Conference on Immigration and National Security: Remarks by Tom Ridge

FrontPageMagazine.com | February 8, 2002

Editor's Note: On January 29, the Center for the Study of Popular Culture sponsored a conference on Immigration and National Security at the Capitol Hill Club in Washington, DC. Director of Homeland Security Tom Ridge was the keynote speaker. A transcript of his remarks appears below, along with an introduction from David Horowitz.

DAVID HOROWITZ:  Oftentimes, government makes those who enter it smaller.  The privilege of office inflates their egos, draws out their pettiness, and encourages their indifferences to the needs of the people they were elected to represent.  But government service also makes some men bigger ­ even larger than life.  Our President, George Bush, is one such man.  In this hour of the nation's need, George Bush has done all that a people can ask of its leader.  He has stood up under fire, he has defined the job that needs to be done, and he has put the best men and women in place to do that job. 

One of these men is Tom Ridge, whom President Bush has appointed Director of Homeland Security, the first such appointment in American history.  Tom Ridge was selected because he is a man cut in the President's mold, a conservative who shares the President's big-hearted vision and sure sense of purpose ­ a public servant who has grown in stature and in judgment with each job he has been given.  His is an American story. 

Tom Ridge was raised in a working class family in a Veterans' public housing project in steel country, Erie, Pennsylvania.  Emerging from these humble beginnings, inspired by the opportunity his country offered, Tom Ridge studied hard in school and earned a full scholarship to Harvard, which was the only way he could have gone to an Ivy League school.  He worked hard at Harvard and graduated with honors, and then one year into law school, Tom Ridge was sent to Vietnam.  He served in the Infantry as a staff sergeant, and earned a Bronze Star for bravery. 

After Vietnam, he went back to law school, earned his degree, and returned home where he became Assistant District Attorney for Erie County.  Tom Ridge walked the precincts of the neighborhoods he knew and paid his political dues, and in 1982 became the first enlisted Vietnam combat veteran to be elected to Congress.  He served his constituents well, and was overwhelmingly reelected to the House of the people six times.

His resonance with the people of Pennsylvania raised his aspirations higher.  In 1995, he was elected Pennsylvania's governor, an office he held for two terms, until President Bush drafted him to the front lines of America's domestic war against terror. 

The President selected Tom Ridge to be the Director for Homeland Security because Tom Ridge is a man after the President's own heart.  As Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge did the conservative thing, and opened the doors of opportunity to all its citizens by cutting taxes every year he was in office.  And he did the compassionate thing, using the power of government to see that no child was left behind. He increased the number of children receiving low cost health care by 145 percent.  He signed into law the Education and Empowerment Act, helping more than a quarter of a million children in Pennsylvania's lowest performing schools. 

Our nation's greatest domestic problem, after the terrorist threat, is the failure of inner city pubic schools to give our poorest and most burdened children the shot at the American dream.  As Governor of Pennsylvania, Tom Ridge dedicated the largest share of his political capital to giving inner city children their chance.  Before he left the governor's office, he came within a single Democrat's vote of providing scholarships to every child in Pennsylvania whose parents did not have the money to send them to a private school that would teach them when the public schools fail.  In Philadelphia, where half the inner city school population never graduates and the other half never learns, Tom Ridge succeeded in putting a program in place that is the largest privatization of a public school system in the nation, and indeed in the history of the nation.  Thanks to this program, hundreds of thousands of poor, black and Hispanic children in Philadelphia will get a chance to escape their blighted inner city life. 

Government makes some men small. It seduces them with privilege until they forget who they are and why they are there.  For others, however, government office can have the opposite effect.  It imbues them with a sense of responsibility.  It enlarges their deeds, and makes them appreciate the consequences of principals and ideas.  Like our President, Tom Ridge is such a leader and such a man.  The responsibilities of government; indeed, its awesome responsibilities, have brought out the best in Tom Ridge and made him larger than life. I am honored to welcome him as our guest. I am proud to call him a friend.  I am privileged ­ we are all privileged ­ to know that Tom Ridge is back in Washington as the man our President has chosen, above all others, to lead his efforts to protect us in our homeland, in our hour of need.  Tom Ridge.

