Homeland Security: Strategies and Challenges

11:04 A.M. EST

Real Audio of Briefing

MR. CILLUFFO: Thank you for the introduction.

And I'm sorry that Governor Ridge could not be here today. Unfortunately, you have me. And I will try to be brief, which is especially difficult for me, and anyone who knows me says I've rarely had an unspoken thought. But in part, what I am going to give you is an overview of who we are and where we hope to be at the end of the day.

I think it's no surprise that September 11th was a watershed event for the United States. It truly asked us and forced us to ask fundamental assumptions of how we are organized to deal with our national security issues and whether we need new capabilities, what our gaps are, what our assessments are and ultimately, where we'd like to end up, in terms of our end state. And as you probably know, the president did his internal assessment and came to the conclusion that while we have a whole lot of capability, the whole doesn't equal the sum of its parts.

Our role is to try to make these parts come together. Our function is a coordination function. We're not an agency. We don't have an operational mission, which often gets misconstrued in the media and elsewhere. And at the end of the day, we're trying to make sure that everyone talks off the same sheet of music and moves in the same direction.

I think another thing that everyone's learned since the 9/11 events is that who has to have a seat at our national security planning table is very different. On the heels of Governor Ridge being designated as the first director of the office, we had the anthrax on the Hill -- literally, the day he took office. And we came to the rapid conclusion, and as some have in the past, that the traditional suspects have to have a seat, but so do new suspects. And when you look at, say, bioterrorism, which we are seeing as a primary focus of our office, you have the need to bring in the human health -- HHS. And you need to bring in entomologists, if you have you have an insect-borne threat, right? You need to bring in agricultural services inspectors. You need to bring in a whole cast of characters that have never been part of our national security issue. So this is meant to sort of give you an idea of the challenges that we are going to have to sort of bring people who have not been part of the national security architecture and make sure that they're integrated into our community.

Then, on top of getting our federal family organized, we have to recognize that there's also the interface between federal, state and local officials. As important as it is to protect Americans -- and clearly, that is our primary focus -- we also need to protect America. We need to protect our values. We need to project our values. We need to protect who we are as a nation and what it is we stand for.

So in the process of having all these difficult security discussions, a lot of what we're going to be tackling goes beyond guns, gates and guards. We need to really touch some very fundamental questions as to who we are as a nation and how we're organized as a nation. These are not easy answers. There's no silver bullet; there's no single answer.

We're right now doing a national inventory in terms of what capabilities exist. And one of the things that's most amazing is that we have more capability than we ever thought, but we haven't thought of it in terms of homeland security. We're also trying to identify what programs -- and there have been many -- have not been exceedingly successful. And, of course, we're looking to what issues have not been adequately addressed. So we're putting this together.

We have four core priority areas; the first being making sure that our emergency responders have the tools that they need and the capabilities and the equipment they need to be able to deal with the aftermath of a terrorist event. I look back to even Oklahoma City, and the picture that will stick with me for the rest of my life is the fireman cradling that then-unknown baby girl. Well, these are, these are our front-line troops, and they need to have the capabilities to be able to deal with these issues.

And we're also looking a bio-defense capabilities. And again, here we have the need to, as we discussed, integrate different capabilities and make sure that they have a seat at the table, and also look to ways -- we are finding that there are ways beyond the security mechanisms that will have -- in terms of improving our bio- defense capabilities, will have secondary and tertiary benefits that go far beyond security. For example, if we improve our epidemiological surveillance capability -- monitoring of diseases and monitoring of potential bio-outbreaks -- that would require reinvigorating our public health infrastructure which, of course, would have secondary benefits beyond just those that can be brought to the bioterrorism war.

And our third priority is relooking at the borders. We're looking to see what capabilities need to be brought to the table, and also looking at what went wrong, not just in this case, but in many others, and even trying to get our arms around some fundamental reorganization questions in that respect.

And fourthly, and in many ways the most difficult, but by no means the least important, is looking at our intelligence, information-sharing architectures. I think that it's easy in 20-20 hindsight to see who didn't do what, and the blame game is always the issue that everyone points to. And yes, you will see that we may have had certain information somewhere that we didn't know necessarily how to bring it to bear. So we are looking at ways that we can improve the information sharing, not only within the federal family, within our interagency community, but also with state and local officials, and also, to a large extent, with our friends and others abroad. Since I look to you and I look to your countries as being critical in our campaign against terrorism, the governor has met with 10 of his foreign counterparts who have, unfortunately, learned lessons the hard way. Terrorism is somewhat new for the United States. Unfortunately, it's not new for everyone else. So we're looking to, ideally, a transnational threat will require transnational solutions.

