it's part of the national patriotic narrative, that's not the case across europe. so it's a great tarnishing of the role of the military because of all of the atrocities of world war ii. if you go back to world war i as well. and we're still dealing with the consequences of this. germany in many respects we're asking many questions about why doesn't germany step up in terms of security and because it's not where is germany with its great economic development here when we have a time of crisis. in many respects germany is still a traumatized country. it's still dealing with the effects of what germany did and what the german military did during world war ii and it's still a major element of political debate that hasn't been resolved and then you translate that into a european-wide stage and you have no consensus about where europe should head on security apart from preventing the conflict of european space and i think bob

is exactly right on this and it's in the united states we have a better conception of and where we're going to go in these next two to five years if something like this pops up again. >> i would just add nothing succeeds like success and if gadhafi is, in fact, overthrown or leaves tripoli as he may well do in the coming weeks, it will be seen as a victory for nato and people will have to re-assess -- >> nato's comeback. >> yes, nato's comeback. a question here, a lady here. >> i'm nancy from international laboratories and also the university of maryland public policy school. it's been interesting to listen to this but what i'm really -- what is lacking is a discussion of the arab spring and the u.s.-israeli policies. those have been just big drivers of foreign policy in the past and i would just -- i don't have any particular agenda to make but i would like to hear comments about our dysfunctional

political system in terms of where does that leave us with respect to influence on israel and the developments of the middle east? >> yes. [laughter] >> here i was trying to escape the middle east and have a foreign policy -- >> it always comes back. >> yeah. >> i actually do think that the dysfunction that we've been talking about here affects our ability to be effective in the context of dramatic changes that are sweeping across the region. it's not just the dysfunction that's viewing this that we've been overextended and we can't afford to get involved in another war in the middle east or another military intervention. it's the fact that we've really shut our wad in afghanistan.

and that means that we're reluctant in particular to take a position that might imply obligations to do something. when it comes not to libya but syria. libya is a side show. libya is like las vegas. what happens in libya basically stays in libya. so what happens in syria will have profound implications for the broader arab world and indeed for arab-israeli relations and in particular for iran's bid for dominance which could suffer a decisive blow -- [inaudible] >> now it may happen anyway. the fact that we are hesitating to come out clearly in syrian

opposition when we didn't hesitate to do it in the case of egypt for 30 years, mubarak, or in the case of libya where we didn't have much interest in the outcome is i think a reflection of this preoccupations, lack of ability to get engaged. it's ironic that it's the turks who are now, you know, yesterday starting to threaten the syrians with tips, whatever that means. but we don't have that credibility at the moment because we're not prepared to move basically and the russians who are not willing to allow

u.n. security council action against this i think would take a different posture if we were much more assertive. we're getting there but we're getting there very slowly and a lot of people are dying in the process. and i think that's a consequence of the overall situation that we're facing. you talk about the arab-israeli situation. there i think we suffer far more from difficult as it is for me to say it a failed theory of the case. we went about it trying to resume the negotiations and resolve the israeli-palestine conflict in a wrong way now, the degree of difficulty was great given -- >> we will break away from the last few minutes from this event and take you live to the u.s. chamber of commerce in washington, d.c. that's ann bo-shane vice president with the chamber. she is introducing a discussion today on the homeland security department which was created almost nine years ago in the

wake of the september 11 attacks. among the speakers this morning, homeland security secretary janet napolitano and tom ridge. this is live on c-span2. >> have worked with government partners at the state, federal and local levels to help advocate for policies that enhance american security without inhibiting its economic vitality. i agree with governor ridge who believes that securing america is a shared public/private responsibility. the terrorist attacks on 9/11 were a watershed moment in our history. among things it placed homeland security on that to of the government's priority list. following 9/11 the president in congress developed a security framework to protect our country from large scale attacks directed from abroad. they also enhanced federal, state and local capabilities to tackle threats and disasters here in the homeland. and members of the u.s. business community stepped up to help make our country more secure and more competitive. they wanted this great country to succeed and never felt you

needed to sacrifice safety or competitiveness. a key element of the government's framework included the creation of the department of homeland security. we know that it combined 22 disdisparate agencies into a single cabinet level department. as americans we find purpose in trying times. the united states has made significant progress in securing the nation from terrorism since 9/11. still, work remains. threats facing the country have evolved and we know they will continue to evolve. and that's what we're here to discuss with you this morning. we're excited about today's agenda. today we want to assess the state of homeland security over the past decade. these questions we will consider including looking back how had we done and looking forward what still needs to be remain. we're pleased that governor ridge will provide his valuable perspective on the upcoming tenth anniversary of 9/11 and no event would be complete without secretary janet napolitano. she will provide the keynote address with a special focus of public engagement in the homeland security enterprise.

the chamber is pleased to help her launch the public service announcements related to the if you see something say something campaign. and then rounding out the morning we'll have a distinguished panel providing perspectives from both the public and private sector. i'll have questions at the ready but get your questions ready as well and there should be note cards on your table if you're shy and don't want to ask one publicly. again, thank you to csc and conway with partnering with the chamber. we appreciate it. and without further ado, i'm honored to invite our next speaker to the podium as the first secretary of homeland security, tom ridge, helped guide the country through a period of crisis and change. now the former governor of pennsylvania leaves ridge global his own international security and risk management firm and we are fortunate enough to have them chair our national security task force here at the university of task force. please give a warm welcome to tom ridge. [applause]

>> well, thank you, ann, very much for that kind introduction and thank you very much for your warm response. i thank the responses to the event and i thank the chamber for giving us an opportunity to reflect a little bit on where we were, what we've done and where we need to go for purpose of this engagement today and i'm very privileged to be part of this and i'm, frankly, looking forward to the discussion of the panelist. i was privileged to serve with most of them in one capacity or another so i look forward to that engagement as well. i think it's really important that we continue the discussion of what we've experienced and learned and can still learn from the events of september 11, 2001. i appreciate this opportunity to share some brief opening thoughts with all of you, and i certainly look forward to secretary napolitano's comments today. as i said before, the insights

of our panel. everybody remembers what they were doing and where they were on 9/11, don't you? you remember what happened -- do you remember where you were when president kennedy was assassinated? neil armstrong walked on the moon. the challenger exploded. martin luther king was assassinated. there are certain very seminal events in this country that are part of our national psyche but are indelibly marked in our hearts and our minds. on september 10th, 2001, terrorism was viewed as a rather unseemly part of the world. in fact, we were a superpower. we had this unequaled economy enjoying a standard of living unlike any other generation or any other country's ever enjoyed. it was absolutely unimaginable that a small group of

individuals with the limited funding regardless of the intensity of their hatred would conceive and ultimately execute an attack that could result in a catastrophic loss of life, economic dislocation in the hundreds of billions of dollars. the attacks on 9/11, obviously, left the country stunned and in grief. if you think about the last 10 years, one thing we've demonstrated ourselves and to the rest of the world is our undeniable resilience. we went from knees bent in prayer to the formation of a plan to make our country safer and more secure and we've become certainly stronger and more secure. in a decade's time we've strengthened our intelligence assets and we've partnered with allies and friends. we've captured and killed terrorists and destroyed safe havens in afghanistan and around

the globe. we've stood up a new department, homeland security we remember well. over 20 different units of government, over 180,000 people. it would be nice one of these days if secretary napolitano and her successors could report to a few less congressional committees. federal, state and local authorities repositioned the country -- repositioned as the country embraced very much an emotionally charged and strategically driven national mission. we did so with an eye toward the safekeeping of our civil liberties, our constitution, and we always thought it was very important to maintain the integrity of the american brand. we improved preparedness and response capabilities and we established layers of security throughout our aviation system. we embedded new technology and more people at our borders, deployed finger-based screening and radiation portals and designed new entry of international partners to do

work or be students in the united states. one of the things we do today, however, is recognize that back then as we do now we needed to recognize the value of the very important part of the security solution and that's the private sector. i think we all understood that after 9/11 that as a country not just as a government we would have to learn to do things differently. we're going to have to learn to do them better. ann said it but i'm going to repeat it because i truly believe this, homeland security is a federal department but it is not the exclusive province or work of the federal government. it is an agency of the federal government. extraordinary people work there but it's really the work of an entire country, the work of an entire nation. the very premise of a national mission involves an understanding that everything we do must be shared effort and shared responsibility. a national mission means an integrated mission.

partnerships. we all know, figures embedded in the minds of most, the private sector owns 80% of our critical infrastructure in this country. the business community, the private sector holds a key stake in the production and transfer of goods to all of our nation's national security routes. seaports, borders, the skies vaed. that means the very backbone of the country is exposed to many levels and the kind of instruction as a design of man or some other nature. i think we've done a good job of coordinating our efforts but not a great job. i think we can do better. we need to -- we need to private sector -- and have them more involved, frankly, at the table in my judgment. not less. more involved in the planning stages, not less. and more involved in the response and recovery stages,

not less. border security, structure protection wherever you go you can find yourself in need of that critical partnership of the public sector and the private sector. i remember right after 9/11 president bush called me in. we met every morning in the oval office. we asked me to stay a little bit later and he mentioned to me that we really had to do something different at our borders with our friends in canada and mexico because right after 9/11 we enhanced security. i mean, we ratcheted it up big time. but we slowed down commerce. i remember going to a general motors facility in flint, michigan, an assembly plant. they ordered their seats when they put the chassis on the front end of the assembly line. the seats were made in canada. a computer chip on the seats and

one in the truck, even across the bridge through the tunnel. one of the last things in the assembly to be inserted into the chassis of the seats, everything else is done. well, it's about an 6 to 8 half hour process. what happens if the trucks with those seats on the bridge are stuck in the tunnel for half a day because we ramped up security? nothing happens in that facility. but it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. you can enhance security and you can improve the economic interaction which is absolutely central to the united states in the 21st century. the economy is gullible. our economic future is tied to our ability to connect and sustain economic relationships with our friends north and south along with the rest of the world but along with that interdependency and then opportunity comes greater vulnerability so when we look at the borders we have to say to ourselves, how can we enhance security at the same time

hopefully improve commerce? improve the connection. there's a lot of great panelists here but i'm just going to point out one of my friends who presently works with the chamber of commerce. al martinez was running the private sector office in our shop at that time. ralph was working customs and border protection. the nice thing about being secretary is you can -- [inaudible] >> you can set goals. i think that's a better word. we ought to be able to improve through-put in detroit by 25%. okay? go do it. well, al and ralph said, okay, here's a classic example where you need the partnership. private sector on both sides, the companies that are enter dependent, they work together.