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Thank you, thank you, David.  Thank you very much.  Thank you. 

Well, David, thank you very much for that overly generous introduction and very kind words.  I thank you.  It's a great pleasure for me to have the opportunity to spend a little time with you this afternoon. I do have some thoughts I'd like to share with you, and then what I find is, obviously, more enjoyable for you, and perhaps more productive, then we can just have a little question and answer session to the extent that you want to do that. 

There are a couple lessons that I've learned that I'd like to share with you today.  The first is that if you don't have Caller ID, get it.  You need to know who's on the other end of the line before you take the call. There was no doubt in my mind, when the President called, that September 11 had changed my view, and my personal and professional intentions.  I happened to be talking to a good colleague of mine, a great friend, Paul Cellucci, Ambassador to Canada, and we were together on a couple of occasions, campaigning for then-Governor Bush, our great President.  And a couple nights he stayed with me at the Governor's residence in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. And I was up visiting with him about six weeks ago, because the President's real keen on developing a different kind of 21st Century border arrangement with both Canada and Mexico.  And I've had the opportunity to work on those issues on behalf of the President with the members of the Cabinet.  And we were reminiscing the night that we sat there confidently predicting what we were going to do as soon as our terms as Governor expired. And we were both wrong.  So you can't be so prepared as to not accept the opportunity that the President has given me. And I view it as an opportunity to serve my President and my country, and I'm very pleased to be with you today in that capacity. 

Again, I say to David, it's nice to speak to you and your Center.  This organization, and organizations such as yours, were waving the flag long before September 11, so it's nice to be back with you.

I'm happy to say a few words to you about homeland security, including the security of our nation's borders.  But today, ladies and gentlemen, I'm simply the warm-up act.  Tonight, President Bush will deliver a terrific State of the Union address. And you'll be in your living rooms or on the Floor, Lamar, you and your colleagues ­ I'll probably even be invited. Stay tuned; it starts at 9:00. 

And of course, I'm a little biased, and I have had an opportunity to view portions of the speech.  And I'm going to tell you tonight, ladies and gentlemen, this President makes the greatest commitment and the largest commitment to homeland security of any President of the United States.  That's no exaggeration.  Depending on what set of figures you look at ­ and Lamar and I were talking about that ­ it's at least double of the 2002 budget. 

That includes an unprecedented amount, a thousand percent increase - $3.5 billion dollars from current levels to provide assistance to our first responders ­ police officers, fire fighters, emergency medical personnel, those men and women who gave their lives on September 11.  And frankly if we think about it, in less dramatic circumstances but equally hazardous circumstances, risk their lives every single day in communities across this country.  They defend our country, our nation, one home, one block, one community at a time.  And so they deserve our support.

We're going to empower cities and states to build up their first response capability.  Not for the short term but over the long haul.  It will be based on what the states and cities need, not what Washington wants.  It's an extraordinary amount of money; it's a thousand percent increase.  But we've tried to work it so that the money is channeled through the states down into the local municipalities.  But around a game plan, around an action plan, around a corroborative, collaborative arrangement, so that the cities and communities and municipalities have mutual aid packs ­ that they train together; that they share resources together ­ getting everybody engaged on the front line as a first responder.  It's not ­ we're not just going to hand out checks.  I wouldn't want to do it, and besides, this President wouldn't let you do it anyhow.  [Audience applause.]  You got that right. 

The fact of the matter is, we think we've structured it in a way so we can develop ­ and unlike any time before ­ the kind of capacity we need, as we say to ourselves, it's a 21st Century threat; it is a permanent threat; we need to build some capacity to be able to respond to that, in whatever form it may strike our communities.  Whether it's hazmat equipment, bioterror training, emergency radio network ­ we'll give them the flexibility they need because FEMA and the Department of Justice have already done an assessment of what the individual states and communities need.  It'll be a menu. 

