.

QUESTION: My name is Daniel Anyz. I'm a Czech journalist with a Czech daily paper. You touch on the visa issue. The Senate passed, as part of the immigration bill amendment, which is extending the visa waiver program to Poland. So I would like to know the position of Homeland Security Department on the possibility of extension of Visa Waiver Program generally to Central and Eastern European countries. And then what's your opinion particularly on this way, which is somehow bypassing the criteria set by State Department?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I don't -- I think given the state of the negotiations between the House and Senate that I don’t want to talk about a particular item in the Senate bill. As you know there is, first of all, there are some legal standards that have to be met before we can bring countries into the visa waiver program. We have worked to develop a roadmap to allow countries to see how they might satisfy their standards. Some of them have to do with the percentage of visa applications that we turn down, things which are driven more by a desire to minimize illegal migration. Others, frankly, are more focused on security.

One of the things we're discussing ourselves is whether we ought to at some point consider making some kind of an adjustment within the law as to these particular criteria. In particular, whether we might be better served by putting more emphasis on the security element and slightly less on some of the measures of rate of visa refusal, which might be a little bit clumsy in terms of whether they're accurately predicting the degree of illegal migration.

So it's an issue I can't give a quick answer to because we're just beginning to look at this question. But we obviously want to welcome people from countries all over the world. We want to welcome people who are interested in working, traveling or studying the U.S. provided they abide by the terms of their admission and, also importantly, provided they don't furnish a security threat.

MR. BAILY: Yes sir? Christian, Germany.

QUESTION: Yeah, thank you. Christian Wernicke from the German daily Sueddeutsche Zeitung. I'd just like to follow up on what my colleague from the Czech Republic asked. President Bush has said that he recognizes more the European Union not only in trade and economics but also in the political field and security matters. So the U.S. citizens are allowed to travel to all 25 European Union countries without a visa, and the EU countries are demanding that you give the same privilege to all EU nations. And when is the -- and then the EU countries are asking for a specific timeline. You're not able or willing to offer a specific timeline when you finally let in all European EU citizens here?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, the timeline, first of all, is driven by performance. I mean, there are certain standards that have to be met. By way of example, we had an issue last year concerning our legal requirements for certain kinds of passports, for the reporting of lost and stolen passport data. Those criteria are clear. We can't give a timeline because they have to be met in order to satisfy the visa waiver requirements.

What we can do is lay out the standards that have to be met. I know in particular, the issue of the percentage of visa application rejections tends to be one area that's a little difficult and as I said, we're certainly willing to look at that and see if there's some other criteria we can substitute in part, perhaps, for that criterion. It's a matter we have to study, but again, this is not an issue of setting a deadline, because whether the standards are met is really a function of the performance having been accomplished.

QUESTION: My name is Alison Smith. I'm with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. On Capitol Hill yesterday, one of the representatives suggested that Canada has an abundance of terrorists following the arrests late last week. Others have suggested that -- in fact, from your own department, that every day of delay of this Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is a day of risk.

I guess it's a two-part question. First of all, your comments about the notion of terrorists in Canada and also the discrepancy that seems to be there about the view of the timing of the implementation of the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, let me begin by saying that we've really had extraordinary cooperation with the Canadian Government, including Canadian intelligence officials with respect to not only the recent set of cases that were announced in the last week, but in general over the last several years. And I know -- I've spoken to my counterpart, Minister Day. They are foursquare on the same page with us in terms of the importance of having appropriate levels of protection against terrorism and making sure that we are not compromising our security.

Now, historically, we do know there have been episodes where we have uncovered terrorists in Canada, just as we've uncovered them in the United States. Rasam, who was the so-called Millennium Bomber, and then, of course, these recent set of arrests highlight the fact that no country is immune from terrorists and we have to be mindful about hunting terrorists and bringing them to justice no matter where they are.

The Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative is one of that set of layers of security that is something that we rely upon in terms of protecting our own country. And the idea is to find a way to satisfy the legal requirement here as efficiently as possible. We don't necessarily want to make people have passports to satisfy. What we need is reliable documentation that establishes identity so that we can be confident that the person who presents themselves is the person that is described in the document. And that allows us to run that person against various watchlists and things of that sort.

