U.S. Department of Homeland Security
The American Chamber of Commerce in Singapore
March 29, 2006
Thank
you all for attending. I want to welcome the ambassadors who are
attending. I don’t know what you call a group of ambassadors – a
gaggle of ambassadors? Anyway, it’s wonderful to have you here and I
look forward to being able to meet with you tomorrow. I’m also
delighted to be able to meet with members of the Chamber and to talk
about what we’re doing at the Department of Homeland Security.
It’s
a little bit ironic to be the Secretary of a department that is called
“Homeland Security” and to find that I am spending a good deal of my
time dealing with international and foreign matters. I think it’s a
reflection of the fact that our department has tremendous breadth. We
deal with immigration. We deal with customs. We deal with
transportation security, whether it be air, land, or sea. We have the
Coast Guard. We have Secret Service. We have to deal with protecting
infrastructure around the country. And we also have to deal with
response and recovery when there’s a disaster. So all of these
functions often bring us into contact with other countries because they
require us to police and examine the interface between what we do in
the United States and what is either coming in or going out, or might
have some impact in the United States.
And so as a consequence of
that, I find that I have to be very mindful of the need to work in
partnership. Much of what we do cannot be done alone. It has to be
done with the cooperation of countries all over the world, and also has
to be done with the cooperation of state and local government and the
private sector. This is because most of the assets and most of the
employees that we have to bring to bear on issues of homeland security
-- whether it’s preventing terrorism, protecting against terrorism if
it happens, or responding to an attack -- most of the assets and
employees are not owned or employed by the government. They are owned
or employed by private parties and businesses all over the country.
So
we are, maybe more than most departments, a department that works in a
networked fashion as opposed to a top-down command and control
fashion. In that sense, it’s a real 21st century
department. It’s a very young department and not a fully mature
department, but I think that when it comes to fruition it will really
reflect the best of what the 21st century has to offer in terms of how we manage issues.
It’s
particularly fitting that I come to Singapore. I think this is the
second time a Secretary of Homeland Security has come here. I think my
predecessor was here. It’s my first trip to Asia in this job. Asia is
a very significant trading and travel partner of the United States.
What we do in the United States with respect to homeland security will
have a major impact on travel and trade for people here in Asia. So
therefore we need to be very closely aligned with our partners in this
part of the world in making sure that the steps we take are
appropriately balanced to promote security, but not at the expense of
those attributes of our world that make life worth living: our
freedom, our prosperity, our ability to travel and satisfy our
curiosity. My hope in traveling in Asia -- I started out in Japan and
after Singapore I’ll be in China – is to make sure that we continue to
promote a common vision of a secure travel and trade environment. An
environment which does elevate security for everybody, because security
is indispensable to travel and trade, but does so without breaking the
fluidity and the ease with which we currently use our systems of going
around the world in order to make sure people can travel and also sell
and buy the things which they want to sell and buy.
Let me begin
by talking about something which is particularly relevant in
Singapore: the ports. Now if you follow the newspapers or CNN or BBC,
you know that in the last month or so we had a lot of attention all of
a sudden focused on the issue of ports in connection with a particular
transaction that ultimately has gone through in a modified form. But
the fact of the matter is we’ve been talking about the issue of port
security for at least as long as I’ve been in this department, and
actually from the time the department was first formed.
A huge
amount of the world’s supply of all kinds of goods moves over the
oceans, and that means keeping that supply moving -- and making sure
that the supply chain doesn’t become a vehicle to be exploited by
terrorists -- is a critical element of what we have to do at the
Department of Homeland Security. So how do we do it? Well sometimes I
hear people say, “You don’t inspect 100% of the containers that come in
to the United States and we have to get to the point where we inspect
100% of the containers.” Now I pause so you can all assimilate what
that would mean. Sometimes I respond by saying, “Well, Congressman,
let’s try an experiment. Let’s have a pilot program where we do it in
the port in your state, but before you agree to it, why don’t you go to
the longshoremen and ask them where they’re going to work in their next
job, because the port will be shut down.”
That’s an example of
the kinds of issues we face. It’s what I call the challenge of risk
management: recognizing that we can’t protect everybody against
everything, at every moment, in every place. Even if we could, it
would be at humongous cost to things that we value, and therefore we
have to balance the risk. We have to focus on the most serious risks.
We have to do a cost-benefit analysis about how much security, and we
have to make intelligent and rational decisions about it. But at the
same time there’s always emotion running below the surface. It’s easy
for people, particularly in the wake of a particular event, to say,
“Well, why don’t we just close everything down? Why don’t we just put
a guard on every container?” And the challenge for me, and frankly the
challenge for the business community, is to continue to educate the
public that we don’t make rational policy and security by reacting to
particular events or particular anecdotes. We do it by always looking
at the intended, and the unintended, consequences and weighing the
benefits and costs of what we do.