Obviously, as a governor, I used to like block grants ­ block grants with flexibility. And that's what we're going to give the governors in the communities.  But frankly, they're going to have to choose from a menu because Joe Allbaugh ­ you probably know Joe, big guy, big heart, big job.  Huge job, and it's going to get a lot bigger with this budget.  Because we basically build the consequence management infrastructure under the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

We're also working to build up our nation's immune system to bioterrorism.  We'll improve hospitals' ability to respond to a bioterror emergency.  We'll develop new vaccines and medicines through the research and development money that we've provided.  And we'll build up and modernize our national pharmaceutical stockpile. Again, it's a first step in our ability to respond to a terrorist attack.  One of the challenges, I think, as Director of the Office of Homeland Security, is the fact that the language associated with our office is pretty dark. It's pretty foreboding.  I mean, you've got to talk about risks and threats and attacks and security.  Heretofore friendly neighbors to the North and South, huge oceans; we really considered ourselves, perhaps with isolated reminders, pretty much immune to the political terrorism we've witnessed around the world for decades.  We've been pretty much immune from all of that. 

But now it becomes a permanent part of our country's challenge.  There were a set of challenges that we had to our national security, our economic security and our personal security on September 10. But there was an additional one added on September 11, and that's non-state terrorism.  And so we have to think in terms of threats and vulnerabilities.  But the President and I have had several conversations about this.  And the President has directed me, and I embrace the concept ­ we not only have an opportunity to make America more secure; we have an opportunity to make American better. 

Sure, we're going to give money to first responders, because they need the help to respond to a terrorist attack.  But at the same time, when we are supporting our police in ways we've never done before with equipment and training, and we're supporting our fire departments, and we're supporting our emergency medical personnel ­ suddenly the quality of that life and the safety possibilities enhancements in that community have expanded. Sure, we're going to beef up public health.  We need to do it because of the possibility of a bioterrorist event.  But we ought to be building up public health because infectious disease can challenge us without a terrorist event. 

So to the President's point:  Let's use this opportunity; look at America through the security lens, but we'll have an opportunity to make American not only safer and more secure but better.  Let's seize the opportunity.  And he'll talk to you a little bit more about that tonight. 

No homeland security strategy is complete without addressing our nation's borders.  We're working with Canada and Mexico to institute Smart Borders, again; we want to have secure borders.  But because of NAFTA, the economic interdependence is even greater than it was.  The impact on the communities and states that border the respective borders has clearly, clearly been enhanced considerably.

So as we go about making the borders more secure, why don't we figure out ways to make commerce flow easier?  To expedite the passage of goods and services across those borders. And at the same time, rethink how we deal with drug addiction at the borders and immigration at the borders and immigration at the borders again. Sure, we want to be more secure, but it's an opportunity for us to bring a 21st Century approach toward our borders as well.  The President says, Let's seize that opportunity. 

We have significantly increased funding for the Coast Guard, the Custom Service, and the INS.  And one of the things that has happened ­ and some of you are probably very aware of it ­ but as of September 11, a lot of the resources of the federal government ­ that's human and technology ­ has to be deflected from the traditional mission to the new mission, and that's prevention.  Coast Guard's a great example.  Admiral Lloyd told me that prior to September 11, two to three percent of his assets, physical and personal and technology and equipment, were really directed toward homeland security.  They've got a maritime mission; they've got a search and rescue mission; they have a variety of missions.  Now, almost 50 percent of his capacity is on prevention.  Well, the President realizes this and the budget will begin building new capacity.

INS and Customs need additional agents and more technology as well.  We will overhaul ­ this came as quite a shock to me, but probably not to some of our friends in Congress ­ we're an open, trusting, welcoming country.  We have been, we always will be.  We never want to lose that, as a country of immigrants.  And millions and millions of people come across our borders every year.  And we give visas. 

But we don't monitor them ­ we don't monitor our guests once they're here, and there's no entry or exist system.  No entry and exist system to monitor the whereabouts or the activity. When the visa's expired, do we know you've left?  You've been invited in.  We welcome you.  We're a nation of immigrants.  We've built our schools, we built our communities, we built our technology, we built our wealth because of the continuous reinvention of American, the infusion of more and more immigrants.  So we welcome.  But we haven't monitored very well. And we have to do a lot better job of that.  And there's a substantial investment to begin to develop that system so that expiration dates in the future can be enforced. 