customs and border protection agreed to reassign people at different times at different booths. the private sector changed and altered their delivery cycle. my goal was 25% with very little money but with the kind of partnerships i'm just talking about, the improved through-put, 55%. it didn't take a lot of money. it did take cooperation, communication, and thinking a little bit differently than they had historically thinking about delivering schedules and about manpower at the border. that's the kind of partnership that i'm talking about. it's not a zero-sum game. you don't have to say trade security. listen, our economy and our security intersect at the border. we need to understand that for all time in the future. if we want to continue to be a strong economy. notwithstanding the recession. notwithstanding the challenges we have now. our future is tied to our connectivity, economic connectivity for the rest of the world. and we have to make sure that we understand that we can enhance

security without interfering with economic relationships and that's critically important to our future. now, having said that, we need to understand that the threat remains strong and continues to change. we forwarded some attacks. quite candidly we have to admit publicly we've been fortunate that a few others have simply failed. luck is not a strategy. as we close one vulnerability, we should anticipate terrorists will adapt and try to seek out another. the multigenerational threat in a war. for that reason we must always view security as an ongoing process. one of the challenges i believe we have remind ourselves even with the death of bin laden, even with the extraordinary success capturing and killing

terrorists around the globe, al-qaeda's structure and still exists when i look back in the past 10 years, there was one word or a group of words that we don't necessarily want to change but think differently about is the war on terror. terrorism is a tactic. it's tough to wage war against a tack particular because tactic is a device used by those who have been opposed to causes for centuries. it's a tack particular. it's really a war against the belief system, isn't it? and the ideology of hatred, an evil ideology. and i had an occasion to meet benazir bhutto before she was assassinated in preparation for that meeting i read some of her speeches and comments and she observed one time that you can

exile a man, not an idea. you can imprison a man, but not an idea. you can kill a man, but not an idea. you can bring bin laden to justice, but the idea that ideology, that belief system -- as long as it has appeal to even the smaller number of individuals, the global scourge of terrorism will be with us. we're no safer but the threat remains. september 12th, 2001 we were grieving that we had a sense of unity and an aggressive state of determination. every day we have learned a little more. every day more people are working together to find security solutions and identify vulnerabilities. and every we get a little

further away from the tragedy. we have to be willing to look over our shoulders from time to time and be mindful that terrorists do not rest so neither can we. i dare say probably everybody in this room is wearing a wristwatch. we wear watches, terrorists have time. think about that one. they are much more patient than we are. we're going to be at this for a while. we should be breathless about it. we can deal with it. we have dealt with it. even though we're more secure, the threat remains. do not underestimate the appeal of their belief system and their willingness to be patient in bringing the broader world to accept that belief system. that means in spite of the significant progress we've made, much work remains to be done. we have strength and information-sharing in this country and among allies and friends but we still saw an attempted christmas day bomber

come very close to the goals to avert and repeated information not to be shared. in terms of executing that individual's game plan. i remember there's a lot of criticism being directed at the department of homeland security at the time and i came to the defense of secretary napolitano. it relies on the intelligence and law enforcement community to share that information. and the fact of the matter remains is this individual's father had walked into the department of state and said i believe my son has been radicalized becoming a terrorist by the way in yemen. the intelligence community knows exactly what's going on over there and who's leading

terrorist groups over there. people wondered how he could get on the plane well, because the state department never told the justice department and as strong as it's become and it's not perfect and no institution of government is perfect, it is a consumer of information and it can only act on information given to it. i think the information-sharing process is good. i dare say from my private conversations with a lot of people around this country, it probably could get a little better. we need to create a culture of intelligence-sharing where everyone feels empowered to hit the send button. share, not less. it's trying to go from the cold war culture of need to know to the 21st century of culture of disclosure, need to share. >> we're halfway there, 60% there but we're not all the way there. how long have we been talking

about inoperable communications for our first responders? i think it's a national disgrace, i'm here to tell you. it's simply unbelievable in my mind that on the 10th anniversary of 9/11, knowing what transpired at the twin towers and knowing the inability of these men and women who rushed in to save the lives of other americans and international visitors and citizens were unable to communicate and the 9/11 commission chaired by two great americans, governor kaine and lee hamilton, and the highest priorities of the 9/11 commission was, let's build an interoperable communication system for our first responders. and we still haven't done it. i'm a little agitated. you can write it down. we have the capacity.

we have the technology. what we don't have is the political courage and the focus of trying to help these men and women who we celebrate with speeches. if we're really that concerned, you better get on a fast track. we're not going to get it done before the tenth anniversary but i hate to think that the 11th anniversary will come and go without finally building a platform, a foundation so that these men and women have had interoperable communications system. it's the d block and by the way think about the kind of investments that we've made and can make in the aftermath of 9/11 but generally help improve the quality of life generally and the safety and the security of americans generally. you would build a broadband system in response to 9/11 in recognition of what transpired. by the way, it tran spired in many instances and it was catastrophic and horrific but just think if there's a

monstrous accident somewhere where mother -- you talk to folks who try to communicate right after a hurricane goes through a particular community. broadband would improve the safety and security of this country and enhance our ability to help fellow citizens either in response to a terrorist attack, an accident, a natural weather event or interoperability and 10 years later we're still talking about. homeland security is actually enabling legislation. two of the highjackers came on with lawful advisories and they overstayed their advisories and there was no way to track them and what they said what you need to do is build an entry/exit system. we call it a u.s. visit. and i asked a couple of my team members -- actually, i announced it in public. it's one of the wonderful things

about being secretary. i said we're not only going to build this notice we're going to do it on time with biometrics and we take a digital photograph and take fingerprints. we've been doing it for over six years but we have a record of everybody that's come into this country by commercial aviation. i can't tell you today how many are here overstayed their vehicle who never embedded the exit system. by the time congress stepped up and gave the secretary the money, by the time the airlines cooperated we built the exit system. made a lot of progress. but we have a lot of work to do. you could imagine several million visitors over the past couple years. do you think anybody has overstayed their visa? don't answer that question. do you know where they are? do you know what they're doing? it would be easy to cite all the

vulnerabilities we've yet to address and the 9/11 recommendations we have yet to meet but achieving these goals and the ones i just talked about requires the navigation of a federal system where urgency does not come easily when politics, budgets and bureaucracy are involved. we still have more work to do. don't get me wrong. i think we've made progress and we're undeniably more safer and secure. there's still fundamental things we still need to pay attention to and have yet to do. as citizens we're entitled to have expectations of our government relative to our security. but we cannot expect that the government can create a failsafe risk-free environment. it does not mean that we must treat every person as a potential terrorist, that every possible scenario must be explored. risk will be ever present and can never be completely

eliminated. they must be managed. i tip my hat to john pistole and secretary napolitano finally -- finally at our airports and we have to move incrementally, and give credit where credit is due there's a couple of airlines and a couple of airports who have frequent fliers who work on that process to let them go through screening in a different way, less encumbered. i've been pulled over for secondary screening a number of times. i don't need. they're only doing what they've been obliged to do under the circumstances but we need to get in the mindset of manage the risk, manage the risk. priorities have to be set and things have been made. it's all going to be about tradeoffs, isn't it? do you remember the big debate for several months that was the topic of the day. we spend billions of defending

commercial airlines against shouldered fired missiles or do you invest in nuclear detection technology? what do you think is important. which risk is more important? you appropriate the money to complete the u.s. visit system and let's get the exit system and let's give more money to the states. you choose among adding more layers of security at chemical sites, you address a difficult security risk at mass terrorist and invest in health care or education. there are fiscal realities you can deal with. one of the ways you can deal with it is prioritizing the risk in a world that understands that you cannot eliminate it you can manage it. as we all know the needs and wants are limitless. resources are not.

i must tell you as a congressman or as governor, nobody ever walked into my office to lobby for less. hey, gov, we had too much money last year. we'll take a 5% cut. the fact of the matter is, with the fiscal realities we have today, we have to be more focused and more surgical and more thoughtful about the risks that are most immediate against which we must protect those that we must be concerned about but not necessarily devote resources to deal with to a more appropriate time. this reality requires that the public and private sector work together to manage the risk together. by sharing the responsibility, sharing talent and sharing resources across both sectors in all significant areas of expertise. ..

>> that's just not our nature. we live in freedom, and we will continue to work together to make sure nobody takes their freedom away. so i thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts with you this morning. thank you very much. [applause] >> i'm going to break with protocol. this isn't on your agenda but i

have a couple of other things i want to share with you, if you don't mind. the 10 years since 9/11, there's been a lot of changes in this country. we have learned a lot about the threats we face, a lot about the terrorists we face, mother nature has thrown some pretty tough things at us as well. i think we're smarter, more secure and more safer. made a lot of partnerships. we got a lot of people moving in and out of the homeland security family, holding different positions everywhere, public sector, private sector. with all that's happening come with all the constant changes there are certain things that have been constant, and there have been a small group of individuals who have been there from day one. ann, you have been one of those individuals. you leave the chamber's national security team. you've been there from the very beginning, start with the national governors association.

you brought those experiences and talents to the chamber. you worked with my friends. you worked with fema, and so it's nice when you get up, ann, to the chamber and she has hosted many of these different events but i thought you ought to know from day one, since september 11, 2001, i constant and broader family, broader homeland security family has been our leader. ann, thank you very much. [applause] >> well, thank you, governor ridge. and i must as i said before we are so fortunate to have his leadership not at the chamber as our chairman of the national security task force. so, without further ado it is my pleasure to introduce the secretary of homeland security,

the honorable janet napolitano. we are honored to have you back at the chamber again. thank you for being here. secretary napolitano was he on august 3 for a fema, red cross, north can't chamber event of public-private partnership. we are happy to have her back. as you know she is the third secretary of the department of homeland security. she's been in job for a little over two years now. at the time that she was asked to join the obama administration, she was in his second term as the governor of the state of arizona. and it's easy to understand why president obama recruiter. then governor napolitano, the nation as a whole and that's immigration particularly. not only that she also handled other all hazard issues that intersect with the mission of dhs, including the lewis prison hostage crisis which i believe was the longest prison standoff in our country. a major gas line, pipeline construction, drought, wildfires, focus?

she has to handle it at all. the secretary was also the first chairwoman of the national governors association, my alma mater. so we appreciate her service there as well. it's entirely fitting to have transport with us here today to kickstart our retrospective conversation on the state of homeland security since 9/11. whether she and her colleagues are beating back terrorist plots, fording tiber attacks are fighting tornadoes or pandemics, secretary napolitano understand better than most people the nation is more secure today than it was 10 years ago. but for her, good isn't good enough. like governor ridge, she knows the federal government cannot do this alone. in her first annual state of america's homeland security address, the kind of threats we now face demonstrate that our homeland security is a shared responsibility, and only a whole of nations approach will deliver the level of security and resilience we require. the chamber could not agree more. i would also like to personally thank secretary napolitano for

everton great a strong and lasting partnership with the private sector, particularly the chamber of commerce to we appreciate your service. please join me in welcoming the secretary of homeland security, janet napolitano. [applause] >> well, thank you, ann, for that introduction. governor ridge, it's always a pleasure and an honor to be with you. and i think the three of us who have served as secretaries of homeland security, governor ridge, secretary, myself, we share a special bond. in terms of the multi-mission, aspect of the department, and building the department even as we deal with everything from natural disasters to terrorism, to other sorts of men cost

disasters. we run the gamut. we have multiple missions. it is now the third largest department of the federal government, the department of homeland security, so governor ridge, secretary ridge, thank you very much for your service to the nation in this regard. and i think a shout out is required. [applause] >> i would also like to thank the chamber of commerce for inviting me back to be here and to address the national security has forced. going back to my time as the governor of arizona and continuing now at dhs, i have always believed that we can achieve our goals more quickly and more efficiently when the public and private sectors work

together. and nowhere is this more important in this day and age when we must keep our nation, our citizens, our businesses save from a variety of threats. and we must do so in a fiscally constrained environment. so, we must work together. and homeland security means every part of our society must play its role to make our nation more secure and more resilient, by resilient what i mean is to be able to quickly respond to a disaster and quickly get right back up on the horse and get back to work. and we must do this, we must secure the nation, we must be resilient, and we must work one person, one hometown, one community at a time. now, as has already been

mentioned, next month is the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attack. and i think there is no question but that our country is stronger and more secure against that type of attack than it was a decade ago. we have bounced back, and we bounced back very strongly from what was the worst attack ever on our soil. we have made progress on every front, to protect ourselves. indeed, a few weeks ago the department released a report outlining with specifics the actual progress that has been made by the department of homeland security, and by our many partners in fulfilling specific recommendations of the 9/11 commission that were directed at the department. this means strides over the last

decade to protect our nation against large-scale attacks or disasters, to protect our critical infrastructure and our cyber networks, and to engage a broader range of americans in the shared responsibility for security. and, indeed, our experience over the last 10 years has made us smarter about the evolving threats we faced and how best to deal with them. we have used the knowledge and our experience to make our nation and communities more resilient, not just to terrorist attacks, but also to threats and disasters of all kinds. and we've done so in the context of making sure that we also protect and preserve our fundamental right -- rights as citizens of the united states. so as part of our efforts we continue to increase information

sharing to state and local law enforcement agencies, and to the general public. and we do so because of that fundamental principle that all of us have a role to play in fording potential attacks and reporting suspicious activity to the authorities. as you will hear more later, the team or individuals are concerned is see something, say something. and that is easy to remember. and something that we hope the american populace begins to incorporate just as a matter of if you see something, you say something. now, the role of the private sector is very significant, which is one of the reasons why i find it important to address this group on a regular basis. with our private sector