So how do we do it with respect
to seaports? Well we use a layered series of defenses. We recognize
that there are vulnerabilities that begin at the port of embarkation,
continue through the supply chain as you stuff the container and load
the container, continue as the vessel leaves the port and comes to the
port of destination, and then continue even in the port of destination
where we have to be concerned about who might get access to containers
or ships when they are in a port unloading.
To make sure that
we address all these issues, but do it in a way that gives us
resilience if one level of defense fails, we begin our security at the
port of embarkation. We work with the international community and
international port standards, using the Coast Guard to work with
foreign governments to make sure their security levels at foreign ports
reach the standards that have been set by the international community.
Our Container Security Initiative, which was pioneered among other
places here in Singapore, puts U.S. Customs and border protection
officials into foreign ports to work with foreign customs officials.
First of all, they screen every container that comes to the United
States, and screen doesn’t mean open and inspect, but it means get
information about what’s in the container to make a risk assessment of
what we ought to get into and what we should not get into. And then we
work with them to inspect high-risk containers overseas before they
even get on the ship to come to the United States. By the end of this
year, 82% of the containers coming to the U.S. through maritime
commerce will be coming through a Container Security Initiative
country. This means, from the United States’ standpoint, we’ll be
doing the inspection at the earliest possible time. This is good for
the ports of embarkation, because it means the containers are going to
spend less time when they arrive, and it’s good for the United States’
security.
We leverage the private sector with our Customs - Trade
Partnership Against Terrorism. We say to the private sector, ‘If you
are willing to invest in security, above and beyond what the government
does, you’ll get credit for that in terms of inspection. We will speed
your containers through more readily because we’ll have a comfort level
about the security of what is in the containers, both in terms of
initial stuffing and in terms of potential tampering.’
And
finally, we’re leveraging technology. The thing we fear the most, of
course, with containers is bringing in some sort of deadly material
like a nuclear bomb or radioactive material. Here the key is radiation
detection equipment which can detect radioactive emissions quickly, as
you’re moving containers through rapidly, so that you don’t sacrifice
your through-put in order to get your security assessment of the
potential of the radioactive bomb or a nuclear bomb on a container.
There again, our MegaPorts initiative, undertaken with the Department
of Energy, works to put radiation portal monitors in major ports all
over the world as a way of counter-acting the danger of proliferation.
I’m pleased to say that we have a written agreement here with the
Government of Singapore on MegaPorts, and within a matter of days it
will be implemented as a pilot here in the Port of Singapore. I think
that is a great model.
But I want to take you to the next
level, and I want to give you a vision of where we’re going to go to
strengthen our port security. Last year, I unveiled what we call a
Secure Freight Initiative, which is a desire to take our screening and
inspection capabilities to the next level. There are three parts to
this.
The first is more information. The way we screen high
risk is that we look at all the data we have about the shipper, the
consignee, the method of payment, and other characteristics. We
measure that against the database, which has a very large amount of
information about the history of transactions, including these actors
and other actors. We use algorithms that we’ve been able to devise
over time to score risk, and then we identify the containers that are
high risk under that method of analysis. Those are the ones that we
then spend the time on, x-raying and potentially even breaking bulk and
getting into the container itself. It will become obvious that the
more information we have about what goes into the container at an
earlier stage in the supply chain, the more precise our screening, the
more intelligent our decision-making, and the better our security.
So
we’re going to be looking in the next year or two to build a capacity
to have better information about what’s in containers. And we’re going
to look to the private sector to pioneer in this: to develop better
databases and better control over what are the constituents of the
containers, and to work to assimilate that information and be able to
present it to our officials in a way that is readily available and can
be readily analyzed. And then, using technology, build in ways of
protecting the containers against tampering and ways of tracking the
containers so we can detect anomalies.
The name of the game
here is essentially to profile the containers. The more we profile
them, and the better we profile them, the more our security will be
enhanced. This is definitely something the private sector can leverage
to its own advantage. The bottom line for people who ship is that you
want to get it there quickly. You don’t want to be sitting there in
the Port of Long Beach for two weeks while your containers are being
looked at. The more the private sector is prepared to assemble this
information and make it available, and to invest in security for the
containers, the less likely it is that their containers will be stopped
and inspected on the U.S. side, and the quicker the material will get
to where it has to go.
The short answer is that investments up
front – and an hour or two ahead of time – can save days and weeks at
the receiving end. My hunch is that this will be a methodology that
will be used not only by our ports, but by ports all over Europe and
Asia that are receiving goods, and that we are going to generally raise
the level of security across the board.