And finally, we're working to improve information sharing throughout all levels of government.  That includes instituting a more effective threat assessment system. I will tell you, the least comfortable moment for me, publicly as Director of Homeland Security, you may have seen it on CNN, but when I pulled the short straw instead of John Ashcroft going out and putting the country on alert again; and everybody said, "Okay, Ridge, you go do it."  And it was because we had some credible information from multiple sources and there was a convergence of religious observations at the time and a history that al Qaeda and bin Laden had used that particular time.  So we just, as a matter of fact, went on and said 'Be on alert.'  And everybody said, "What do you think we've been on since September 11?"  And it's understandable.  People really wanted more information that that; particularly the law enforcement community. 

So we're working very, very hard with the law enforcement community to come up with a national threat system, so that there's some context; so that there's some texture around the information that we get and the information that we share every day.  Since the threat to this nation varies from day to day, there will be different protective conditions and different measures to reflect that.  We want to create a system that people, particularly law enforcement, can understand.  And we're searching for better ways to share information between all sectors. 

Somebody asked me today, in an interview, what did we do wrong or badly before September 11?  And I said, "I don't think we did anything badly.  We just didn't have a mindset that really accepted the possibility, the potential, of non-state terrorism.  But we weren't as strong as we could have been."  And in the President's Directive, his Executive Order, he assigns the task to the Office of Homeland Security to coordinate a national ­ comprehensive, national strategy.  Not federal strategy. By definition and implication, that's federal, state and local, public and private sector as well as citizen engagement as well. 

And so we have to work very, very hard, in my judgment, to take that and apply it to law enforcement.  We have 650,000 men and women, police and sheriffs, who are on duty 24-7-365.  They're the front line.  And there have to be appropriate times when we can get some information into those communities.  These are men and women that want to help us.  So we're going to talk about, down the road, information sharing at the federal level, because clearly more needs to be done there.  We do need a better system that fuses more of the information we get.  But on a timely and appropriate basis, we gotta have these 650,000 Americans who want to help us, help us.  We don't share a lot of information with them.  And when we do, we don't really put it into context.  So those are things that we hadn't thought about before, but we have to think about now. 

These four initiatives are part of the strategy that the President asked us to put together.  It will not be a one-year and out initiative; it will be a multi-year initiative.  I assure you, we're going to insist on value for the taxpayers' money.  Candidly we're going to measure progress and monitor these programs and these new dollars very, very closely to make sure that we get enhanced capacity to respond, enhanced capacity to protect. 

We're going to ask governors and mayors and county officials to work together on the anti-terrorism plans.  That's been one of the big challenges in the federal system.  As a former Congressman, cities like to come down, and they've got a point of view, the states have a point of view; it is a federal system; that's one of the challenges that we have.  But if it's to be seamless, we have to make sure that everybody, when it comes to homeland security, is really building the same kind of capacity, providing mutual aid to one another.  And we have to go from the competitive political model to a much more collaborative model.  And we're going to try to drive that. 

We're going to ask that the governors and mayors sign mutual aid agreements, so different agencies can support one another during crisis.  Sometimes, even within the same community, let alone peripheral communities, they don't even have emergency communications that are compatible.  Again, nobody's to blame. But the fact of the matter is, we have to change that.  And change it we will.

We want states and cities to put those plans into action.  And go from the tabletop exercise to a field exercise.  And homeland security practice doesn't just make perfect; practice saves lives.  The conversation the other day with the Mayor of Pittsburgh, good friend of mine.  I worked with him for seven years as I was Governor.  And he said after September 11, they went back and they inventoried the management of all the skyscrapers that they have in Pittsburgh, and asked them, how many of you have ever conducted an evacuation exercise?  Because at September 11, remember that Flight 93 landed, crashed in Pennsylvania.  And there's some ­ apparently it skirted Allegheny County and the city of Pittsburgh.  And so the Mayor said, "I didn't need any additional money to do that; I just brought 'em in and said, We need to have these drills; we have to make this a part of how we prepare our city." 