partners, we have increase preparedness for disasters, and with strengthened the resilience, particularly of our most vulnerable critical infrastructures. two weeks ago dhs and fema and northcom partnered with u.s. chamber and the american red cross to present the first annual resilience conference, furthering our efforts to participate and partner with the private sector to sustain a safe and secure homeland. to gather now with the world customs organization, with the international maritime organization, and with the international civil aviation organization, wcl, imo and i ko, and also with the united postal union we have initiate a major international campaign to better secure the global supply chain. this means that when a good interest the stream of commerce,

and ultimately enters our shores, that we are working to make sure that all along that route where it crosses international boundaries, where different personnel may be involved, that security measures are being taken and that they are becoming more and more standardized as we work through the global economy, and work toward the fact that we have to deal with our homeland security. it means also international security in this regard. we are working with the private sector, and with international partners to expand and integrate trusted traveler and trusted shipper programs to facilitate legitimate travel and trade, while also enhancing security. what does this mean? what it means is that we are adopting and working to implement risk-based intel-based

strategies, both for people, passengers, and for good, cargo. both internationally and domestically. and what does this mean for practical purposes? it means that ultimately we want to be able to expand programs like global entry that allowed those, for example, business travelers are traveling internationally and frequently to have an due process through the lines expeditiously. some of you may already have your global entry card, had used a global entry system. everybody i know that has used it has been more than pleased. our private sector office within the department has produced an online resource catalog to make it easier for our private sector partners to find and utilize the information they need, from bombing prevention resources,

the first responder communication technologies. and this year we launched the private sector preparedness, or ps proper program to enable private sector companies to improve their own preparedness to the implementation of business continuity and emergency preparedness plans that meet certain standards. not every plan is all that it needs to be to really provide the security that you need. the ps prep available online is designed to give you that information. we have also launched this year a loan executive program to enable top level executive talent from the private sector to share their expertise with the department, particularly with respect to building certain discrete needs. we recognize as part of the partnership, we need to have in the private sector, that there

are executives that if they will be loaned to us for a while, it's helpful to us. and quite frankly is also helpful to the private sector to have more on the ground exchange about what really happens in the department on an ongoing basis. now, as i have mentioned before, the public has an important role to play here. because everyone has a role to play in security. it is a shared responsibility. of particular importance and whether private sector can continue to play a key role is in efforts to increase public vigilance and awareness of threats, and the reporting of suspicious activities to the authorities. why is this important? because time and time again we have seen that an alert public, including business owners, when they notified the authorities,

when something they encounter just hasn't seemed quite right. and these efforts, when somebody has seen something and said something, have actually helped prevent crime and terrorism. it was to alert street vendors in new york city who notified police when they saw a suspicious vehicle near times square last may, and their actions helped stop an attack in progress. and it actually helped us find the perpetrator. in january, alert city workers in spokane, washington, reported a suspicious backpack along the parade route, and thwarted what almost certainly would have been a deadly bombing on martin luther king day your more recently . more recently, near fort hood,

behaving in a suspicious manner that his actions helped prevent a potential terrorist attack against our troops that could have taken many, many lives. and those are just three examples that have been in the open source media. there are many others as well. so the importance of public awareness in fighting crime, in fighting terrorism, in preventing violence is critical. and that's why over the past two years we have been strengthening and expanding one of the most successful public awareness programs in our country. if you see something, say something campaign. it is a very simple and effective message, a very simple and effective program. first implemented by new york city's metropolitan transportation authority to raise public awareness of indicators of terrorism and crime. and to emphasize the importance of reporting to proper law enforcement authorities, and to

do that in federal buildings, transit systems, to do it if you're in a sports venue, a major retail venue, an entertainment venue. so we have a number of partners now in the see something, say something campaign. including the ncaa, nba, the national football league, the indianapolis 500, retailers such as wal-mart, the mall of america, the american hotel and lobbying association, the general aviation industry, among many others. and today i am proud to announce we have a new partner in the see something, say something campaign, and that is the united states chamber of commerce. they are encouraging all of their members to utilize the new public service announcement that we are unveiling today, and to find ways to partner with dhs to get this message out. we are working with the chamber

now to develop materials that could be used in regional offices across the country, and also within particular communities. so i would like to congratulate the chamber on joining the campaign. i look forward to the support and to working with you on this import and initiative. so, today we're going to continue to see something, say something expansion. we continue to add partners, new materials, and a new ad campaign. and today we are releasing a new set of 30-second national public service announcements designed to engage the public in identifying and reporting suspicious activity. each public service announcement presents a different scenario involving a suspicious activity, what to do and how to notify the upper. authorities. we will be showing you one of the 30-second psa's in a moment.

that is a little tease there. so it will be up here. and i would like in connection with that, to issue a challenge to you. my hope and my charge to you today is to help us spread this public awareness message. you can do in a number of ways. when you return home to your businesses and your communities, you can share the psas with your colleagues, with your employees, and you can help us reach an even broader audience by showing them in your own venues, by showing them in things like stores, businesses that you operate, linking them to company websites so that employees have access to them, including them in your own marketing campaign. more directly, you could partner with us to bring to see something, say something campaign right into your company

or business. quite frankly, we need all hands on deck in this effort. you know as members of the private sector, and i know in my role as secretary, how hard it is to get a message across the general public and get them thinking in that way, right? what we're trying to do is say homeland security, no government department, no matter how large or well-run can do it by itself. and the private sector, no matter how large or well-run, can do it by itself. it has to be a partnership, and the public has to be involved. and bite these simple campaigns, and a simple straightforward message, we think that emphasis will indeed help us ensure that we have all hands on deck. so i think as governor, secretary ridge has described, we have done much in the last 10 years to better our country, to keep our nation safe.

and we have a lot of efforts underway right now. the credit for this is widespread, a lot of it should go quite frankly to the men and women who are on the front lines working these issues every day, including our counterterrorism and law enforcement professionals, including our first responders, including our many industry and in geo- partners, volunteers, state, local tribal governments, the list goes on. when we all work together, what we call homeland security is truly a national enterprise with a hold of nation participation. then we increase homeland security and homeland resilience. as was previously described, the kind of threats we now face, from terrorism, from threats in cyberspace, to pandemic disease,

to natural disasters of all types, demand that we strengthened our capacities working together. none of us can do it by ourselves. it also demands the continued vigilance of the american people. so today, we are stronger than we were on 9/11. there are no guarantees in this world, and i'm not here to offer guarantees. there are lots of things that are threatened that can happen, but what we can do is maximize our ability to prevent an attack from occurring, minimizing the ability of such an attack having a large impact and increase our ability to respond with efficiency and effectiveness, and to get, as i said earlier, to get right back up on the horse and back in the business of the country. so now i'd like to have played before you, for the very first

time, the 30-second television psa. there are 15-second versions. there are radio psas. they are all available at www.dhs.gov/if you see something, say something. www.dot dhs.gov/if you see something, say something. so let's set aside 30 seconds and see the new spot. >> maybe you see something suspicious, but you don't want to get involved. it's nothing, you think. can you be sure? did you see something, say

something. report suspicious activity to local authorities. >> what do you think? [applause] >> so, again, thank you for what you have done today. thank you for what you're going to continue to do, help us spread the word. thank you very much. [applause] >> we will take a few questions, is that are right? please identify yourself. wait for the mic to come to you. >> any questions? [inaudible] >> know, i think -- but you point out a bible thing which is, we want the public to live

with information but not to live in fear. and quite frankly i think when they have information, that helps reduce the level of fear. that's one of the reasons we matured out of the color-coded and ended it, and instead substituted a national threat advisory system, which is designed when we have specific, credible intelligence about a threat, to be able to go to the public with the information that we have. what we want them to do themselves and for the families, and then where they can get ongoing information. a national threat advisory system has replaced the color-coded, and the idea is with information, you are empowered to see something, say something is the same thing. we've had in enough places over the last two years now that we have not seen it abused i the public. ..

>> difficult to intercept. and pick up information and time to do -- there's been an all of good work done. but we're seeing smaller plots using a variety of techniques. they derive internationally but we're also seeing the rise activities by individuals who are actually in the country. and they're acting by themselves and that kind of attack is the most difficult to prevent because there's nothing to intercept and so forth. so you have to go and use other

methods and one of the other methods is for citizen of the united states -- every person in the united states to have awareness of their surroundings and feel comfortable in reporting suspicious activities to the authorities. >> thank you very much. since 9/11 as you've mentioned you've seen an expansion of the government powers to protect american citizens from the threat of terrorism as well as an expansion of bureaucracy, whether that would be through the fisa amendments and the provide act. can you sketch out an north carolina when the federal government would not need those extraordinary powers and a scenario when in some cases the united states could return to a pre-9/11 footing in terms of the powers of the u.s. government? >> i mean, i think realistically we have to say, look,

environments sang over time and 9/11 was a signaling in change of an environment that i think we have to deal, i think, throughout the foreseeable future. and what is that change? that change is the threat against the united states motivated by various ideologists, terrorists, other ideologies as well aimed at trying to commit a crime motivated by that ideology that will have an undue impact on our society, either economically or by -- and/or by a number of individuals affected. and we at the department, we run this assuming that is the environment and then the questions presented what are the best things we can do consistent with american values of civil liberties and privacy? so one of the things that we

have actually in the department right now is our own civil liberties office. and we examine all of our programs and activities from that perspective. we also have, i think, one of only two privacy officers that are presidentially appointed within the federal government. i think the other one is at the department of justice and the privacy office analyzes from a privacy perspective all of the activities that we are doing. so i think we live in an environment where terrorism and those sorts of threats are part of what we have to deal with. and we also, however, want to do so in a way that is respectful of and protects the civil liberties and stlalz -- values that we fight to continue and it's that balance that we fight day in and day out basis.

and as i mentioned earlier, if you see something, say something campaign, it's been on amtrak. it's been in the metro here. you probably heard my voice if you ride the metro. it's been in ncaa. all the march madness venues had see something say something campaigns in the arenas. it's in the stadiums. it's in shopping malls. other places where people congregate and gather. and now we're taking it to the next level which is to say, let's focus on individuals and see if we can make sure that the individuals of the united states acknowledge the shared responsibility for security. and acknowledge and incorporate and value the see something, say something campaign. that is really designed to help protect all of us.

i don't know what your schedule is, but i know what i have to do. i'd rather stay here. [laughter] >> let's do two more. okay. >> phil mckinneym corporation we obviously have reacted to some very tough issues but where do we stand on the opportunity to reciprocate the requirements that we have placed on our overseas trading partners and perform the same services for them? we have been traditionally an importing country but we have goals of vastly increasing our exports as a jobs program and what have you. is there any thought that perhaps it ought to be a good idea if we were able to offer those same types of scanning services that we insist others

around the world perform for us that we would perform for them? >> we have had discussions -- and this kind of goes to the global supply chain program that i mentioned briefly in my remarks. and what -- and it is very much a reciprocal type program in terms of standards for inspecting goods and looking at when they first enter the stream of commerce, you know, the forwarders, the consignors, all the places where different personnel might touch a container or vessel. what would be needed then to make sure that there wasn't something inserted in there that was, you know, a weapon an explosive, something that could be remotely detonated or the like. and so the global supply change strategy which does involve all of these national organizations which cover about 180 to 190

countries is designed to make sure that we are all using the same sorts of standards and you are right to say that there can, i think, over time -- i think we'll be able to do some joint leveraging and sharing of some of those responsibilities. >> governor rich spoke to the entry exit system and the fact we know when people come into the country and when they get here and one of the things we don't understand is when they leave. i wonder if you could speak a little bit for your state management and when you think we might see for the exit part. >> right. actually we're far along now. let me explain some of the progress we've made just in the past few months. one of the things we did is we have gone back and looked at the orn -- there was an original estimate of 1.1 million visa

overstays in the country. we have gone back and looked at and systemized this, cross-reference other records that we've had and we've been able to reduce that number in half. and then we've been able to go through with other systems and reduce that even further. and one of the things that is different now than existed when the initial u.s. entry/exit system was conceived is that we have much, much more biographic data as opposed to biometric but we have many, many more databases of different things that are now appropriately linked that can be searched that enable us from a biographic standpoint to keep track of when people actually leave the

country and to know better where people are who have overstayed their visas and to be able to prioritize those who amongst those need to be touched by law enforcement first. so those who have overstayed, who also appear on suspected security or terrorist risk lists, who are footage tives from justice from whom we have outstanding warrants, you know, that sort of thing. so we've been able to clear the list. we're in the process and i think we basically completed the list of prioritizing the remainder and then through the fact we have many more ways of bigraphically ascertaining when somebody has left the country -- we have a different ability now. and the cost of having what was originally conceived which was a universal biometric exit system -- the cost -- we piloted

it in several places and the cost is very, very, very high. we believe and our analysis demonstrates with the kind of data that we now collect that we now have organized that we now have systematized because we move these daily because we virtual get the same result. it's just much more economically efficient. in this day and age with the pressure on the fiscal system the way it is, addressing a problem and figuring out an answer that gets us where we need to go that is cheaper and as efficient, that's one of the challenges we have and that's what we have attained. so, yes, i'm cognizant of the problem as was set before us

earlier today. but great, great progress has been made. all right? thank you all very much. see something, say something. [applause] >> thank you, secretary napolitano. the chamber is very pleased to be a part of the see something, say something campaign so thank you for that. we're going to just transition into our panel. if i can have the panelists come up and take their seats and while we do that, feel free to grab a cup of coffee at the back and we'll be back in 2 minutes. [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]

>> we're going to get started if you want to take your seats, please. [inaudible conversations] >> okay, everyone, we're going to get started, please.