And, of course, the National Security Council, the Department of State, where there are a number of tools in this national tool kit that need to be brought to bear, and we're only one portion of that. But I think that the president has been clear that we've been trying to identify all those elements of statecraft and have been coming at this challenge through every angle possible. And homeland security is perhaps the most unique, the newest; has some very difficult issues that need to be addressed. But again, it is also part of this whole.

And rather than me rambling on, I'd like to leave as much time open to questions and answers, and if there's any single area you want to focus on, I'd be happy to try to do so. So with that, I why don't I -- we open up the floor for questions.

MODERATOR: Thank you very much.

Please wait for a microphone, and identify your name and news organization.

Q Hi. I'm Andy Sullivan with Reuters. And one of the things you haven't mentioned, which I've heard a lot of other people talking about, is the need for greater computer security. Can you tell me what progress you guys are making in this field, and especially address your thoughts on "govnet", on the idea of a secure inter- governmental system.

MR. CILLUFFO: Absolutely. In part, Richard Clarke who has been designated a special adviser to the president for cyberspace issues, is someone you need to chat with. But we do consider critical infrastructure protection, information assurance, and cybersecurity to be an important element of homeland security. Clearly, it does interface with a lot of what we're doing. And we also need to recognize that a well-placed bomb at a critical infrastructure may be just as effective as a cyberattack.

We don't have the privilege and the benefit of determining what course of action our adversaries take. I think it's clear to say that bits and bytes will never replace bullets and bombs as the terrorist weapon of choice -- nor bugs and gas, for that matter. But we need to be prepared to defend against a whole spectrum of threats, and through cyber-means, that clearly is one of those. And we also need to recognize again that these infrastructures are vulnerable and susceptible to physical attacks.

So this is something that goes beyond, again, a traditional government approach.

Who owns and operates most these infrastructures? It's the private sector. We need to find ways to marshal resources beyond government, and we need to identify very positive partnerships we can build between the public and private sector.

In the biodefense side, we also need to be working with the pharmaceutical companies and with some of the biotech companies that are coming up with very innovative approaches to improving our security.

So yes, it is clearly a part of our mission, and it's not -- it can't even be seen in isolation of larger attacks on our critical infrastructures. And to be honest, critical infrastructures have often been a primary target for terrorists, not in the United States, but elsewhere, whether it's attacking our oil and pipelines, whether it's attacking phone switches, whether it's attacking transportation infrastructures, whether it's attacking financial infrastructures. So yes, that is clearly part of our mission, and we take it very seriously.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. CILLUFFO: I'd prefer to have Richard Clarke answer questions specifically on GOVNET. We are looking -- our mantra and -- in part, it's tackle the exceedingly difficult problems today, the impossible problems tomorrow. The Office of Homeland Security in many ways is an agent of change. And this is something that not only has technical applications and aspects, but cultural ones and interagency ones, and we're trying to get our arms around that issue. But I'd prefer Dick to answer those specific questions.

MODERATOR: We'll try to get him here for -- (off mike). Sounds like a good idea.

We'll go up here next.

Q Akio Shihando (sp) with the Japanese newspaper Nikkei. Can you explain how you are preparing for the nuclear threats? And also, I understand that government is preparing to distribute iodine to make sure they have something to cope with. And do you know what to extent it has been distributed so far?

MR. CILLUFFO: We are looking at the whole family of weapons of mass destruction, whether chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear.

Nuclear is an area that we have had defenses in place in the past, not necessarily for the suitcase-like nuke, but rather for ICBMs. And the advantage that we have in trying to improve our capabilities to deal with nuclear terrorism is that we have had some experience dealing with these sorts of issues, in terms of consequence management, in terms of how we would go about mitigating the damage.

But of course this is not the easiest issue to get our arms around, and in part it will be driven by the intelligence we are receiving.

I think we treat all the weapon types as, again, part of this whole spectrum that we'll need to defend against. And in part, it's this challenge of, how do you devote resources? Do you devote resources for the likely? Of course, you have to. Or do you devote resources for the unlikely, but where the consequences are so grave that we need to pay attention? This isn't an either/or proposition. Unfortunately, we need to defend against both and all.

The reason we're, perhaps, focusing most on bioterrorism in terms of our priorities right now is because this is the most unique. This is where we have -- if we don't have capabilities in place, that absolutely must be grown as quickly as we can -- and in some ways bio, because it's the silent killer. You may not even know you've been dealing with a bio event until the consequences occur, which may be very similar to a flu outbreak. So here you have the need to really integrate a medical community, which hasn't been part of our national security mission.

That doesn't mean that we're not looking at nuclear; it means that the ramp-up is different because we have some capabilities that can be brought to bear, as opposed to -- as specifically to the question of, in terms of administering pharmaceuticals and administering -- I honestly don't have a good enough answer for you. That's something we are looking at, and I would have to get back to you on the specific proposals that we have in place.

Q (Off mike.)