So again, everybody's thinking differently and I think very, very productively, about how we can expand our protective capacity.  So finally, I would say to you that homeland security isn't about taking ­ it's about giving.  It will give doctors new ways to fight diseases such as diabetes and cancer.  It will give firefighters new tools to fight crimes, and police officers ­ excuse me.  We're going to give firefighters the tools to fight fires!  [Audience laughter.]  Although, we may train 'em to do both.  It's not bad to have two MOS's.  It's all right.  You can be trained to fight both.  And we'll give police additional tools to fight crime. 

We'll give government and businesses new ways to protect sensitive data from hackers.  You want to talk about potential disruption of the economy?  Or what it could do to a health care system, a financial system, and the like?  We have a special group of very talented and dedicated people, led by Dick Clark, that are doing nothing but thinking about and working on cyber security.  Not just intragovernment, but private sector security as well.  It will give us increased trade across our borders with Canada and Mexico.  In other words, homeland security won't just give us a safer America, it will give us a better America.

Now, homeland security goes well beyond enforcing our borders.  And I conclude with this thought.  It goes beyond fighting the global menace of terrorism.  Homeland security is about being a good citizen as well.  In ancient Greece, being a citizen meant more than just living within the walls of a city-state.  It meant becoming an active part of your community.  And that's exactly what Americans need to do to secure their homeland as well. 

Forget the old civil defense movies you remember as a kid, or those exercises.  It's not about ducking under your desk.  It's about emerging in your community.  Whether it's learning CPR, conducting a family fire drill, mentoring a troubled teen, or teaching children the greatness of American history.  There is something for every American to do.  Homeland security means a safer America, a stronger America, and a better America.  An America where anyone can become a true American citizen by his or her participation. 

During World War II, General George Marshall asked filmmaker Frank Capra to help Americans understand why we're at war and what they could do to help ­ in Capra's words, "To say something about our liberty."  Capra, as an immigrant from Sicily, told the story in an amazing seven-part series called "Why We Fight."  No matter where he came from, he was a true American citizen. 

So I thank the Center for telling Americans why we fight.  I thank you for telling us why we defend and why we protect.  And why America is an idea worth defending; worth protecting, and certainly worth fighting for.  Thank you very much.

[Audience applause.]

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  I'm game if you're game.  Yes?

QUESTION:  First of all, it's very nice to see a Vietnam veteran in a position such as yours.  I was wondering if it might not be a little bit easier to maintain and guarantee homeland security if we just slightly lowered the number of legal and illegal immigrants.  Would that be of any assistance, since it would seem logistically there would be fewer people to check? 

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Well, obviously, the whole question of immigration is one that the country deals with or wrestles with on an annual basis.  The number of people we give the opportunity to.  I would prefer to think that before we limit number, we do a better job of, one, screening those whom we allow in; and two, once we've made a decision to give them the opportunity to visit America, that we develop a capacity to monitor their entrance and their exit.  I, for one, as we look at developing the system, think biometric information would be helpful, to make sure that the individual that got the visas is the one that shows up at the airport as going in and going out. 

I think it would be helpful for us to, frankly, consider some other changes in immigration policy consistent with that goal.  More background checks. There's literally I think several dozen visas that they can give you ­ tourist, student, visitor and the like. I think we have to scrub them up and look at them very carefully, but as a nation of immigrants, that's still a rather unique quality of this country.  So I'd prefer to at least start with a focus on, to the extent we can, better background checks in the country of origin, and an entry and exit system. 

We also ­ to the point you made ­ we also begin some of our discussions with our friends in Canada.  Because sometimes immigrants who come to this country don't come directly here; they come through Canada.  Not so many through Mexico.  So we want to take that same approach and see if we can harmonize some of the immigration policy and the asylum policy of our neighbors.  I think that'll help as well.  Sir? 

QUESTION:  Have you considered and have any opinion on the benefits for homeland security of federal standards for the national ­ essentially our national ID system ­ the state driver's licenses.  Congress passed such standards in '96 and then repealed them in '98. Is there any discussion within the White House of resurrecting that kind of approach?