>> okay. now we're going to get into the meat of our discussion, our panel. as you can see we've got quite a big panel here. and the intent really is to have a dialog with the audience. two ways to do that. i'm going to ask a series of questions as well to prod some discussion but feel free when we get to your portion to ask questions. there's also some index cards and pads of paper on your table. if you prefer to do that, just hand it to matthew. can you raise your hand or will who's around here, too, and they will just bring their questions up to me as well. so two ways to do it. you have their bios but i'm going to introduce each of our

panelists briefly if i may. first of all, commissioner ralph basham who is one of the most distinguished and diverse backgrounds in law enforcement in homeland security. over the course of his 38-year career in federal law enforcement he served in senior leadership position at four of the eight operational components in what is now the u.s. department of homeland security. most recently he served as commissioner of customs and border protection which is the nation's largest law enforcement agency and the largest operational component of dhs with overall responsibility for border security of the united states. next up we'll have jim. jim is the director of the partnership and outreach division within the office of infrastructure protection at the department of homeland security. his division helps and develops and sustain strategic relationships and information-sharing informations of the owners and operators of critical operators in our community.

he spent 25 years at the department of energy. and then we will have al martinez. al is now here at the chamber as a senior vice president and the executive vice president for the u.s. forum of policy innovation. in this role he serves as executive vice president and overseas the chamber's three nonprofit foundations. before that as you all know, he served as the first assistant secretary for the private sector at the department of homeland security. there he was charged with providing america's private sector with a direct line of communication into the department and he had the distinction of serving with secretary ridge, chertoff and napolitano. earlier in his career al worked for 30 years at jpmorgan chase and its predecessors chemical bank and texas commerce bank. welcome, al. next up we'll have greg garcia, greg is the partnership executive in the cybersecurity and identity management for bank of america from 2006 to 2008 he served as the first president l

presidentially appointment at dhs. he led that department in strategic direction and oversaw the international cybersecurity as well as the national security system. then we'll have major general tim lohanberg. he was appointed addent. and he has done so since 9/11. he's the longest-serving homeland security advisor in the country. in addition he serves as the chair of homeland defense and security as the general's association. he chairs the national governors association homeland security advisory council and chairs the governor's domestic security subcabinet in washington state. then we'll hear from randy mullet. randi is the vice president of government affairs at conway oink a 4.3 billion freight

logistics company head in california as the policy manager and representative executive in dc randy is responsible for all government and affairs for conway and its subsidiary. randy is a well respected voice within the homeland security community, freight transportation and supply chain management as well. and then we'll hear from laura reese, laura joins csc as its director of immigration reform strategy in october of 2010. there she entertained leverage's csc expertise and thought leadership in the border and immigration arena to advance 21st century next generation infrastructure that brings integrity to reforming visa, border and immigration reform. from 2003 to 2006, laura worked at the department of homeland security first as a policy director for immigration in the border and transportation security director and then as deputy director for mission operations in the u.s. visit program. and then last but not least

rounding us out is dan stoking who is currently the director of the private sector office at fema. there his focus is on listening to the private sector to collaborate more effectively in preparedness, response, mitigation and recovery. prior to that, dan worked as the vice president of washington, d.c., public relations firms. he was a soldier in the u.s. army and he was also a high school english teacher. welcome, dan. like i said, we're going to go through a series of opening questions. we'll let you ask questions as well and then we're take a break. the first part of the conversation is really how do we get to where we are? how did we start and sort of the evolution in homeland security over this past decade? and then we'll take a quick break and refuel with some more caffeine and then we'll come back and talk about where are we going in the next decade? where do we need to be -- what are some of the programs that still need to be worked on and that kind of thing? let me just start off with general lohanberg, you are the

longest-serving homeland security director in the country. where were you on 9/11. were you focused on domestic terrorism at the time and were you thinking about threats like that? >> i think it's helpful to acknowledge that a lot of people were involved long before 9/11 in preparing for the looming threat. those who were paying attention including the thoughtful work of the hartmore and terrorism was going around the world for two decades before we were attacked on 9/11. and we formed with the governor's leadership a committee on terrorism that included our association of washington business which is the umbrella organization in our state for the chambers of commerce. and we were meeting every month beginning in april of 2000 and, therefore, had a running head start when we were attacked on

9/11. i was with joe albah who was the head of fema on 9/11. in fact, for a time it looked like i was going to relinquish my aircraft to him so he could get back to washington, d.c. and so like everyone ems in the room i know exactly where i was and what i was doing on that occasion. but that gave us then the opportunity to immediately implement everything we had been studiously preparing for quite some time without federal government influence. that was simply being done because we knew that the threat was very real. and i had the privilege of working with ann at the national governors association. in october, late october of 2001, very shortly after the attacks, the white house had asked each of the states to report up what we saw as our greatest vulnerabilities and, therefore, our greatest priorities tore national attention. the national governor's association hosted a meeting in february of 2002 so just a few

months after and i was privileged with ann to facilitate conversation among designees from the governors of each of the states and territories to address the same question, what were our greatest gaps and vulnerabilities. i can just throw them out for conversation because i think they may be a term of operation. i said interoperable communications was one of the top three, information-sharing and intelligence fusion was the second. and medical surge capacity or more literally the lack of a national medical surge capitally. one saying our surge economy which is for profit and not-for-profit hospitals was one of our greatest vulnerabilities. and we've focused on those areas as a nation in many, many different ways in the year since. >> thank you. commissioner, since the earlier days of your career federal service has played a big part. you led the training of the law

enforcement officers at the time of the 9/11. what did you make for that day and what do you think was going to happen. >> i think like everyone. it was a huge shock that this had happened and then as the realization, you know, set in, that we can no longer view ourselves just because we have two vast oceans on both sides and relatively friendly neighbors to our north and to our south, that was no longer going to be sufficient to protect us from a catastrophic event like that and you recognize that we had to create a system where our borders became the last line of defense and not the first line of defense. and i was in georgia. i was running the federal law enforcement training center, living on an island, not a bad

gig, but i was asked to come back to washington to start up the transportation security administration. my good friend pat shanback was one of the six people that we together started it up. but i realized very quickly and i think pat would agree with me that we needed to reach out to the private sector. and, quite frankly, we didn't do a very good job. we didn't engage the people that truly understood the aviation industry, how it worked, and i believe we had some missteps in the beginning. we could have done a lot better job of creating those partnerships early on to build a system that was going to be efficient and effective and as has been said here today, not only to secure this country but at the same time facilitate legitimate trade and travel.

'cause, otherwise, the terrorists win. they win. we shut this economy down. they know if we destroy our economy in that fashion, at the end of the day they have won. >> randy, can you talk about con-way has been in the administration. >> sure. first off, 9/11 was a huge shock to us as it was to everybody else. it was me personally. my daughter had started her first day of work in one of the high-rises over in roslyn and her office looked at the pentagon. so i as a father of a young woman at home watching -- actually at work watching that all transpire and seeing what was going on in washington. so for all of us that was something that happened, that was very, very important. at that time, i was working in

operations for con-way, helping to run their trucking company. homeland security was the farthest thing from my thought. i'd never been involved in government. still not been involved in government. within several months after the 9/11 event, our corporate risk committee decided that we had a new corporate risk. it was not necessarily terrorism. it was the reaction of government to terrorism and what that might do to our business model and to our international supply chain and our customers at the time we owned a cargo airline so i was sent to washington kind of to bridge the gap between what really happens in the private sector, much of what commissioner basham talked about and how can government

interface with that? remember, particularly as an air carrier, heavily regulated industries that most of our contacts with government were from enforcement people or regulatory people we were not big time into information-sharing and those sorts of things. our corporate security was also set up even though international and very sophisticated people, many ex-federal law enforcement, they were kind of in the basement. they were people that were interested in securing facilities and cargo and those kinds of things. they were not geared to all hazard. so i could -- this is a dissertation topic, but i just want you to know that security inside of u.s. corporations, particularly, those that are

>> so you were the first assistant secretary for the private sector also. the government didn't really have private sector liaison. with your early days like for you coming from the private sector to government and can you tell us a few stories and what you experienced back then? >> it's interesting and to put things in perspective like randy

did, and i was taking notes -- and still taking notes about what people said about homeland security and that risk reward is in effect what is so important. so as a banker for 30 years, had nothing to do it security other than making sure the money in the vault wasn't being robbed and white collar crime and that type of thing but i was a banker, i was a lender. i was not even in the securities side of banking. i was a lender and a manager and all that kind of stuff so when i interviewed with the secretary ridge over at the white house, she said well you've worked with the government, a regulated industry. i said sir, with all due respect i didn't like it very much. the government most of the time they were coming to ask me to do something i didn't want to do. fast forward to i actually joined homeland security and i get this job and start talking to people in the government and i tell them i'm the guy representing the sort of private-sector, and one of you blame the advocate, the

ombudsman for the private-sector. and their reaction from their career employe he is in particular were like we don't like the private-sector. i'm like why would you not like them come and so they are always just trying to sell us something. and so one of the toughest things early on was that almost psychological factor of thinking of the private-sector as the government interfering in our business and then going into government and having them view the private sector and realizing out of the banking industry i was invited back to my old jpmorgan chase and in the breakfast i was expecting to see -- i went around the room and its bank of america, wachovia anbar cleaves and i said what's going on? when it comes to security there's no competition here. we are working together. so to get that message across to the people, private sector is willing to do something. they are willing to do a lot

more than sell your stuff and sell the message to the private-sector. they are not here just to tie your hands and restrict what you're doing. how do we work together? that i think was one of the toughest hurdles. >> greg, you too served in the government and the private-sector. can you talk about the early days of cybersecurity and how has the partnership dissolved into where we are today? >> great question. you know, like the old country song goes i was cyber before it was cool and i say that because really the cyber landscape, cybersecurity landscape started to evolves before 9/11. it was in 2000 that several major household name web sites were slow to a crawl by the so-called denial of service attack and it brought home the notion that hour increasingly online way of life is being threatened by adversaries and

actors and then when 9/11 hit i think that brought into stark the recognition, the anticipation that not only are we will or will choose i were threats and attacks but blended with physical attacks, so there was an anticipation and mobilization of around the notion that all of our interdependence is across the sectors and the government could produce situations where we have some kind of a blended attacked that would occur and we needed to prepare ourselves for that. so i think as the dhs began to stand up and mature through the presidential directive and homeland security activities, there was the standout of the national infrastructure protection which recognized as so much of the critical infrastructure, cyber, communications, financial services, many others, so much of that is owned and operated by

the private sector and it's incumbent upon the private sector relationship with the government to protect those assets and those capabilities and services that make up our way of life that support our economy, our public safety, our homeland and national security. so, i think over the years, and we can talk more in subsequent questions after the break about how these partnerships have worked but from my perspective as one that has been in the information technology sector and now the financial services with the government and the congress, i think this partnership has evolved. it's maw. there remains challenges, but without this apparatus that we've put into place i think that we would be much worse off than we are now coming and i think we are in proving. and i think it's -- i think we have a reason for optimism.