The second area is
people. We still have to make sure that bad people don’t get into
these containers, even if we can put security on the containers
themselves. And that means protecting the ports. We’re going to
continue to move aggressively with our port inspection program under
these international standards overseas. In our own country we are, I
think, a little bit overdue on unveiling our Transportation Worker
Identification Credential for the ports. But this year we will get
well underway in getting the kind of screening and background checking
for port workers in the U.S. that is appropriate, given the fact that
our ports are a very significant piece of critical infrastructure.
Third,
we’re going to continue to push forward on technology. Next year we
will get to close to 100% radiation portal monitors in U.S. ports,
meaning 100% -- or close to 100% -- of all the containers will go
through radiation portal monitors in the U.S. before they get into the
stream of commerce. But we want to build the next level of monitors:
lighter, quicker, cheaper, and more precise.
In an effort to do that, we’ve set up a domestic nuclear detection office, which is going to be our program manager for 21st
century innovation, research, and deployment of anti-nuclear detection
equipment. I think we all understand that perhaps the greatest threat,
and the one we have to work hardest to prevent – because there is very
little you can do to respond – is the possibility of a nuclear device
being detonated by a terrorist. Unlike other kinds of threats where
response and protection can mitigate the damage, there is not much
protection against a nuclear bomb and there is not a lot of response.
You better prevent it up front. And that’s why we’re putting in a
substantial investment: the President’s budget this year is going to
put over $500 million into this effort.
But it’s not all
negative. It’s not all keeping things out. It’s also encouraging
things to come in. Earlier this year, Secretary Rice and I put
together an initiative to try to promote easier and more welcoming flow
of people into the United States. Recognizing that while we continue
to want to screen people against our various watch lists and using our
U.S. VISIT biometric program, we don’t want that to be an onerous or
discouraging vision for people who want to come to the United States.
The
United States benefits when people are encouraged to work, study, and
travel in our country. That means working to increase the number of
visas for students and technological workers. It also means making the
airports welcome. It means making sure that – when we issue visas – we
use modern technology to do the visa process more efficiently and
perhaps without making people travel a long distance. Expanding the
length of time that foreign students can arrive, stay, and study in the
United States -- increasing it, for example, from 90 days to 120 days.
And enrolling companies for expedited visa processing; for example,
working with American Chambers of Commerce all over the world to see if
there is a way to get visas processed more efficiently without
sacrificing the kind of security measures we have to put in place.
A second element of this, of course, is 21st
century documentation. Biometric, electronically-based, and secure
travel documents that can’t be forged or copied. That can’t be stolen
or misused, and that allow us to give people a very easy and convenient
way to move back and forth. And using a common platform so that people
don’t have to carry a lot of different kinds of documents, but can use
the same kind of secure identification document for a number of
different purposes.
And third, again, we want to start using data
in an intelligent fashion, and in a limited fashion, to allow us to
screen people in the way that we want to screen goods: more precisely,
and therefore with less interference with the goings and comings of
those who are innocent. A key to all of this, of course, is
information. A lot of what we need to do internationally as we move
forward on these fronts is to continue to share information. We can do
it in a way that respects privacy, making sure that the information is
not misused. But we have to recognize that when we allow stove-pipes,
or seams, to develop between our various databases of information, we
are creating avenues for terrorists to exploit. When we share
information, if we do it in a disciplined way, we actually elevate the
security of both those who share - and those who receive - the
information.
Finally, let me turn to an issue which is probably
less associated in the public mind with Homeland Security, but I think
is very much at the core of what our Mission is: preparedness.
Whether you’re dealing with a terrorist attack and the need to respond
to an attack, or a natural hazard, the ability to respond and mitigate
damage is a direct result of the way which we plan and prepare. That
means training and exercising for what we can foresee as a potential
risk.
The fact that matter is that we’ve had a year, or
year-and-a-half, that has been off the charts in terms of the kind of
hazards we have seen visited. Just from natural disasters, putting
aside the London bombings of July of last year and, as you go further
back, bombings in Bali and Madrid and really threats all over the world.
There
was of course the Indian Ocean tsunami in December 2004. In response
to that disaster, both United States and Singapore were able to deploy
substantial assets, as other countries did as well, to deliver supplies
and rescue thousands of people. That was due in large part to the fact
that both of our countries have in fact used the military training and
exercising process to build capabilities to deal with natural disasters
when they occur.
Hurricane Katrina in United States was, if not
the largest natural disaster in American history, certainly the last
since the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. Just to give you an idea of
the dimension of this, by the way: 90,000 square miles were
devastated. That is roughly the size of Great Britain. About a
million and a half people had to move in a period of little over a
week, the largest mass migration in American history except for the
migration that occurred over a period of decades in the early 20th
century as part of what we call the Oklahoma dust bowl. We had
literally million of millions of metric tons of debris. Forty thousand
people were rescued in the space of a little over a week, many of them
by the Coast Guard or other elements of the Department of Homeland
Security. Again, I think in the United States’ history, it’s probably
the largest rescue ever affected in a short period of time.
