Ridge speaks out on restructuring homeland security agencies

The White House is poised to recommend reorganizing federal agencies to more effectively control people and goods at U.S. borders and help local police, firefighters and health care workers respond after terrorist attacks. The recommendations are to be included in the homeland security strategy, which is being developed by the White House Office of Homeland Security. Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge discussed some of his thinking over lunch with editors and writers at National Journal Group, including Government Executive's Katherine McIntire Peters.

Q: Thousands of people enter this country illegally every day. Most just walk across the border. This is after a decade of spending billions of dollars to increase staffing, equipment and intelligence on the border. How big a concern is that to you when you look at homeland security vulnerabilities, and what is a realistic way of dealing with it?

A: We have 5,000 miles of border with Canada and 2,500 miles of border with Mexico. If you add the coastline, we've got about 95,000 miles of unprotected navigable border. That openness, that size, is obviously a point of vulnerability where we know we need to enhance security.

We are working very diligently, and I would add with a sense of both urgency and unparalleled cooperation, with both Canada and Mexico on the issues relating to infrastructure, people and cargo.

One of the biggest challenges we have is the unprotected areas. You can check people and cargo if they go through traditional checkpoints or traditional infrastructure, but in both the Great Lakes on the Canadian border and [along] the Mexican border, INS and Customs' task is much, much greater.

We know we're going to have to expend resources to put additional people and deploy technology there that we probably haven't used before. It is a priority within the administration. There are dollars in the 2003 budget that will increase the number of agents, and we continue to have discussions about a new approach dealing with the border issues.

There is unprecedented collaboration now with Mexican officials. We know full well that's the route for illegal immigration. It's the route for illegal drugs. It can also be the route for terrorists. It's not lost on us that if you can bring drugs and illegal [immigrants] through, you can certainly bring terrorists in.

Q: Do you have a sense of 'if we add X number of inspectors or border patrol agents we can improve the situation by such and such'? How do you measure this?

A: Quantitatively I admit that it's quite difficult. What is happening at the borders is because we have ramped up security at the normal checkpoints, forcing those who would come through illegally for whatever purpose into other areas.

It's about risk management. Where do you think your greatest vulnerabilities are? That's where you deploy your people and your technology. I don't want to overstate it; I don't want to understate it. There still is a lot more that needs to be done in the unprotected areas in both north and south.

Q: At one point you seemed to support the notion of consolidating some of the federal agencies responsible for border management. Do you still support that? Where do you see that going?

A: I am a firm believer, based on experience, that sometimes reorganization is a critical part of government's responsibility, particularly in light of the changing environment or changing conditions.

One of the things we're looking at and continue to look at as part of the national strategy is everything from a whole new technological architecture that fuses databases and gives everybody more information in addition to more money and people that they want, to reorganization. That assessment is ongoing. There will be options we will discuss and recommendations we will make to the president.

We've got a lot of well-meaning people at these agencies that have a homeland security function. They have responsibility, but the lines of accountability are fuzzy. I think in the long term, when you align responsibility and accountability-when you reorganize it-you have an opportunity to bring greater control, greater leadership, a better use of the resources and ultimately you enhance your ability to prevent or respond to a terrorist attack.

Q: The federal government doesn't have a very strong track record in equipping and training first responders. How do you see that changing? A: A critical part of the emerging national strategy has been the initiative that makes the Federal Emergency Management Agency the department with primary responsibility to work with first responders at the local level.

We believe FEMA basically has the core competency, since they deal with state and local officials on natural disaster and occasionally man-made disasters. They work with first responders. You know there is the [Justice Department's] Office of Domestic Preparedness that has received support from Congress for some time. We believe we ought to take that office in totality and move it into FEMA.

We have to make FEMA a much larger agency. They need to develop greater expertise. The individual on our team that is driving that initiative [Michael Byrne] happens to have had 26 years of experience in the New York City Fire Department. He's a man who lost a neighbor and friends in the [World Trade Center] towers. There's nobody better suited to understanding the implications of planning, the implications of collaboration before an incident occurs, and the fact that the federal government now should take a new role in training and exercises and providing equipment as we build minimal capacity around the country that can respond to a terrorist attack.

There's no consensus on that. Some people want to keep the office [in the Justice Department]. We think the Department of Justice has a lot of other tasks. We're talking about an agency having primacy to work on the development of state plans and local plans and who has primary responsibility for building up a national capacity and mutual aid grants between communities. We have to give an agency that responsibility and we think it … complements [FEMA's] traditional mission.