MR. CILLUFFO: Again, it's always been part of our strategy, so I'm not sure if it makes any changes. Clearly, that has been a primary focus. And again, it's not only the potential use of nuclear weapons, but also security and safeguards at our nuclear facilities. That, again, is part of our homeland security mission. We don't have the luxury of determining what course our adversaries take. That's why this mission is so large. We not only need to think about what we've seen; we need to think about what we haven't seen. And there has been -- if you look back in counterterrorism history, it's been a cat-and-mouse issue. We can't only focus on what has occurred in the past. So I don't have an easy answer for you, other than that is something that our office takes very seriously.

MODERATOR: Over here.

Q Simon Marks (sp) from Feature Story News.

If I can take you back to what you were saying about transnational threats and ask you for your reaction to the apparent plot against U.S. interests in Singapore the government of Singapore has detailed over the last few hours -- what level of cooperation you think the United States is getting from Singapore, and also, what it illustrates about the general threat faced by the United States from organizations that appear to be active in Asia.

MR. CILLUFFO: Well, that's an easy answer. I ask you to look to the National Security Council.

But I think that we're working most closely with the foreign counterparts that would have related homeland security issues. Clearly, we know that there's not an artificial boundary between foreign and domestic, but that that's something where Governor Ridge and Dr. Rice, the national deputy -- the assistant to the president for national security, are -- have absolute regular meetings to make sure that there's no handing off of a baton, but they're actually seamless and one and the same. Our Homeland Security Council is modeled in part on the National Security Council.

And I don't have a specific answer for you on Singapore, other than others in the White House would be people you need to contact.

But clearly, if we see indications coming and coming over the edge, that is where it suddenly becomes our issue predominantly. And we also recognize that when it comes to financing of terrorists, again, it goes through multiple cutout networks in this global infrastructures that has no single nation. And I think, as the president has clearly demonstrated, we have to look at all the tools at our disposal. And diplomatic means and mechanisms are absolutely crucial. We need to undermine the terrorists' legitimacy, and that is something that's being done. But that's not for me to -- (off mike).

MODERATOR: (Off mike.)

Q Pavel Voynishkin (sp), Itar-Tass News Agency of Russia. I've got two questions. First of all, several years ago, when terrorists crashed down two blocks of flats in Moscow, the Moscow mayor introduced very strict measures, security measures, and he was heavily criticized by liberal circles for violating some constitutional rights. Do you think that eventually local, state, or federal authorities in the United States will eventually face this kind of problems and accusations of people? And if they will, how do you suppose they will handle it?

And my second question is about this anthrax mail problem. You know, only yesterday, two blocks away from where we are here, there was this kind of event. Do you have any general advice to the people how to handle this problem? Thanks

MR. CILLUFFO: Good questions. And I unfortunately don't have a precise answer for the first one. This has been a watershed event for America, and I'm not sure I can gauge for you exactly what perceptions will be. Clearly, there are going to be people asking very hard questions, and they should. We have a responsibility to the people.

But at the same time, it's maintaining this balance between security and freedom. And again, I don't see that as an either/or. We can, need, and must have both. It's finding that right balance that's going to be a moving target.

This is something that's going to have to progress. So those are very valid questions and very good questions, and this is something that right now you have a pulse which could be very different six years from now. But we need to make sure that we can sustain our efforts, sustain homeland security initiatives over the long haul because we have a responsibility to the American people to protect them as best as we can and to prevent -- all the way down to reconstitute and mitigate the damages as much as we can.

So we will be -- this is something that there's no clear answer for it, but you can bet we're already receiving those hard questions, and I would expect nothing else in a democracy. But we also have to adhere to our mission.

As to the anthrax in the mail, I ask you to sort of look to the public health service. And they actually have -- along with CDC, they do have some templates and fact sheets available on the web as to what citizens should be considering. And I also look to the U.S. Postal Service, that are looking to potential suspicious mail that you need to be taking into consideration. But you're right, there are a handful of issues, but we sort of look to the policy and we look to others to administer. We're not taking over anyone's turf. The only turf we're worried about is the turf we're standing on, and that's what Governor Ridge, I think, has put so eloquently.

Q My name is Sandra. I work with ARTV from Colombia. I have two questions. As you know, in Colombia the peace talks between the Colombian government and the FARC ended. So my question is, my first one, is the U.S. government concerned about what is going to happen with the U.S. civilians who live in Colombia or who have been kidnapped? That is my first question. Do you want to answer that or --

MR. CILLUFFO: It's one, again, that doesn't really fit under our bailiwick. But I think that, clearly, we're looking to the peace process and we're looking to the challenges Colombia has gone through to potentially get some lessons in terms of our own efforts. Obviously, it's a very different issue where you have a country within a country -- you have "FARC-landia" and you have Colombia. So those are different concerns than our own. So -- I mean, they're not different, but it's a different group within the White House that would have the primary focus on that issue.