I’d
be remiss if I didn’t take particular note of the efforts made by the
Republic of Singapore to assist us in dealing with the tragedy of
Katrina. The Singapore Air Force flew more than 80 sorties and
transported over 800 evacuees and more than 540 tons of humanitarian
supplies and sandbags. There are actually Singapore Air Force
detachments and helicopters based in Texas that train and exercise with
us. So that is an example not only of preparedness at work, but of the
kind of mutual assistance that we all need to bring to the table in
dealing with the disasters that can befall us.
We know as we
stand here now that a potential disaster we all face is Avian Flu. It
may never become a serious human threat, but whether it remains a
threat to our livestock or our poultry, or whether it matures into a
serious human threat, we’re going to be dealing with very significant
challenges that are global in nature. Challenges having to do with
screening to keep illness away but maintaining international trade and
international travel. Dealing with the issue of quarantine, but doing
it in a way that doesn’t break our economy or result in unintended
consequences that would cause as much havoc and as much harm as the
disease itself. And again, because Avian Flu -- like so many disasters
-- would be global in its impact, our preparedness is best accomplished
if we continue to work and communicate closely with our allies all over
the world, including of course those here in Asia.
We live in a
century that is posing not only new threats or new hazards but maybe
traditional threats and hazards that affect us in a new way.
Globalization has given us a tremendous amount of ability to leverage
international assets to deal with problems but, at the same time, the
capability of terrorist groups to exploit our international travel
system has enhanced their leverage. The cascading effects of a
disaster in one country are now felt much more readily all over the
world. It’s kind of a take-off on the old saying, “When one country
sneezes, another one catches a cold.” Nowadays when one country
sneezes -- and hopefully it’s not an Avian Flu sneeze -- the whole
world catches cold, or maybe catches the flu. That means that we have
to be ever more alert to make sure we are talking to each other, we are
training with each other, we are exercising with each other, in order
to be able to respond in a unified and coordinated fashion to these
challenges.
As representatives of international business here in
Asia, you have a special role to play in this. Not only are you
ambassadors of globalization, but the fact of the matter is if there is
an Avian Flu, for example, it’s going to affect your businesses. How
your businesses plan for continuity and how you react is going to have
a major effect on the way governments are going to be able to behave.
I
will conclude my remarks by giving you an example from one of the
hurricanes last year. After Katrina hit New Orleans and Rita hit
Texas, the most powerful hurricane of all was Wilma. Wilma was the
last of the great hurricanes and it came ashore -- after devastating
Mexico -- in Florida. We knew Wilma was coming. The Governor of
Florida and the federal government put a lot of effort into preparing.
There was a huge reservoir of fuel that was made available in store,
gas stations topped up, lots of supplies were pre-positioned.
Everybody was ready.
One of the things I did shortly before the
hurricane hit was to ask somebody to call the major oil companies and
say, “If we have a hurricane and power goes out, in order to get power
and everything else started, people are going to need to be able go to
work. And they’re not going to be able to go work if they can’t drive,
and they can’t drive if they can’t get gas. You all have gas in your
gas stations, but you can’t pump it if you don’t have emergency
generators. So will you have emergency generators in your gas
stations?” And we were actually assured by many of the companies that
they did have supplies of generators that they would deploy to gas
stations that needed them when the hurricane hit. And it turned out,
somewhat disappointingly, this didn’t work quite as a well as it should
have. The delay in getting the generators to the gas stations, and the
delay of getting the gas stations moving, had a ripple affect on
everything else that we were trying to do to get our resiliency back.
As a consequence, I think Florida either has passed, or is considering
passing, legislation to require gas stations to have generators as a
condition of licensing.
My point is this: we are so
interdependent in our world -- so much of what we do is ‘just in time’
and based upon reliance on others in the private sector. When we don’t
do the kind of preparation for business continuity that we have to do
to stay in business, we are not only letting ourselves down and our
shareholders, we are letting everybody else down. We can’t afford to
have that happen. The time to think about what you would do if there
were an Avian Flu or something like that – “Who are your essential
employees? Who could work from home? How would you make sure you had
people to run essential services that have to be run out of an office?
How would you prioritize if you had a limited amount of vaccine and you
had to make a decision about who you distribute it to?” – the time to
think about that is right now. It’s not to think about it when the
emergency hits. So my plea to you is that you consider these issues as
not merely issues of government, but as issues of individual families
and individual businesses because we all play a critical role in this
interdependency that we call globalization.
Thank You.
{Applause}