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  There has been discussion with regard to comparability of driver's licenses, regular and commercial, and the like.  We have not really engaged in any serious discussions with regard to a national I.D. card of any sort.  Again, as I take a look at that broader picture, better those who are guests have I.D. than those ­ I mean, I think we start with those who are immigrants, those who are here on visas. I do think where there's some immediate application, and we can see how well it works and how the country responds ­ we've got a project up north with the Canadians where we've prescreened residents on both sides, to provide biometric information, and they're basically in an easy pass lane because we know who they are. 

I also think that that approach ­ it's down the road.  Transportation security ­ I mean, how many of you have paid X number of dollars to belong to whatever the airline club, so you can a copy of the newspaper?  Well, I think Americans would ­ I certainly would, to enhance my ability to get in and out of an airport quicker, have an identification card. 

So I think there are ways that we can see how receptive America is to the process and to see whether it provides us the kind of security that we want.  There's no discussion on that right now, not that there won't be ­ be right back. 

QUESTION:  [Unintelligible.]

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  The question asked had to do with the premise that some people have put forth that September 11 was the result of a significant intelligence failure, and part of that was predicated on the lack of men and women with linguistic skills in the intelligence community and the like.  I'm not privy to the intelligence that they had available to digest - I mean, I just haven't had time to look at what may have been the reports out there.  I will tell you this.  There are two things, at first blush, that I think are needed as soon as possible.  One is an enhancement of the language  ability of those involved in gathering all this information.  But I also think, as we look to develop a 21st Century intelligence apparatus, there has to be a horizontal fusion at the top.  We've got a lot of information and we pull it down from a variety of different ways.  Some of it very sophisticated; some of it human.  And we have 11 or 12 agencies that grab bits and pieces of information about the rest of the world. 

I daresay we don't have an agency or a group of individuals overarching the entire intelligence-gathering  community, to my knowledge, that takes a look at all of the pieces of the puzzle, just to see if we might make a few connections.  Kind of reminds me of those puzzles that you buy your kids and you end up doing, the one with five thousand pieces, and they're smart enough not to go through the aggravation of trying to put 'em together?  But since you bought it, you say, "Well, I might as well try it." 

Well, I mean, literally, we've got all kinds of information being gathered, and it's a different kind of information.  It's not as if you're looking at fixed military assets being moved.  It's not like the missiles have been moved out of the silo. It's not as if the submarines have left their base.  It's not as if troops have been advanced.  So you got little bits and pieces.  So, yes, we need to enhance our language capacity.  And I'd like to see at some point in time, and it's something we're going to deal with in terms of our long-term plan, a reexamination of all the silos, the agencies, that we have.  The principals are collaborating, but I'm just not so sure, that because of the culture and the experience you're getting it down here.  And once we decide what we do, then I think you can put a technology overlay and do a lot better job.  So that is very much on our minds as we prepare for the President a long-term strategy. 

There was right over here, and then I'm going to get back to you. 

QUESTION:  I, too [unintelligible].  I'm sure you can remember when we came back [unintelligible] in some cases.  So I'd like for you to [unintelligible], give me some advice as to what I could say to the average citizen who sees someone who appears to be [unintelligible] in our community, who is not [unintelligible] a citizen.  Who is only interested in making money, and not being that citizen as we are striving to be.  Is that a concern?  If so, what do you advise we do, and what should be done about that?

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Well, I think the first thing we have to do is be very careful about drawing conclusions based on what ­ unless it's just so blatantly illegal or out of the ordinary, I think we have to be very careful about drawing conclusions because of superficial actions of individuals.  Having said that, I think one, to the average citizen, if you really want to help fight terrorism, respond to your President's call tonight, because he's going to give you a couple ways to help combat it.  And two, that is really more a job, I think, for the law enforcement community.  But just tell the average citizen to be alert.  To be vigilant. 

Just like that stewardess and those passengers on that flight.  Now, I think it's pretty unusual for somebody to try to light their shoe.  [Audience laughter.] I'm glad somebody was paying attention.  Frankly I suspect with most of you, if he'd have been sitting next to you, you wouldn't have had to restrain him; you'd probably have to revive him.  If somebody looks down to light their shoe, I hope you don't wait to see if it goes off.  [Audience laughter.]