What we're eager to do is work with the Canadian Government on any alternative that would be easy for Canadians to meet this security standard. You know, the problem with delay is this. My experience in life in general and government, in particular, is -- and I think someone once coined a law about this -- that the amount of time it takes to complete a job fills the amount of time you have to get the job done in. So as you move the deadline out, you tend to kick the can down the road, using an American expression, and you don't actually do the hard work.

I think we can meet the original deadline and I think we can do it in a way that is efficient, that doesn’t require a passport, that has a biometric card no different than a driver's license, that will be inexpensive and accessible, and to create that card and other alternatives that will satisfy the law. So you know, this is not -- as with all kinds of measures we put in place to enhance our security, there is an element of inconvenience. Particularly when you're getting to the deployment, there tends to be a certain kind of anxiety about it, but you know, if you don't bite the bullet and get the hard work done, it doesn't get done by itself.

QUESTION: You agree that there's an abundance of terrorists and that, as one of your department people said, every day of delay is a day of risk?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, the word, abundance -- you know, sounds a little rich. I mean, I think that, again, there is a -- based on what we've seen in the last few weeks and going back to Rasam, there have been terrorists or -- you know, potential terrorists up in Canada. There have been terrorists in the United States as well, England, other parts of the world. I want to emphasize that the Canadian Government is outstanding in its intelligence sharing and in its enforcement against these terrorists and our -- you know, one of the main lines of our security is our reliance upon that intelligence sharing.

But again, let me say, I mean, we want to get this job done. It is not the only measure that we rely upon, but it is a significant measure and I think we can get it done without sacrificing efficiency. So the danger of a delay is it tends to postpone -- you know, it could be a little bit of a difficult task and yet, we've just got to bite the bullet and get it done.

MR. BAILY: Yes, ma'am, front row here.

QUESTION: Thank you. Kimberly Halkett, Al-Jazeera. Secretary Chertoff, you said that human trafficking is an issue that's important to you and that you'll be addressing and that it's important to solve these kinds of issues by interacting with your foreign partners on that issue. I'm wondering, how are you planning to work with the Government of Mexico to address the issue of illegal immigration and migrants who are coming to the United States illegally? How are you going to work with that government to address the dire economic situation that exists in that country that is driving people to make the trip into the United States?

And a follow-up to that question, I hope you can address this as well, is that we went and spent 10 days on the border and witnessed the border patrol picking up busload after busload of people who have come from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and then they're driven far from their starting point, dumped at the Mexico border with no money, no social support, no food. So they're left, really, to make the trip again, because they have no other means of going back, and so they get caught in this almost human death loop, where they continue trying and trying and trying until eventually, they die in the process.

What are you going to do to deal with this situation, and how do you allow this kind of human suffering to play out on the southern border?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, let me tell you what we're doing with Mexico. You know, I think the Mexican Government does agree with us, but we need to target and eradicate these smuggling organizations. These organizations are criminal organizations. They exploit the people whom they smuggle. And by the way, it's a mistake to say that they're -- to suggest they're mostly Mexicans or are Mexicans. I mean, probably the majority are Mexicans, but a significant minority of the ones that we catch are, in fact, from other countries and that number has risen. Although I do want to be clear that a majority are from Mexico.

The Mexican Government recently, through -- I think, their Institute of Migration -- has spoken about the need, if we're going to have a comprehensive plan, for Mexico to live up to its responsibility to make sure that any migration for work purposes takes place in a structured and regulated way and not illegally. And I think Mexico's increased cooperation in this respect is going to be important in terms of assuring Americans that a comprehensive solution is, in fact, the way forward.

In terms of this death looping, actually, we don't really dump Guatemalans or Hondurans over the Mexican border. We fly them back to their home countries. But the bottom line is this. What we certainly don't want to do is entice people to come across the border. We want to deter them from coming across the border. And with respect to non-Mexicans, our deterrence involves ending this program of catch-and-release so that when they get caught, they get detained until they get sent back to their home country. Hopefully, that will cause them not to want to start again.

QUESTION: The coyotes have said that really --

MR. BAILY: You need a mike -- can you hold a second?