>> thanks. that is a nice segue. greg mentioned the national infrastructure protection plan. can you talk about that and designating all of the different critical infrastructure sectors and why it was important? >> there's a bunch of things that came together. there was a commission of '96, '97. principally around cyber, to identify sectors that were critical. i think another seminal point really was the work for yankee's -- y2k. you come into 9/11 and all the other side and there was as the governors at protecting critical infrastructure as the share of the response will become of the things the government does in the government space and the owners and operators of the infrastructure have to do in their space and you won't narrow the two together you are not as effective as you need to be. you come out of that, the president says in hspd7 to allow

the national critical and for stricter plan. we started the partnership and created a structure that came from the private sector. they recommend the structure we use for dealing with the 17 sectors now 18 sectors we dealt with and then we looked at putting together a critical infrastructure protection plan, and we realize the was not something we had ever done before, which is a document that has to be developed jointly between government and the private sector. we were putting documents out sharing with our private sector partners learning how to share with our private sector partners because it was not as flawless or seen this as we want. but here we have a major government document serving outside, traditionally never outside the government until it is clear that the top levels in the public domain that we have circulated out there. subsets or sector specific plans that had to be developed with partners. as of the architect trucking together. we were fortunate i think because it was pretty easy to recognize it wasn't just a given the responsibility and not just a private sector responsibility.

but what happened from that protection, you come into katrina and we realized we had a joint interest in responding and recovering and that our critical infrastructure played a key role in responding, too, and a change from the federal role before which would look at how we simply protected the public and we saw we couldn't protect the private sector didn't come back. how you move forward from the protection from work to an all hazardous framework and now we come into a free market and because it is a partnership. we have a public interest out there and obviously the private-sector has an interest they join in a place and we're learning to deal was something that has been occurring here and that is the tension between the regulatory environment carrying out certain things and by the law and the public policy with that private responsibility that we share also for the general benefit of the public. >> speaking of tension, a lot of this state emergency managers at the time then became homeland security advisers as well and

they were dual headed. there was a tension with the counterterrorism and homeland security mission. dan, can you talk -- i know you were not there of the time that you've heard of the stories, you know, how did that go down come and fema moving in and have to wear the counterterrorism have as well. >> i was ready to say where i was on 9/11. >> go ahead. >> i think long before 9/11 even today there are fiefdoms and church domes and battles for who is in charge and i think that is really the problem. i think that while we need to focus on and what i hope we've learned from 9/11 is how to connect the dots and not worry about who's in charge as much and a lot of the dual status roles within the guard and the active-duty army. but much broader than that we can do it in the government and

broader than that still the can and need to do it in the public and the private relationship. if you don't mind i will see where i was on 9/11. i was in the pentagon, so my experience having been in the pentagon and while the building was still on fire and smoking and continuing to work wondering if another plane is going to come, the rare bright spot for me was to exit the building, because the only place to get food was a mcdonald's tent set up in the parking lot where it was all for free. they didn't care if you ordered one hamburger or 20. they didn't quibble how many you were getting 20 burgers come if you ask for 20 you got 20 and went back into the building and went to work. i don't think i fully appreciate it then, but i see in hindsight that that was the real value. at the time as a citizen soldier i knew what was like to be a citizen, i knew what it was like to be a soldier, and i knew both of the audiences didn't get the other and it was the first inkling for me that the public

private relationship is the same way. that we are in powered by folks who have a long experience on both sides because that's the only way that we can appreciate the relationship. and my last comment would be this is an interesting gathering here today because you can almost take anyone out here to be up here. bob connors and mitch cooper and everyone out here has had a long experience of understanding relationships without being territorial on both sides, whether it's from 9/11 or before. >> that's a good point. we will get into more of that after the break about how these private and public partnerships have evolved. laura, about immigration. it was your area. some of the immigration program changes that came following 9/11, was just because of 9/11? what's your perspective? >> a lot of the changes that came about were tied to the facts surrounding the hijackers, and some of them actually stem

back from the first world trade center bombing in '93. for an example, the idea of having an entry exit system was in the 96 built in response to the 93 bombing. same thing around student visas, because one of the 93 terrorists had gotten a student visa and never bothered to report to the school. so the ims started a program in response to the student tracking and kind of shelves that in the after line 11 we were given to see the student exchange visitor information system. but some other programs and changes that can about were for example the 19 hijackers they were from poor countries. 15 of them were from saudi arabia so on the one-year anniversary of line 11, the justice department began the national security entry exit registration system. because again, entry and exit

was called for in congress in 96 but it hadn't been implemented, and so after 9/11, president bush said okay, we are going to go ahead and implement this. and so it began. some other changes that came about work with respect to the state department there was a lot of controversy about what to do with visas authority following 9/11, and so there and it up being a compromise of giving a visa authority to the dhs, but the state department maintained the authority to issue the visas. but for a while there was a consideration giving all of it over to the dhs, and in part because several of the hijackers from saudi arabia attained their visa from what was a program in saudi arabia called visa express'. it was a third party used to obtain visas without interviews,

in person interviews of the state department. so the visa express' program, and also the dhs personnel had to review every single visa application in saudi arabia, which then began the visa security program now in a i.c.e.. several security changes, most of them in reaction to 9/11. there was an exception that i actually forgotten about looking at the 9/11 again refresh my memory. the transit without a visa program. that was suspended in august of 03, and it wasn't in reaction to 9/11, but there was intel gathered that terrorists were looking to exploit the program. it was basically if you fly from country to country through the u.s. you wouldn't have to get a u.s. visa to change in the airport, but of course that could be exploited you just don't get on the second plane or the plane coming to the u.s.. as of that program was

suspended, and it hasn't been reinstated. >> a very important foundation for much of what we did in the immediate response to 9/11, and i think would be helpful to us to be reminded of it. presidential decision directive 63 which was promulgated in 1998 has three important pillars. first was our pride that sector mix everything the government thus possible. a vibrant, resilient private sector makes all activities possible. the second pillar is including our military. second pillar is that our military polis are around the world creates the stability necessary for the vibrant, domestic economy, especially in a global system of supply. and third is that both the private sector and the government are increasingly dependent and interdependent on cyber demand, on the information

technology. so, where as we all recognize the importance of the air, land and maritime the cyber demand, the same time the nation's greatest strength and our greatest potential want nobody. and i've drawn upon that repeatedly coming and we've done that in many of the forums i engaging for the strategic planning because it brings us back to the roots of what makes this possible which is the private sector, that all-important partnership. >> thank you. >> let's open up to the audience and see if we have any questions. please wait for the microphone to get to you come in and identify yourself. >> eric, american shipper magazine. there's been talk this morning about the importance of information sharing, you know, from private sector to government. but lots of times when you talk to business people, the complaint is that, you know, the information sharing is one way. you know, nowadays, you know, if

you see something suspicious, you report it but also, you know, especially in the international there's a lot of reporting of cargo movement and shipments and all that regular data to the government, but not as much. i would like to see people comment about what kind of information the government can give to, you know, some kind of filtered and intelligence whatever the would help the private sector react, and then in a related question, governor ridge talked about more information sharing within the government, less of a silo approach but i'm wondering how the wikileaks issue may have chilled any kind of government sharing of information and what kind of impact it would have on homeland security. >> did you want to take the first part? >> i was going to say i'm not going to go to wikileaks at this point, but again, as a banker and my last as i knew the

chairman of the bank in el paso texas a place where a lot of people and money and now guns and drugs and kind of things go back and forth, one of the many three letter agencies and the government would come to us on a regular basis and tell us to, you know, just opened an account, helpless keep an eye on it. and we would provide information. and at some point the client would ask for money or do something and we would go back to that agency and say ralph? we don't know what you're talking about. i am exaggerating a little bit, but i was kind of the reaction to the door was very much of a one-way conversation. i think or i believe we tried certainly and i wouldn't say during my tenure and homeland security, and i've got the folks here, whether it's caverly, dan

stoneking, the ability of how to get people clearances' including secret clearances so they can be let in on more important and more critical information. how do you do the information analysis centers, the infrastructure protection group, the whole sector council, how do you get that information now there? at the same time, i think a factor that we have to keep in mind, and i went around with the secretary leavitt of hhs talking about a pandemic and he had a great line that he said with effort i am telling you now is going to sound like i am trying to scare you. if this thing happens, you are going to say i wish you had warned us more. so the government is constantly blocking this fine line when they are sharing information between frightened people and not giving them the enough. so again it is just a very, very difficult situation that we face. >> i fifa there are a couple things. there obviously is an education

that has to go to the people in government as information about what kind of information is useful to you. we hear this cry for actionable information. that is a very fungible term depending upon where you sit. supporters it is internal we have to get better at understanding what is useful to you and then how to get it to you in a functional way. the other side of the claim is we have things in government that our great interest to spend hours dissecting it. we give it to you and stop piling that jump on top of us. so it has to be learned and shared and it's a growth process i would suggest part of it is a generational process. as the governor said, we have a long mentality as i told the information therefore i become powerful. if you look at the modern communications and just social media, the value is and how we share that information. we have yet to internalize completely in the government modules and people who get it, but systemically, it is going to grow and it's going to take time. the other problem the government has is the media get something wrong, they simply stop saying

it. if we get something wrong, we have to go out. is that the question on us of being a little more sure of what we put out and how we say it. again, it doesn't give us the agility that we would like to see because of some of those constraints. >> welcome eric, having sent over an agency that does in fact request and required a tremendous amount of information from the private sector, and in particular maritime shipping industry, and which i think has been a tremendous success since the 2002 trade act which was required additional information on mishitting. but i think a big problem that we have is some of those -- some folks think we have an information we are not sharing but i can assure you many times we don't have that information

either, nor can we confirm that information is accurate, so do you want to put out an active, actionable information. but there is a lying we can't cross when it comes to intelligence, protecting sources and those sorts of things. and i agree with you on what is it that you believe you need in order to be more effective and more efficient and more helpful in this effort of protecting the homeland. and i don't believe, you know, i know that it's onerous on the industry, and i recognize that, and we have spent many days talking about this issue in the past, but it is a huge challenge for the government to share certain information. that we are restricted, we can't share that information. so, our hands are tied as well, what i do believe that after

line two -- 9/11 after the intelligence community, they're has been a greater effort to try to break down those barriers of sharing information. we have the same problems with the state and local law enforcement. it largest private sector the differential with saidy and local law enforcement so these are issues we have to overcome if we are going to succeed going into the future. >> the one thing i want folks to hear in response to that question is that it has improved a lot, and a lot of that has to do with trust, a lot of it has to do with agencies working better together so we don't have to go to 30 different. we can trust it coming from one. they're sharing better internally. they are finding partners that are actually allowed to help to fight the information sharing methodology, and as the public

sector and the private sector are able to look behind the curtain a little bit of what each other is doing and get other exposure, it -- i look back six or eight years ago and what we had to do to share information or get information to look now, it is not perfect, but it is great compared to the way that it was. >> [inaudible] -- information sharing and relationship of the state and local level. one of the things the governor, secretary ridge focused heavily on was the development of the state fusion centers. and i'm happy to see that there has been great progress. soak the sharing of information among law enforcement and law enforcement related agencies, federal, state, and trouble has been much better in the decades and the work in progress quite frankly but at the state fusion centers there are those opportunities to develop the relationships with the information sharing and intelligence operations of the major corporate citizens in those states to bring them in as

an advisory committee to the governing board of the fusion center for example to learn from one another how we can best shared information with one another. and i'm very mindful as a work overseeing 65 partner countries around the world, that our transnational and global businesses have been amazingly sophisticated information sources that can be helpful to the government. so it's not a one-way transfer of information and it enhances our national security. >> well, one quick to point on the cyber for another tangible example of where information sharing between industry and government is i think maturing rapidly with great promise and when i visit the dhs i was proud to put up on the launching pad the cyber collaboration organization bringing cyber operations from the communications financial sector with multiple operations

capabilities across the federal government. that was on the launching pad. in the next administration under secretary napolitano actually prepared for the launch and its now known as the nccic, national communications cyber integration center where the trust is being developed between industry and government under the same roof, breeding the same error where we are in fact learning what information is truly relevant actionable to each other as jim mentioned. the government learns from us what it is that we can actually do with that information and what information is really not relevant to us. and so this is over time going to bring more private sector participants and more government participants as well, and i think that bodes well for the future.