So I think one of the challenges is, to your question, is keeping America just focused on continuing to be America, doing what you normally do, but just a little bit more vigilant.  I think we also have to be very careful about rushing to conclusions about people who may dress differently, who may worship differently, whose outward appearance might be a little bit different.  I think we have to be careful about that.  That's a form of terrorism too, if we just rush to conclusions, and we don't want to be part of that. 

QUESTION:  If I could, I think that's the first line of security.  Now, what I wanted, are you going to have something in place where you follow through?  Because I feel right now, a lot of [unintelligible] drugs [unintelligible] are  coming illegal, there have been documents --

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Oh, yeah, you're right. 

QUESTION:  So are you going to have, as part of the Homeland Security program [unintelligible] so we don't overreact, so if someone that we feel for ­

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  That's a good question.  And I think the answer to that is awareness and training.  And make no mistake about it, to your point, we talk about biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear warfare, weapons of mass destruction.  Well, there is a chemical war going on; it is a drug war.  And the trouble is, we're paying for that.  And it's kind of undermining who we are.  So we've been working with the DEA and everybody else in terms of homeland security.  Two questions back here.  Ma'am?

QUESTION:  [Unintelligible].  The fact that he wants to give amnesty to illegal aliens.  Could you speak to that?

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  That he wants to do what with illegal aliens? 

QUESTION:  Give amnesty to illegal aliens.  I know that [unintelligible],  which I've heard him say.  How can he give amnesty?  How can he justify giving amnesty to illegal aliens? 

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Well, I don't think the President ­ you may be more familiar with a specific statement to this regard than I am.  But I think the President, as well as Congress, in previous years, has debated the notion as to whether or not perhaps people who have come to this country, some of them illegally, some of them with visas whose visas expire, therefore they're here illegally as well ­ if they have been in this country, if they have proven to be a productive citizens, if they've engaged in their communities, supporting their schools ­ if those around the caliber and the qualities that they bring to their community, we may want to consider treating them a little bit differently than just outright lawbreakers.  But that is always a contentious issue and a potentially divisive one.  But I don't believe the President has come down with that affirmed decision in that regard.  Yes?

QUESTION:  It takes the FBI approximately 60 days to do a background check on [unintelligible].  And with so many millions coming in, how can they do that?  [Unintelligible] same thing, [unintelligible] background  checks, and many of them turn out to be criminals.  Now, do you agree or disagree that we should lower the number of immigrants coming in legally.  Illegal, number one, should be eliminated, period.  But do you agree that we should lower the number of immigrants so the FBI can [unintelligible] background checks? 

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  I think, given the dramatically changed conditions in this world, the notion that we would pay a lot more attention to those that we let into this country is certainly worthy of considering.  Whether or not there's a numerical adjustment associated with that, frankly, right now, we don't really check the backgrounds of most of these individuals.  And whether or not you reduce the number of immigrants, or you expand the capacity of the Consul office, and you share with them more information that you may have from domestic and foreign sources as to their background; you check up on them when they come in and make sure they're doing what they said they were going to do, and you show them the door when you find out they're either in violation of their visa, they're not here for the purpose they intended, or the visa has expired.  I think those are all very legitimate questions.  Those are certainly things we need to do, and whether or not that results in a reduction in the number of people, really depends on our ability to properly vet those people that we're allowing into this country.  But I don't think, as a matter of policy, you want to say, "Next year there's no immigration, or next year we're going to eliminate it 50 percent."  But I do think we have to look at that from top to bottom, the immigration policy.

QUESTION:  One other thing [unintelligible] the National I.D. We already have a National I.D.; it's called the Society Security card.  Congressman McCollum tried to get [unintelligible]  Social Security card many years ago and failed.  We should make that ­ a tamper-proof Social Security card and [unintelligible]. 