QUESTION: -- you've helped their process by -- you've just made it more difficult, so you've increased the process for the coyote by increasing the degree of difficulty, but you've done nothing to address the desire and --

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I am not going to -- I am certainly not going to take advice from the criminals who are going to tell me how to do my job, because I'm quite sure their interest is not in making my job easier. It's in making their job easier. And I have no doubt that the right thing to do is, in fact, to make it much harder, to make it hard enough so that in fact we deter people from coming across. But as we've also said -- as I have said, as the President has said in a couple of speeches recently -- in the end, to really ensure security, we do have to create a pathway that is regulated, that is properly documented for people who do want to come and do temporary work, so that we can relieve some of that pressure on the border into a channel that we can have control of. And I think that would certainly help and reduce the flow and, with that, in fact, adversely impact the business model of the coyotes.

But let's be completely clear. The coyotes have no interest in humanitarian activity here. Anybody who runs an illegal smuggling business and who is claiming to be speaking on behalf of the migrants is absolutely lying through their teeth. What they do is they exploit, sometimes they rape, sometimes they kill the people they bring across. They put them in trucks and drive them across the desert, they strand them there. And what we want to do is not only make their job harder for them, but we want to attack the organizations, we want to grab their money, we want to put them in jail, because that's where they belong.

MR. BAILY: We have a follow-up from Mexico here. I think we have a follow-up here.

QUESTION: But the perception is that you're allowing this human suffering to continue.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: And I think I have to honor the --

MR. BAILY: Yes, sir.

QUESTION: Ruben Barrera with the Mexican --

QUESTION: (Inaudible) called your office more than (inaudible) --

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Let me also --

QUESTION: The perception is that you're ignoring this issue in terms of human suffering. That's the perception.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: It's probably the perception of coyotes that zero --

QUESTION: The perception of the migrants we're talking about are -- of the people living in --

MR. BAILY: We have a question from Mexico.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Very clear, if people think that what we're going to do is, when people come across -- you know, give them lots of comfortable surroundings and food and get them jobs, they’ve completely got it backwards. We absolute -- we are looking for a solution and we'll welcome people through a comprehensive program where they register themselves, where it fits with our labor market, and where it -- we have real control of who comes across the border.

But those who break the law take the risk and take the responsibility in their own hands. We have made it crystal clear it is a big mistake to try to cross that border on your own illegally, because first of all, you're putting yourself at risk with the elements. You're putting yourself at risk with your criminals. We have been as clear as possible on, you know, what essentially the argument you're making is, that it is our fault people because people are breaking the law. And my answer is the best way to stop people from breaking the law is to make it harder and harder for them to get away with it. And that's why we're putting more border patrol on the border. There are going to be more sensors. There's going to be more infrastructure. And the message has got to be very -- and you can take it back to them -- the chances of getting apprehended continue to increase. When you get apprehended you are not going to be released anymore, you're going to be sent back where you came from. All of that money you spent is going to be lost. So at some point people will get the message that the right way to get into this country is to follow the law -- it's not to break the law.

MR. BAILY: We have a question from Mexico.

QUESTION: Ruben Berrera with the Mexican News Agency. And this is a follow-up to the two previous questions to the Secretary. And that is the fact that the U.S. in recent months and just last month President Bush announced (inaudible) the border security sending the National Guard to patrol some -- to assist border patrol in the border between -- with Mexico. Don't you think that that -- I mean, the fact that we have these events in Canada with Canadian authorities for these new terrorist threats make or put in some way into question the necessity to, you know, send the National Guard to the border in Mexico, will that in some way give the reason to some people who have been saying that the risk of terrorists coming to this country is greater in the border with Canada, which is a porous and larger border than in the border with Mexico?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, first of all, let me say that if you look at traffic -- illegal traffic between the ports of entry, 99 percent of it comes through the southern border. Only about 1 percent is the northern border. So in terms of what the appropriate strategy is, obviously the southern border is a strategy that calls for more manpower simply because the volume is much greater.

But that's not to say we don't -- haven't put more resources in the northern border. We've tripled the number of border patrol from what it was prior to number eleven (sic 9/11) in the northern border. We have used more technology in the northern border. One of the critical things we do in the northern border is work with the Canadians to develop intelligence to allow us to identify people who are potential risks to the country well in advance. And the proof of that, of course, is what happened in the last couple of weeks.

So the volume across the northern border is just very much less. I mean, that's the bottom line. There are just very, very fewer people coming across the northern border than the southern border. So the solution is not necessarily manpower-intensive; it's a solution that's more driven by our cooperation, our intelligence, focused intelligence-gathering that allows us to work with the Canadians to pick off those people who we view as risky.