>> if the information sharing -- the private sector folks or anyone else, is there any concern that the commercial data that you are sharing now, you know, could be some proprietary information with which he -- wikileaks if that is exposed somehow? >> i think that there is always concerned in the private sector about releasing proprietary information that somehow gives or takes away a competitive advantage. i have to tell you that in our decision making about what do we share with the government and stuff, that's not even on the list when it comes to homeland security. >> next question. >> arab fuller. about three weeks ago in colorado at another event

focused on 9/11, there were lots of notables like yourselves on the panel. this one was focused on counterterrorism to read a lot of the dialogue of was about topics you'd expect, the terrorists and the plot and so one. most of the notables in the that referring back to the 9/11 report. in fact, they would say please, everyone should go read the 9/11 report, but they also used it as a reference point not to look back but looking forward to in years later either the roads that still need to be traveled come still things we need to do and so on. anything occur to any of you that in the 9/11 commission report rather than looking backward provides a useful lessons for focusing, looking forward. >> i will start with one the secretary mentioned this morning, the voluntary private sector procurement program where the 9/11 commission said writ large didn't believe the private sector was prepared to deal with

something of that scale. the dhs is rolling out that program, but i think it fits into the larger sense about resilience, and it opens the door to look at what the injured dependencies are out there, particularly as the governor mentioned when you look at the just in time environment. there's a set of risks that come from being just in time, there's economic advantages and risks and something like a stifel program focusing on the business continuity plans or resilience programs all get to that point. so i think there's a big path forward in this case because the environment has changed out there to i think the congress very nicely made this a voluntary program. we get to pick the standards that we are out of the business after that. it's very important to the private sector to understand the government is not writing the standards or reviewing what is inside your company. so that is one of the areas where i think the program is just in the process of being able to take off and has a huge maturation process in the benefit of both the public and private sector, so that's one. >> another aspect which the governor ridge also talked about

is exit, the entry exit portion that was a recommendation by the commission, and maybe even restated before the senate homeland security committee that that really needs to be done. a secretary napolitano talked about the system they are using now which is biographical, using the adis to match up with a rifle. however, that takes considerable manual checks of several databases, and as she talked about, they had to get a sizable backlog decreased u.s. visitor to identify potential overstays and then they give them over to the ic to investigate and report homeland security stated a biometric exit would be the highest fidelity system. it does come with a hefty price tag, but with the use of technology for example, these things, smart phones perhaps, i

think it is worth exploring to pursue a biometric exit and large part because it does get at the issue of overstays, which the governor ridge also talked about. it is a sizable part of the immigration community, but overstays and having exit also has for having a knowledge of the exit brings also deals with and can tackle terrorism issues, for example the gentleman who had attempted to set off a bomb in the times square, we happened to catch him on the airplane trying to escapes. he used his real name so we got him on the biographical information. perhaps the terrorist will use his real name and by metrics will come in, but it also can prevent sex trafficking, international child abductions, tax evasion, catch, criminals. there's multiple uses for having the information and a biological

capabilities. >> i would just, and one, interoperable the. i think everyone in the room recognizes that that is something that we have to continue to try to achieve going into the future. the issue of the entry and exit if you think about the challenges involved, i mean, it's one thing to be a deutsch capture the information as an invisible enters the country, but if you think about the 420 or the 450 ports of entry whether they are airports, land ports, seaports, and that also means people will let sit in the same fashion, in an airport environment it is a controlled environment. at a port of entry is a very uncontrolled environment on the exit side. it also requires tremendous cooperation from the neighbors to the north and to the south. so i want to just say that it's

not -- maybe not in possible, but at the same time i want to say that it may be impossible to get a fully 100% operational exit system that we know exactly who is coming and going from this country every day, day in and day out. you may disagree on that, but from my perspective to the u.s. customs and border protection, trying to capture the information is just going to be extremely expensive, extremely difficult to catch. >> the land exit is definitely the toughest nut to crack on exit. and the u.s. is not until recently started to build an infrastructure to do that and there are concerns with trade and commerce as a result. the u.s. has been in talks with canada over the years about sharing information and someone drives canada would share that information for the entry to become the exit you run into the privacy issues around that, but i do believe with mobile tools

zipf and gps and a smart phone technology can help tackle that infrastructure question. >> one or two more questions before the break. >> it's a relatively small community that really get preparedness and you always see the same people in the audience when we talk about this stuff. the public private sector partnerships are a key element in promoting national resiliency , but the public at large, day, the people are critical to engage. i'm wondering what you all think. how were we going to compel -- we are talking about the sea something and say something. that's a pretty good concept that doesn't require the public actually doing anything out of and to look and talk to somebody, but when you talk to the public and try to get them to make a plan or reverse,

whatever it was, you know, we are doing some stuff at the campaigns. how is it, how are we going to move the needle and compel the public at large to get better prepared because all the stuff that we are talking about only works if they are prepared as well. >> i agree 100%. i did you know the story but of all deutsch that i caught on fire last christmas, and when i did, i was at my sister's house and i went by a sconce and felch sheet and look over my shoulder and i was on fire. without thinking, stopped, dropped and will. i'm proud to say i didn't still my beer when i did it. [laughter] all of it intuitively. and yet i work at fema and i can't remember if it is get a kid, have a plan to have a plan, get a kid -- it doesn't change behavior. one of the things i've encouraged by colleagues to host is to host the messaging senate

with folks from the private sector as well as the public sector from academia sociology and psychology and so forth so that we come up with the language and culture action that can change the year. in the study in the change of behavior since keep it simple. make it easy and start small. and i think that if we started small but effectively, it would be with the messaging. >> i would add that really is vital. the fact that the chamber is cosponsoring and cosponsoring "see something, something" then it goes out to all of the corporate members of the chamber of commerce and all of those member companies are encouraged to push that message out to all of their employees, and it is a viral messaging. we do the same in bank of america with training and education ongoing throughout the

year, every year in cybersecurity and physical security, training our people about what their specific responsibilities or, and in their particular corner of cyberspace. and dhs also has a similar campaign called cocoa stop, think, connect." jury clear and distinct message. when your online and you are about to click on something or go to a website, stop, think about what information you're going to provide, what is the credibility of this website or this e-mail, and when you assess the situation and you think it's safe to proceed, then connect. stop and think, connect. these are to be pushed out person by person, company by company, and that's really how we get the critical mass. >> when we talk about building a resilient society we are talking about voluntary human behavior, and we know how to change

voluntary behavior. we've done it before in our country. there's to places you can do that. one is in the school, so you educate the used to think differently, and the other is in the workplace, the private sector workplace. i will offer up as a kasich sample smoking in the united states. happened to work with a certain general of the united states working with fortune 500 companies about changing the corporate policies with regards to smoking behavior at the worksite. if you change the behavior for adults in the workplace, if you change their thinking in the workplace, and she thinks the changing and the behavior of the use that say dad, mom, please, stop smoking i don't want you to die. now i think that we can i doubt that to building a resilient society. it may be as simple as "see something, say something, do something." prepare to take care of your family for a minimum of 72

hours. matt your neighborhood, learning who in your neighborhood is vulnerable and need special assistance in the event of a catastrophic event, and i take it a step further. in some act or acts of public service. we are talking about what it means to be a well rounded citizen and build towards a whole society response to be that resilient society that we all aspire to. so i think that we know how to do some of this stuff and it's just a matter of taking a holistic approach. >> we also have to recognize one other issue and that is oversaturation. if we ask america to care about breast cancer and stop smoking and all of these other things, then the 12 montrose we have just within dhs competing with each other don't stand much chance so i think we have to be realistic and outreach. as one example i went to a major company and said it signed up for national preparedness month. my slogan is it takes 97 seconds, because i find myself, and they did.

and i went back to be a little greedier and said i don't want just you to sign up, can you get your thousands of stores to sign up? and the fair answer was well, wait a second. when i talk to my stores i'm telling them go out and meet your customers, i'm telling them to follow your safety plan, and telling them to do all these other things? i don't know if i want to go to my store and ask them to sign up for the national preparedness month. as we have a mutual challenges oversaturation. >> let me mention to terms that have been in effect, so scalability and psychology. the number -- indy 500 heard me say at -- there are 30 million businesses in america. let's not try to take 320 million americans, just businesses, 42 million are proprietorships so in theory no employees, just the one person. let's focus on the 7 million, just think about that. just to reach all of those

businesses and try to get them. dan has tried to do and my office tried to do. the task is pretty overwhelming. so it is something that just has to be a sort of maturity model overtime. you have to get them. think about this ecology. the average american thinks it's not going to happen, right? it's really not going to happen to even if you live in the hurricane area of america or the flooding areas of america using it is not going to happen. if it does happen it's not going to happen to me to get my house isn't going to get blown down or flooded. and by the way, if it does happen, can i get affected somebody is going to come and help me, mainly somebody from fema orie first responder. we have to change the psychology. we have to change that. >> general lowenberg? >> if we reverse the doctrine we were talking about before, the country is going to be as resilient as the private sector is able to get back on its feet. corporate america is the ability to get on its feet is only going to be as easily and as its employees are able to take care

of the emergency and return to work. we want people back to work generating revenue as quickly as possible and so it's not only a good act as a corporate citizen, but frankly in the self-interest of every business to make sure that its employees are resilient and prepared so that they can answer the call and get back to work and get back to doing what you all held on them to do. >> absolutely right. but we are going to do now is take a ten minute break. when we come back we are going to talk about where we are going in the next ten years. think about that, where do we need to go? let me thank the panel. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> as you heard the chamber of commerce taking a short ten minute break the said. in this meeting reflecting on what has happened with security since the september 11th at tax as we come up to the ten year anniversary of that event. we will hear more from this panel of the former and current dhs officials on the state of homeland security since september 11th when they return. in the meantime a little bit about what is coming up on the c-span networks today. life this afternoon on c-span2, the head of the transportation security administration, john pistole will participate in a panel on aviation security. this event is part of the airline pilots association's 57th air safety for on and that is life at 1:40 eastern here on c-span2.

and congressional leaders recently appointed members to serve on the deficit reduction committee, created as part of the compromise to raise the debt ceiling. this afternoon, live at one thanks 30 eastern on c-span, the brookings institution will host a discussion looking at the kennedy's prospects for success. by law the 12 member group is required to approve a plan by november 23rd to cut $1.5 trillion of federal deficits over ten years. live also on c-span leader today, the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies will host a discussion examining the dynamics that lead to a nonviolent movement. and we will have that for you at 6:00 eastern. again, that's on our companion at work, c-span. while this break is underway, we will have a look now at some of this chamber of commerce meeting from earlier today with the first homeland security director tom ridge who was also the former governor of the state of pennsylvania.