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Yeah, I think there are a lot of ways ­ well, let me tell you what.  First of all, these groups are pretty sophisticated.  They're pretty good at forgeries.  If we get into the business of that, we have to make sure it's a fail-safe system because, like anything else, we've learned that there are very smart, dedicated, relentless people out there who are willing to undermine our way of life.  And they've got the sophistication and the technology and the will to counterfeit.  So if we get down that road, we have to be darn sure that it's a good one, else there'll be knockoffs and forgeries.  That's why ­ I think you start with requiring some form of biometric identification and an entry and exit system for those we invite in as guests.  And you start by monitoring much more closely than we ever have before their activity once they get here.  Yes, you have a final word? 

QUESTION:  You mentioned a moment ago showing the people the door who don't belong here.  Are you evaluating whether there's a need for changing law and procedures to make people go through that door after we've already decided they don't belong here and it seems to drag on forever?

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Well, you're right.  One of the things we're looking at, candidly, is the process by which someone that we invited in as a guest, who stayed, whose time has expired and then they're here illegally.  By the time they get done appealing to the INS, and then there's an appeal de novo, conceivably in the District Court.  And there are people who ­ frankly, I think there's some training manuals that Al-Queda has, that ­ that people know how you can work the system.  And so I think, as we take a look at immigration policy, that's definitely one of the components of the policy that we have to look at. 

I feel fairly strongly that we want to be open and welcoming.  And if we let you in for a year, you should be here.  If we let you in to be a student, and you want to study American history, that's what you ought to be studying, not nuclear science.  If you're here on business for 30 days, you shouldn't be here on business for 31 days unless you reapply.  I mean, I think there's a decent, commonsense ­ we don't violate who we are as a country, but I still think that because of the changing of the nature of the threat to this country, we really have to scrub that whole system up from top to bottom. 

You're going to have the last word, I guess, and then David will have the last word.

QUESTION:  I was wondering which of our two borders you worry most about strategically.  The northern border, where Canada has like 50 Islamic terrorist groups in a large Muslim community, or the southern border, where a number of illegals come in [unintelligible] tradition of culture in the world, corruption in the law enforcement [unintelligible]. 

GOVERNOR TOM RIDGE:  Yeah.  [Pause. Audience laughter.]  I will tell you, I think because the President has given me to work both border issues [audience laughter], in the President's mind, they're both equally important.  But there are different challenges. I mean, clearly, I'm the Governor of a Great Lakes state ­ most people don't know, but a little piece of Pennsylvania is along the Great Lakes.  But, you know, you've got unprotected water, I mean, thousands of miles.  And it's pretty difficult to police.  But at least on the Canadian side, there's an existing government infrastructure that kind of parallels ours.  And so when we're dealing with them on questions of immigration, on sharing data and information, upon trying to pre-clearing commerce on both sides ­ I mean, there's an infrastructure and to that extent it's easily done.  More easily done.  You go to the Mexican border, and the President has a remarkable relationship for the first time in this country's history where the two Presidents have ­ the President of Mexico and the President of the United States ­ have a close personal relationship.  It's obviously ­ NAFTA has proven that [break in recording]. . . of illegal immigration, and as you're trying to address the other security issues and the drug issues, you don't have the counterparts to deal with.  And you do have.  I mean, as much as Fox is trying to do, anyone that suggests that they've been able to rid themselves of the corruption that was endemic in the system ignores the reality that there's still corruption in the system, and as hard as he's trying to vet it out, you still have to deal with it. So I think they post equally ­ some of the challenges are the same, but the organizational challenges, I think, are greater down south.  I think they are. 

Okay, thank you very much.  [Audience applause.]

DAVID HOROWITZ:  Thank you.  We've illuminated a lot of facets of these vexing and very pressing problems, and I can tell you, as a conservative who begins with a great skepticism about government, there's nobody I would rather have attempting to deal with these problems and put together the five thousand or five million pieces of the puzzle for us than Tom Ridge.  And I thank you, Tom, for coming in and being here.  [Audience applause.]

And I'd like to thank all of you for coming to this conference.  I hope that you will take back from it some of the urgencies of the moment.  We face  an enemy without and an enemy within.  We've just begun to touch on these issues.  I hope you'll all stay in touch.  And we'll continue this battle until we win it.  Thank you.