But I want to be clear that we look not only at the border between the ports of entry, we look at the ports of entry and we have an efficient but quite vigorous security program at all the ports and entries to detect people who might be on watch lists or might be terrorists. We also patrol our maritime borders with Coast Guard. So we -- while the press attention may sometimes focus on one or the other, we are constantly monitoring and applying the appropriate tactics to the various elements of our border -- land, sea and air.

QUESTION: To follow up, Mr. Secretary, I mean, the fact that we have --

MR. BAILY: Can you wait for the mike, please?

QUESTION: The fact that we had this event, don't you think that that this -- this fact makes less, I wouldn't say credible but certainly gives you less force to this country's argument that we hear from the U.S. Government about the risk of terrorists coming in from countries like Mexico when so far we have not seen any single case of a terrorist plot in Mexico and we have seen many of them in Canada.

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, obviously, I don't think you've heard the U.S. Government say that there's a -- that the risk of terrorists coming from Mexico is higher than coming from elsewhere. I mean, we view the risk of terrorists, you know, whether they come by air, by sea or by land, as something we monitor no matter what the point of departure is.

What we do say is the number of illegal migrants -- let's put aside terrorists. Let's just talk about illegal migrants. The numbers coming through the southern border between the ports of entry is simply, factually much larger than over the northern border. It's not an issue of terrorists; it's just an issue of saying there are migrants who are breaking the law. So I want to be sure you don't confuse the numbers of different categories of people.

MR. BAILY: We have a question from New York, if our colleague in New York would go ahead, please.

QUESTION: Esther Armah, BBC Radio. A couple of questions about the slash in the anti-terror funding. New York has suffered a 40 percent cut in the budget. A few questions. First of all, you've been soundly criticized by many quarters -- you've been accused of playing politics with New Yorkers' lives and you've been accused of being penny-pinching feds. Senator Charles Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg have continued to criticize you.

So first of all, how do you justify the cut of 40 percent? How is it that New York has been cut in comparison, according to some of the critics, to states like Wyoming? And
how can New York expect to battle anti-terror with that kind of cut in funding?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, here's how I'm going to respond. I'm going to actually respond by talking about facts. So here is a fact, in terms of whether there is a cut for New York. If you look at the percentage of the total money that went to New York this year, it is roughly the same as the average amount that went in the three prior years, roughly 18 percent. So in other words, the -- although one year was high and one year was low, when you look at the average over the prior three years, it is virtually identical to the percentage of the funds that went there this year. That's number one.

Number two, let's look at all of the funds that were available to be distributed to cities this year. It's a little over several hundred million dollars. Approximately one half of that total amount of money went to five cities: New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Northern New Jersey. I forget what the fifth one was. So right away, we've taken half the money and put it in five cities where the threat seen is seen as the greatest, although that's not to say there aren't threats anywhere.

In fact, I'm going to go further than that. If you actually look at New York and Northern New Jersey together, they got a total of almost 160 million, which is almost 25 percent of all the money. And I can tell you that anybody who looks at, you know, you have the Hudson River, you have New York on one side, you have New Jersey on the other, I can tell you that there's a -- you have to look at the threat to the New York metropolitan area as a combined threat. And so the combined amount of money is almost one-quarter of the total amount of money. So when I put those facts on the table, it strikes me as very hard to argue this is a cut.

Now, it may be that some people think that all the money ought to go to three or four cities and that the other 41 cities who are sharing the remaining 50 percent of the money shouldn’t get it and I think that's a debate we ought to have. My short answer to that is two words: Oklahoma City. For those who think that terrorism only occured in New York, I suggest you visit where the Murrah Building stood and you'll see the consequences of terrorism in Oklahoma City.

If you look at the fact that we brought cases against potential terrorists in Sacramento, in other parts of the Heartland, and Moussaoui was found up in Minnesota, I think we cannot take the position that because the major threat has been New York and Washington, that's the only threat. We have to consider not only the highest risk, but we have to make sure we also address the risks that are real, although they may be somewhat diminished.

I understand that from everybody's personal standpoint, they tend to see their own risk as the only risk. But I have to tell you I think that for us to take the position that all the money ought to go to one or two or three cities and every other city is left without a penny to help in terms of federal money for anti-terror, is to take a significant risk with respect to the very large number of people who live in those cities who also can be the subject of a threat as well. It's difficult to balance these things out. But I think that what we have done is used a process that is the very opposite of political, because it has relied upon experts from communities all over the country to do the evaluation of the various kinds of proposals that are coming from the various cities.