Our concern is to look at what that would mean for securing the homeland. And, clearly, we are concerned about U.S. nationals, and other nationals, who may have been the target of kidnapping, as well as the target of extortion, and as well as the target of terrorist activity abroad. This is not new. The United States has always served as a lightning rod for terrorist activity outside of our borders. What is new is that our own homeland is vulnerable, susceptible to terrorism.

Q But what is going to happen with the U.S. civilians in Colombia?

You know that the FARC all the time say they don't want to have any U.S. civilians there or militaries from the U.S. Army there. So are you thinking about what is going to happen, what the USA going to do about it?

MR. CILLUFFO: We make no concessions to terrorists. That's a primary tenet of U.S. counterterrorism policy. But again, that's the foreign side. That's counterterrorism. General Downing at the National Security Council, who is actually reporting also to Governor Ridge as well as to Dr. Rice, is the primary person on that issue. And -- but it's no secret that we don't make concessions to terrorists.

Q Let me do the second question. Maybe you have the answer. Yesterday Colombian guerrilla leaders have said that the international community and the Colombian government has to say or to explain if they are terrorists. What the USA government thinks about what they said?

MR. CILLUFFO: I'm sorry, could you -- I didn't understand the question.

Q Yes. Yesterday the guerrilla -- a Colombian guerrilla leader said that they want to know if they are terrorists, because they want explanation because, you know, USA government all the time say they are terrorists, they are (on the list ?). So they want an explanation from Colombian government and the USA government and community -- international community on that.

MR. CILLUFFO: The U.S. has long looked at terrorism not on their political beliefs but on their actions. One man's terrorist is not another man's freedom fighter, is not -- we don't -- we look based on consequences and actions, not based on belief systems and values. That's not our decision to make. If they use terrorist activity, criminal activity, to achieve their aims, that, in our book, is terrorism, yeah. But we look based on their actions and whether they're criminal, not who they are and what they stand for. That's never -- well, there actually are a handful of different definitions the U.S. government uses, but none of which would adhere to that approach.

Q (Name inaudible) -- Le Monde, France. Could you be more specific on how the security homeland office works? I mean, does Governor Ridge make just, as you said, people -- bring people around tables to discuss and exchange information? Does he make decisions? Does he gives orders to the FBI, to the CIA, to the National Guard, to the Border Patrol? Is he just a public figure, a kind of spokesman whose job is to reassure people? What does the Homeland Security Office really do?

MR. CILLUFFO: Well, we actually do all of the above. We do bring together the federal interagency process through the Homeland Security Council and through other committees underneath that that would bring all the different agencies together. We do have the ability to certify budgets in terms of where our long-term spending will be going. We are looking fundamentally at a national strategy for homeland security, and wherein the different federal agencies would support this strategy. And if we identify a major gap that an agency may not be picking up, yes, we would make sure that that occurs.

Governor Ridge is an assistant to the president for homeland security and, in so doing, does have the interagency community meet regularly through this Homeland Security Council. Governor Ridge reports to the president and clearly has the president's support for this mission, which is perhaps the single most important mission facing our country today.

I'm not going to get into specifics, obviously, but I don't think it's a secret that this is not an easy mission.

We do have a coordination function, and that goes beyond just the interagency process but needs to plug in the public and private sector, as well as state and local officials, so -- which gets to fundamental questions of federalism -- fundamental questions that Jefferson and Hamilton were discussing at the founding of our country. And maybe we had the opportunity to re-look at some of those just after World War II, where much of the architecture we have in place was founded.

So it's not as easy as just bringing together the alphabet soup of federal agencies here, but we need to go beyond. And we do have many mechanisms to make that possible. And they were meeting on a very regular basis early on, as you could imagine, and continue to meet on a regular basis if and when needed.

So it is largely built upon the National Security Council model, in terms of who we bring the principals of the different federal agencies together. And then there are deputies' committees, where the deputy directors of the different federal departments and agencies come together. And then, there are -- policy committees have meetings, which are one level below that. And the Homeland Security Council, headed by the president of the United States and Governor Ridge, is the principal one to make that happen.

MODERATOR: Any other questions?

Okay, then thank you very much.

MR. CILLUFFO: Thanks. Thank you.  

Copyright (c)2002 by Federal News Service, Inc., 620 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045 USA. Federal News Service is a private firm not affiliated with the federal government. No portion of this transcript may be copied, sold or retransmitted without the written authority of Federal News Service, Inc. Copyright is not claimed as to any part of the original work prepared by a United States government officer or employee as a part of that person's official duties. For information on subscribing to the FNS Internet Service, please email Jack Graeme at info@fnsg.com or call (202)824-0520.