we will have a look at this until the meeting resumes. >> thank you very much for the kind introduction. thank you for your response. it's great to join you again, ann. i thank the sponsors for the event and thank the chamber for giving us an opportunity to reflect a little bit on where we were, what we've done and where we need to go for the purpose of this engagement today, and i am very privileged to be part of this. frankly i'm looking forward to the discussion. i was privileged to serve with most of them in one capacity or another. so, i look forward to that engagement as well. i think it's really important that we continue the discussion of what we have experienced and learned and can still learn from september 11th, 2001. so i appreciate the opportunity to share these with all of you, and i certainly look forward to secretary napolitano's comments

today and as i said before the insight of our panel. everybody remembers what they were doing and where they were on 9/11, don't you? you remember what happened where you were and president kennedy was assassinated? neil armstrong walked on the moon, the challenger exploded, martin luther king was assassinated. there are certain seminal events in the history of the country that are part of the national psyche or to your hearts and minds. aunts of timber tenth, 2001, terrorism was viewed as an unseemly part of the world. we were a superpower and had this unequal economy enjoying a standard of living unlike the other generation in any other country ever enjoyed. it was absolutely unimaginable

that a small group of individuals with limited funding regardless of the intensity of their hatred could conceive and ultimately execute an attack that could result in a catastrophic loss of life and the hundreds of billions of dollars. the attacks left the country and grief. but if you think about the last ten years, one thing we've demonstrated to ourselves and the rest of the world as a word resiliency. we went from knees bin in prior to make the country more safe and secure and we've become certainly stronger and more secure. in a decade's time we strengthen our intelligence assets and partner with allies and friends.

we captured and killed terrorists and destroyed safe havens in afghanistan and around the globe. we estimate the department homeland security and we remember well 20 different units of government of 187,000 people. it would be nice one of these days is this a country the public, and her successors could report to a few less congressional committees. federal, state, local authorities repositioned the country, repositioned the country and braced very much an emotionally charged and strategically driven national mission. we did so with an eye towards the safekeeping of our civil liberties, our constitution and we always felt it was very important. we improve the prepared as and response capabilities and established leaders of security throughout the aviation system. we invited new technology and more people at the borders and played the screening and radiation for the points of entry designed the system for those international passengers

and driving to visit or to do become students in the united states. one of the things we do today however is recognized that back then as we need to recognize the value of the very important part of the secure the solution and that is the private sector. i think we all understood after line of as the country not just as the government we would have to learn to do things differently and learn to do them better. ann said it went into repeated only in the security did the federal department -- it's not the exclusive province or the work of the federal government. it is an agency of the federal government extraordinary people work their, but it's really the work of an entire country, the work of an entire nation. the very premise of a national mission involves an understanding with everything we do must be shared and shared responsibility to lead a national mission means an

integrated mission. partnerships, partnerships, partnerships. we all know that figure is in bed in the minds of most private sector homes and controls 85% of our work critical infrastructure in this country. the private sector holds a key state in the production and transfer of goods to all of the nation's national securities seaports, borders, the skies overhead that means the very backbone of the country is exposed at many levels and times of disruption. whether that is designed for coming as a design of a man or by mother nature. i think we've done a good job of coordinating our efforts, but not a great job the private sector to have been more involved at the table in my judgment, more involved in the planning stages, not less.

more involved in the response and recovery stages, not less, board of security, cyber set to become a critical infrastructure, wherever you go, you find yourself in need of that critical partnership with the public sector and the private sector. remember right after 9/11 we met every morning in the oval office. he asked me to stay a little bit later and mentioned to me we have to do something different at our borders with our friends and family because right after 9/11, we enhanced security, we ratcheted it up big time but we slowed down the commerce pity i remember going to be general motors and flint michigan, an assembly plant. they ordered their seats when they put chassis on the front end of the assembly line.

but a computer chip on the seats across the bridge to the tunnel one of the last things in the assembly to be inserted into the chassis are the seats well it's about an eight hour process and what happens if the trucks for the seats on the bridge or stuck in a tunnel because we went up security? nothing happens in that facility but it doesn't have to be a zero sum game. we can enhance security in buchanan prove the economic interaction which is absolutely sensible in the united states at 21st century. the economy is global. our economic future is tied to our ability to sustain economic relationships with our friends both north and south and the rest of the world along with that interdependency and opportunity comes vulnerable the visa when you look to the borders we have to say to

ourselves and we enhance security of the same time as improve the commerce? and prove the connection. a lot of great palace here, but just pointed out one of my friends who presently works with the chamber of commerce, l. martinez in the private sector office at that time. he was working with overseas border protection. the nice thing about being secretary is you can i don't like to say give orders, but set goals. that's better. if you set some goals, and i said we ought to be able to improve throughput in detroit by 25%. okay. go do it. well, al and ralph said he is an example you need a partnership. private sector on both sides, the companies that are interdependent, mostly supply

goods, work together. customs and border protection agreed to reassign people with different times, so the private sector changed and altered their goal and my goal of 25% with very little money for the kind of partnership i'm just talking about improved throughput 55%. it didn't take a lot of money. it did take cooperation, communication and thinking differently than they had thought about delivering schedules and about manpower at the border. that is the kind of partnership that i'm talking about. it's not a zero sum game. you don't have to say trade security. listen, our economy and security are supporters and we need to understand that for the future if we want to continue to be withstanding the economy and the challenges we have right now. our future is tied to our collective become economic

connectivity for the rest of the world and we have to make sure we understand and can enhance security without interfering with economic relationships and that is important to our future. having said that, we need to understand the threat remains strong and continues to change. we have thwarted some attacks and quite candidly we have to admit publicly we've been fortunate in a few others have simply failed. luck is not a strategy. as we close one vulnerability, we should anticipate terrorists will adapt and try to seek out another. it's a multi generational threat in the war. and for that reason, we must always view security as an ongoing process. one of the challenges i believe we have is remind ourselves even with the death of bin laden, even with extraordinary success

with capturing and killing terrorists around the globe and al qaeda structure still exist if i look back in the past ten years there was one word or group of words i don't want to change the people have to think different about is the war on terror. terrorism is a tactic. it's tough to wage war wagons to tactic because it is a device used by those who have been opposed for centuries. against the belief system the evil ideologies, and i had an occasion to meet benazir bhutto before she was assassinated in preparation -- >> tom ridge from earlier today,

and we will hear from him as we return now live to the u.s. chamber of commerce. looking back at the national security advancement since the september 11th at tax as we approach the ten year anniversary. back to live coverage on c-span2 from the u.s. chamber of commerce. >> i guess i'd start with anyone that wants to answer this and looking out five to ten years, what are the issues in the ring of the public and private partnership with there is dan in your office or the structures in your office, help from the national standpoint and organization are they changing or do they need to, what are they going to look like ten years from now? i mean, al commodores is the first private sector office and began with fema office and linda from the odni and north, has a

private sector office. is that a good thing or -- >> i think they started a trend is the good news. as you say and i think we set the stage very well for going forward, so what i would hope is that we can -- i will call it a perfect those trusted traveler programs, those trusted shipper programs that help expedite commerce and the movement of people. so when i was asked what do you do? i would use the example saying to people you travel, everyone here gets on airplanes. what would you rather have? you want to have security or you want to have facilities in come expedia.com sea. if you raise your hand i would say i think that is extremely important. new roel, six hours before the flight you have to be there. i can't do that. the second side was i want to get through the airport faster. okay, we are going to sign a waiver because we are a legal country and if your plane blows

up because there is a bomb you're not going to hold the airline or by government or anybody else responsible for that because this is just one of the consequences that's going to happen. so again, the answer is we've talked so much about public and private partnership but as we go forward, this is the kind of thing we have to do working together and making sure that again trade and commerce, our daily lives are not hampered. >> so i was watching hell's kitchen will last five and one person comes up with rall salom and burnt salmon and i'm thinking how is that possible, i recognize raw and burned and then i realize the show has been on many seasons. this plea 20 different cooking competition shows and we can sometimes lose quality. so to get to your question about years from now where do i think we need to be, ten years ago

people were barely speaking on the public and private partnerships and just any of the vernacular. ..

>> things we put together at the national level. we have not yet figured out exactly how we get those to to synchronize, how do can't let each other as well as they should. so down the road i would expect that we would build a much better framework of systematically doing that public-private partnership across the three levels of government against all of our private sector partners. >> a couple things i'd like to add. i think all those statements that have been made have been absolutely true. but as i look forward, i think there are two things we need to accomplish out of the public-private partnership. it's received certain maturation level, and people join those things for lots of different reasons. maybe it was looked at as national interest, we are good corporate citizens. maybe there was a commercial

imperative, if i want to do business with x. i have to belong to ask. we have gotten to the point from a preparation and response point of view we need to take on the private, public-private partnerships about how do we expand the net of people that are involved in these things to drive them down further into smaller business entities, broader participation. so that's one thing. and then the second thing is, how do we keep them from becoming regulatory in nature rather than being true voluntary public-private partnership based? and how do we continue to answer the question for participants of what's in it for me. and into we can do those things we are going to be stuck in limbo. and i think it's our biggest challenge from a public-private partnership point of view in moving forward with homeland security initiatives. but it's also the biggest opportunity that we have.

>> when you think of cybersecurity in a public-private partnership, five years down the road, 10 years down the road, we could look at the public-private partnership as an electronic one. and that is when we think about the technology that all of our critical infrastructure operate on. there's extorted amount of technological innovation, and a lot of that innovation breeds more vulnerability, more threats, more exploits. and they're sort of an interesting think piece from dhs released not too long ago, sort of a futuristic look at how can we develop long-term with concerted basic research and research and development in electronic, and internet-based, network-based ecosystem that is self-aware, self-healing, self monitoring on, in an automated way. and it's really something to think about if we devote

resources to research, and get us to a point where we have a broadly distributed interoperable an automated system for recognizing threats, stopping them before they happen, keeping our electronic ecosystem secure, resilient, and functional. >> i'd like to just comment about the fact of where we are going to be in five or 10 years. it's more of where we're going to have to be in five or 10 years. if you look at what is happening, 420 million people across our borders every year. 70,000 containers. in the maritime, it's looking to double of the year 2015. we are going to have to come up with a way of reducing the size

of the haystack. and concentrate our efforts on what truly poses a threat. things like the trusted traveler programs. i believe are going to be absolutely essential if we are going to be able to manage these huge amount of people and things that are moving in the country. but that also entails people stepping up and be willing to provide information, and i know eric, you don't like to hear that about asking for more information than we are already asking for, but that's a necessary part, in my opinion, the solution down the road. and what i would like to see the chamber do, and initiate, is a

program along with, "if you see something, say something" to encourage the members of the chambers. now, who travels the most in this country? the business community. that's who is out there moving around the country. if we can get you to initiate a program to encourage the people in your companies who are out there traveling to join the trusted traveler programs, sign up for global entry, sign up for other programs that is going to facilitate moving them more quickly through, and going back to the c-tpat issue, what are the benefits going to be, what is a tier three company going to get if they provide, if they acquire tier three c-tpat buildings. so the benefit is it helps you. it helps your employees. it helps the poor men and women out there on the front lines trying to separate the good from the bad, potentially. so maybe the chamber, put along

with "if you see something, say something," encourage your employees to join these programs here and maybe even be willing to pay a few bucks for them to do that as well. i know that is asking me a little too much. but that would be something i would like to see happen. >> general lowenberg? >> today and synchronizing compromise, i would add operationalize. women active fight our center for any hazard, the association of washington business comes in and engages with us. i have told them i don't want to push information to you. i don't want to send you reps and have you wondered what i know. whatever i know in the emergency operations in i want you to real-time. you're welcome. be part of the team. we have a corporate section that deals directly with our business partners, and so we do participate in tabletop

exercises, corporate tabletop exercises on request with high sensitivity to proprietary information. we are honored to be asked to be there and we will contribute whatever we can as we do that. as we do exercises i think it's healthy to have members of the business community observe and participate to the extent that interest in resources to do that. so we need to operationalize all of these partnerships so that they really become a trusted, you know, trusted party relationship. >> we need to get more of the states doing that, general, if i may. i think you're washington state is sort of a leader in that area. we need to get more of the states to the private sector seek in the eoc come in their fusion center, planning and train together. >> it is seats, not a seat. lots of partners in munich one of the things that general points out, a considerable element of the public-private partnership it is a contingency relationship. it is for when that hurricane happens, when the terrorist accident happens. how do we make that work?