MODERATOR: You have one follow-up from New York and then we'll have time for one more here.

QUESTION: So then is it inaccurate to say that there's been that level of percentage, a slash, or simply that the amount between this year and last year compares? Because you answered very cleverly by saying there's an average over a three-year period, but does that mean there hasn't been a slash at all? If there has, what percentage? If there hasn't, can you identify that as well?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: It is that -- let's say one day -- let's say you work for the BBC and let's say one year they have a very good year. They give bonuses out to the employees and the next year you don't get a bonus. Do you say your salary's been cut? I mean, what you have to do is look at the average over time. The average has been consistent. It was a very low year in 2004 of about $49 million and then that was made up for with a very high year in 2005.

Now, some people would say, well, since 2005 was a high year, now that's the minimum, you've got to keep paying that. But apart from the fact that we've got less money overall in the pool, what we've done is we've simply given New York close to one-fifth of the money, which reflects the percentage of money they've gotten previously, and still puts New York over twice the amount that the next largest city has.

So let's be clear on what we all agree on. We all agree that the threat to New York historically has been greater than any other city. We all agree that the threat to New York still is the largest threat, but it is not the only threat. There have been significant threats in other parts of the country. And my responsibility is not to simply look at yesterday's attack, but to also consider what tomorrow's attack might be.

MODERATOR: Yes, we have a question from Germany here.

QUESTION: Not only a threat perception, also news is local and individual. And my newspaper is from Berlin Tagesspiegel. You are going to Berlin. Can you tell us what you are doing there? Are you visiting the match of the soccer championship? Are you at all interested? Are you more interested in security aspects of the championship or what else do you do in Berlin?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, I'm coming to Berlin to meet with Minister Schaeuble. We've had a good relationship with the German Government in counterterror. In my previous job at the Department of Justice, I worked very closely with Minister Shilly and I'm looking forward to building the same kind of relationship with Minister Schaueble (inaudible) who I just had an opportunity to talk with over the phone. So the purpose of my visit is to build on that relationship, to talk about information sharing and other joint activities that we can undertake to take make sure that both countries have a higher level of protection.

QUESTION: Soccer. Are you a soccer fan?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: You know, reasonably. I mean, but it's not the reason -- the purpose of making the trip. (Laughter.)

MODERATOR: I'm afraid we're going to have to cut --

QUESTION: (Off-mike.)

MODERATOR: Mike, please. On Zarqawi, go ahead.

QUESTION: My name is Nadia Bilbassy with Al Arabiya television. Just this statement that you're saying at this time there is no credible intelligence that suggest a specific or imminent threat to the homeland. As you know, al-Qaida threatened yesterday to avenge the death of Zarqawi. We heard from Mullah Omar of the Taliban. Do you dismiss these threats as rhetoric or do you think that al-Qaida more likely to attack American interest abroad? Or what make you sure that there is nothing's going to happen here, or at least as you said, not now?

SECRETARY CHERTOFF: Well, let me be clear about what I've said. We try to be precise in our language. We talk about whether there's a specific credible threat. In other words, do we believe there is intelligence, that there is a focused threat that is believable on a particular place or to a particular type of thing?

I absolutely take seriously the fact that al-Qaida has, since well before 2001, been completely dedicated to killing as many innocent people in this country and around the world as possible. That threat has not diminished. That is why we are all at an elevated level of security. We don't drop our guard. The question is whether, in light of this particular success in the war against terror, we are somehow going to raise the level of security because we're anticipating some kind of specific response.

And obviously we monitor this issue literally 24/7. We always are alert to the possibility of something, but this was a specific response to the question whether, based on this success, we're anticipating some particular response. But this much I want to be completely clear about: We are never complacent. And if, in fact, credible evidence emerges about a specific threat, we react immediately to prevent that threat and to protect against that threat. We never have any doubt about the fact that the terrorists are determined to carry out threats against us. What has limited them is not their intent, because their intent is always there and it's always bad. What has limited them is their capability and our ability to frustrate their capacity to carry out their threats, which we do by conducting intelligence gathering, conducting disruption activities, by raising the level of security at the border and by being mindful if we do get a particular threat there's going to be a particular response, we do react to that.