because people in many cases won't invest the time until ultimately be needed, until the hurricane happens. and it's building a more agile way of having that relationship supported when there isn't something happy that requires you to take your precious time and focus it on this. obviously postevent angle is focused on. but when the period between hurricanes, how do we maintain, do we keep those relationships going. we've got to find a better way, is less occupying peoples times. >> we talk about public-private partnerships, and i really want to make this real, what we mean by that, i think randy mullet has a great example from con-way, the terrorist plot that was foiled in texas, randy, you want to give people a little flavor of what that was like? >> what i will not give you are a lot of details about what's going on because they? case is still being tried, and also i'm

not going to give you a lot of details about methods. i better put my spook out on today. i won't share it either. well, i will share as much as i can. early on, con-way was involved with an old program at tsa called highway watch. we helped develop the program and trained thousands of truck drivers across the country. in fact, our whole workforce is trained under highway watch. that was fairly early in the process. but since then to our corporate security and risk management and our recovery efforts, pandemic efforts come all these things have kind of landed into an all hazards type approach to our training. and it has involved, not as simple as "see something, say something," but how do you

recognize the novel of the system? way things should make you want to push the button, regime, whatever you call it and move it up to our escalation plan? once our corporate security gets a hold of it, then it is vetted a little bit more, and we work very closely with both local and federal law enforcement to investigate these. for those of you who don't know what ann is talking about, a ship making through our system that we discovered down in austin, texas. it was a chemical that shouldn't be moving to a private residence, those kinds of things. and we were able to report that to the right authorities. it moved up the ladder. and ultimately that was the individual who is alleged to have had targeted former president bush's home and those sorts of things. so we felt very proud that our system worked, but that was the

result, much like the homeland security efforts are at all businesses, and in the public space, years and years of evolution and moving to a new norm. and i think that's a great lesson to learn, that while a lot of things that have to do with terrorism are strictly based on terrorism and don't interoperate with safety. these things are not totally unrelated. and from a corporate point of view when it comes to risk management, as his continuity plans, employee training, those sorts of things, they really are complementary. and if done right you can get, it can become part of your culture where it is embedded in your system, and through annual training, reminders, encouragement, we find that we do get involved with a lot of these kinds of things that i'll are not care related.

thanks. >> dan, do you want to talk about the private sector and how that is maturing? >> so, and he goes to where we need to be in five years to your original question. we have made a lot of mistakes at the man trying to do the right thing with good intentions but we've only got smart enough to be one thing and that is used to bring the private sector in. when i say bring them in, not just for exercises. we don't allow that what we agreed a position that rotates every 90 days remember of the private sector works on our team in the operations center behind the eyeball, he's everything i see, welcome at all of the meetings and gives us a real-life get checked. we we started it last november, target, followed by big lots, followed passionate let me stop there for study because we create our own problem because if you don't know this about the government side and the public site, most of them seem to think

private sector and retailer are an ominous terms. they forget there's this other world out there. then we got others and that was cool because everyone in fema said what is that? and getting to answer the question we are able to educate folks a lot about the role of property management firms. and then currently have, and i think mark is you can we have verizon, thank you very much. we have bill shealy from verizon to start his rotation. but the point of the program is, i'm not a fan of all platitudes to care about the being transparent. i'd like to think we're proving, and you can call any of them for their company, like talk to mark and seed investment that verizon sees in it. if nothing else, we learned from them and we see with each new rotation. and then they learn from us. we get to go back to the companies and have a better understanding of challenges the public site. >> lora, you talk about

immigration, especially the recommendations from the 9/11 commission. where the recommendations that have not yet been implemented that you think should be? and also talk a little bit, open it up as well, but the role of technology going forward in immigration and other programs. >> well, there were a couple key recommendations. one, which i talked about, but another one which is often overlooked is the idea of regular consequences for immigration violations. and this gets at why we have such a sizable illegal immigration population, because people who do overstayed their visas, they don't care consequences because there often are unless they're caught for some other purpose. or it's someone who works here illegally, they are often not consequences for the. so this gets at this overstayed question, and a couple ways that technology can help is, one, the

systems while we've come a long way in terms of sharing information and trying to break down the stovepipe databases and long state department, i.c.e., et cetera, and doj, they're still a way to go. ideally where we want to get to is for all of these agencies across these three departments, and a click state and local law enforcement, to be able to see the same information across the agencies, particularly real-time immigration status. because that determines and helps make the decision for what this person is either a point for, if they're eligible for the next visa, if they are admissible into the country, if they are deportable. so to do that we need to continue to connect these databases so that, across the board they have the same view. another aspect to it is, agencies need to know who they're dealing with.

they need to have trusted identities of the individuals. there's still quite a bit of identity fraud, identity theft. that's increasing in cyber world. and there is actually a promising private public effort going on under what's known as instead, the national strategy for trusted identities in cyberspace. and this came about because of, as we sign on, online more and more to the different transaction, whether it is to set up a bank account, movies on netflix, et cetera, having to manage more and more passwords across all these commercial entities, people tend not to manage them they will still use the same password over and over again which leads to identity theft, commercial fraud, et cetera. so this is where instead came about to tackle the. but in addition to improving commercial transactions and

decreasing the possibility of identity fraud, there are real benefits on the government side, including immigration from this idea. if the government had trusted, trust in the identities of people who are applying for immigration benefits, thesis, et cetera, then the prospect of fraud goes down and a lot more integrity comes to the system. and ideally, the government, these agencies couldn't get out of the business of having to develop or be in the identity business. >> one less question before we open it up to the audience. for the panel, so 10 years later are we focused on the right things? are we focused on the right problems? we spent a lot of time on airlines we spent a lot of time on other aspects. what are we missing? what should we be focusing on? >> i can tell you that we have

focused a great deal of energy on aviation. we focused a great deal of energy on maritime, but one of the grateful mobilities that still remains is general aviation. if we can track and regulate some of the commercial, but if you think about some of the aircraft that are coming across the border, that we really don't know that much about. and another area that i think we need to be focusing on is uss cole type of situation. can you imagine the havoc that would cause if a tanker were attacked by a small vessel in the port of l.a., and sunk in that harbored? it would be devastating. so we have focused on passionate and i still believe that there is a great deal of interest on

the part of our adversaries after in aviation, but i think we are going to see more and more of this sort of motif type of terrorism where they are picking smaller, more strategic targets to go after, and it's not quite as operational challenging. so the general aviation and small boat strategies i think are areas that we are just not up to speed on. >> i think we are hitting many of the right topics, and i will to defer to others on those. i think we need to do a lot more work on the process. and first off, if there's an issue that is of public-private problem, then it should be a public-private solution. too often on the public side, here's a solutioncome and enforce the do. i really got back from separatist at the urban areas initiatives conference, a two-day track of public-private sessions, and they were 95% on

the panel of public sector, and 95% of the audience in the public sector. that's the wrong answer. and so when we develop policies and programs on the government side, we need to bring the private sector in on the ground floor. and not the 11th our industry, and given the cursory, okay, you can get anything at the last second. and any other process asia i think needs to be what you reference, general lowenberg states, washington is one of 17 states, one size doesn't fit all. but only one of 17 states that has a formal public-private partnership. i would argue there's a business case for every state and territory to have some form of public-private partnership. and do we do, and tell they can call sally in new mexico and joe in new hampshire when there is a problem, all the topics will not be addressed adequately. >> the thing i would say is greg ray's attorney, go back to 1996-1997, and if you want, --

coming out of 9/11 you expect us to be spending, shifting our focus if you want opera to the physical side. as we got to a new norm in that level we brought cyber back up to the issue. i think it's important to recognize the cyclical nature in which we will deal with these things in response to either the urgency of the public policy issue or some event that nearly happened or happened. and over the course of the next 10 years with a to make sure that we balance out when we focus because the risk exists across that spectrum. we are a little more calm about hurricane katrina right now because we are four or five years afterwards. guess what, another one will happen and we'll see the same cycle. we've got to accept that but also keep the underlying tension to make sure we can do with a full spectrum of the issues. >> so a concept that sometimes, including i misinterpreted when i first heard it is going forward, is the idea of resilience. so we used to prevent, prepare, respond, recover and in some he

said no, no. , it's a new term. we now have resilience. i thought it was because english is my satellite that i was having a hard time with the would. as we work on that though, clearly, clearly if you really understand resilience, i was talking to market earlier, it does have to do with the way you designed the building and you designed the systems to withstand come and into take a hit and then to get back. and general lowenberg mentioned document and the private sector up and running. by the way, thank god we have talked about tax system in assaulting the it's a relief. but at the individual the private sector paying taxes again to repeat the country going. it's a simplistic sort of thing but we want to be able to have that resilient, the ability to band to a certain degree as opposed to not break when there's a very strong wind, and to be able to get back up and start working and paying taxes and going about our lives. >> general lowenberg. >> i think we need to focus on

the evolving nature of the threat, the threat that confronts us for the next 10 years is a residual of the threat that confronted us 10 years ago but is different in many respects. we need to have a national dialogue that identifies with the basic capacity or capabilities we need in this country to address the evolving threats. and then focus on how do we assure consistent capabilities across the nation to respond to those. we have taken quite a fee -- a fractured approach, in large part if i had my christmas list i would have a thoughtful piece that would encourage congress to reorganize this committee structure so that it would be focused on homeland security instead of the 20 plus committees in the house. [applause] >> but beyond that, if there are certain capabilities that are necessary for social security and for business communities security in every state and in territories, then that ought to

be a national undertaking to do that. and i don't think we've really come to grips with that yet. go back to interoperable communications information sharing, et cetera, et cetera. but the cyber domain is going to loom ever larger the next 10 years as a point of vulnerability for every physical action and kinetic undertaking anywhere in the country. if you can prevent oil from flowing or petroleum from flowing anywhere on land, then you don't have to use kinetic force. and we need to continue to think big. we need to be able to respond to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear event with a magnitude that most of us don't want to think about, but are literally within the capability of, stray dogs. i referred to lone wolf. people said no, the looming threat is not a lone wolf from aipac. it is a stray dog and a stray dogs are right here in the united states.

so easy to build a point a nationstate to unleash in terms of catastrophic death and destruction can now be leveled by a single individual acting alone. so, we need to focus on medical surge capacity which i think is the one thing that all of the state officials identify as sordid lacking. in 9/11 and has wind up in been systematically enhanced or addressed since then. as the threat loom and the consequences grow ever larger, then our inability to respond to anything other than a chain reaction, automobile collision, and our tertiary care centers, it really is a matter of life and death for all of us. >> randy. >> a couple things. i agree entirely that we need to watch how the threat is evolving and be able to change with that. so often, the way our departments are structured, the way we think in a bureaucratic way, the way we think of the private sector, we are still working on things that happened

in the past. we have a tough time shifting to some of the few things. a couple of examples i would use are the agencies just announce it will promulgate rules on ammonium nitrate, just announced. ammonium nitrate is what timothy mcveigh is 14 years ago in oakland city bombing. there's just something wrong with that. we have been working for years on a transportation worker identification credential. and we talk about interoperability. it is a huge expense for the private sector year and that's not brought about by congressional oversight. most of it is brought about by agency parochialism. we have a dod credential. we have a transportation worker identification credential, we have an aging the credential, a hazard to endorsement. we have fast or. to be able to cross the canadian border. we have a badge be able to get into airports. all those five days on the same

security threat analysis background checks. yet the agencies won't give that up. so we have those kinds of things, and we talked a lot about the most important thing is to allow the private sector to get back up and running. i told you my story why my company sent me to washington. it was fear of what the government was going to do to our business model. i would say that when we start talking about our company response and recovery plans, the biggest unknown that we still have is what is government going to do. and as we continue to do top of exercise, we are continually reminded that will shut down the border, we'll close, do this, that and the other thing. and we're learning from that, moving forward, that's i think the single biggest hurdle that we have going forward.

>> a couple things. one is the northern border. most of the attention has been on the southern border. understandably so right now with mexican drug war, but in terms of, just listening to the republican debate last week, they taught how to secure the borders, plural, all they talked about was the southern border and the southern states but no mention of the northern borders. our enemies are smarter than that. secondly, is in terri enforcement. we cannot seal the borders. so from a risk management perspective, you've got to deal with people who either sneak through or fly in with a visa and then overstay. and so it gets at that recommendation by the 9/11 commission again of routine consequences for violations. and most immigration bills, one of the first items in there is more border patrol agents. while that is important and needed, there needs to be more focus on interior enforcement so that there are those routine co