Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Live Today
White House Briefing on Lessons Learned From Hurricane Katrina
Aired February 23, 2006 - 10:59 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
DARYN KAGAN, CNN ANCHOR: And we have two major live events set to get under way any minute now in Washington, D.C. We will take you there live. The White House homeland security adviser is holding a briefing on the administration's just-released Hurricane Katrina report looking at government failures and lessons learned.
Plus, administration officials are facing some tough questions on that controversial ports deal with an Arab company. They're briefing a key Senate panel this hour.
First, though, let's take a look at other stories making news at this hour.
At least 40 people are dead and nearly 30 injured. And the casualty count is still rising in Moscow after the roof of a marketplace collapsed this morning. Emergency crews are digging by hand and with small tools to reach those still trapped beneath the rubble.
In Mexico, rescue workers say they're now closer to the spot where they believe two of 65 trapped coal miners are located. But no one is speculating on whether any of the miners are still alive. It's been three days now since an underground gas explosion trapped the miners.
And Iraq is boiling over with sectarian violence today following the bombing of a sacred Shiite mosque. More than 100 people have been killed across the country since the shrine's golden dome was destroyed yesterday. Three journalists working for "Al Arabiya" are among the dead. President Bush calls the bombing an evil act intended to create strife.
Good morning and welcome to the second hour of CNN LIVE TODAY.
Check some of the time around the world, it is 10:00 a.m. in New Orleans, 11:00 a.m. in Washington, D.C.
From CNN Center in Atlanta, I'm Daryn Kagan.
Up first this hour, learning the lessons from Katrina in time for this year's hurricane season. This hour, the Bush administration is detailing its report on the botched response to Katrina. The report by White House Homeland Security adviser Francis Townsend includes a lot of recommending but no calls for resignations. She'll talk about the findings shortly and we'll have it live after that.
President Bush says the Katrina report will help the government better protect the American people.
More now from White House Correspondent Elaine Quijano.
Elaine, good morning.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Good morning to you, Daryn. And that report does not lay blame on any individuals, but rather it points to problems within the system as a whole.
Now, included in the report are some 125 recommendations breaking down into 17 different categories, including communications, logistics and evacuations.
Now, today, President Bush, after a meeting with his cabinet, said again that he was not satisfied with the federal response to Hurricane Katrina, but he said that the report would help officials anticipate how to better respond to future disasters.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: We will learn from the lessons of the past to better protect the American people. We have made a strong commitment to people in the Gulf Coast. And we will honor that commitment as well. The report helps us anticipate how to better respond to a future disaster.
In the meantime, our commitment to rebuild and help rebuild Mississippi and Louisiana is ongoing and robust.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
QUIJANO: Now, the report identifies 11 critical actions. Among them, ensuring that decisionmakers at the federal, state and local levels are working together and in close proximity in the event of another disaster. Also making sure that there is better sense of the situation on the ground, a better sense of what they call situational awareness by giving people the proper communications equipment. Along with that, instituting a structure to essentially consolidate federal operational reporting within DHS, the Department of Homeland Security.
You'll recall the White House said -- had said that there were a number of conflicting reports about the situation of the levees in the immediate aftermath of Katrina.
Now, also included in this list of critical actions, updating and using the national emergency alert system to give the public advanced notice and instructions for what to do during a disaster. This report found that state and local officials before Katrina actually made landfall did not activate -- did not use the EAS. All of those actions the administration sees as essential to implement ahead of the start of the next hurricane season, coming up just about three months from now -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Elaine Quijano, live at the White House.
Thank you.
And let's talk more about these recommendations in the Katrina report and whether they're likely to improve the government's response. Joining us again from Washington, our security analyst, Clark Kent Ervin, former inspector general with the Department of Homeland Security and clearly has checked with his wife and no baby is here. So we're safe for a couple more minutes.
CLARK KENT ERVIN, CNN SECURITY ANALYST: That's right.
KAGAN: Clark, on these list of recommendations, any standout to you as, yes, that must be a top priority?
ERVIN: Well, certainly, as Elaine identified, the communications issue is key, just as was with the case on 9/11 when people died because state and local and federal responders could not communicate with each other. So this was the case in Katrina as well.
So it's really critical to get the communications issue worked out so that communications can happen in real time. And further, it's absolutely critical, of course, that, as Elaine said, there would be situational awareness so that the managers in Washington know exactly what's happening on the ground as it happens.
KAGAN: What about the increased role of the military that seems to be suggested in a number of different recommendations?
ERVIN: Well, I, myself, have a mixed mind about that. On the one hand, there's no question but that the military is very, very well prepared.
KAGAN: And it worked well. It's one of the few things that worked whether it was the Coast Guard doing rescues or National Guard going in and taking control.
ERVIN: Absolutely. Once the military got involved is, things began to move and things began to improve dramatically. There's no question but that they're very well prepared, better prepared than anybody to respond to a disaster like this.
On the other hand, of course, our military is stretched rather thinly these days abroad. That's one thing.
And then secondly, after all, the Department of Homeland Security really was designed to handle natural disasters and terrorist incidents. So it's a little troubling that another department would be called upon to play such a major role with regard to a homeland security-related issue.
On the other hand, we have to do what we have to do. And so it makes sense, it seems to me, to call upon the military to play a greater role in the future.
KAGAN: So, just to put down on paper, or just a matter of policy, that when you get in a situation like this, the military becomes the lead agency, you would not be willing to commit to that at this time?
ERVIN: I think that really needs to be thought through because of the reasons that I mentioned. On the other hand, they performed superbly, no question. And things really began to turn around once they were involved. So I think it needs to be thoroughly reviewed.
I will say that I think the White House is to be commended for this report, 125 recommendations, 11 critical action items, all to be completed before June 1. The devil, of course, is in the details...
KAGAN: Right.
ERVIN: ... and it's important that this actually be carried out. But by being unstinting in its criticism of the federal response, this kind of candor is really the first step in order to turn things around. So I think it's a hopeful sign that this report has been issued.
KAGAN: And as we continue our discussion here, we are looking at a live picture of the briefing room at the White House, waiting for this event to begin. We've received the two-minute warning.
In the time we have left, Clark, how hopeful are you that there will be changes and changes quickly?
ERVIN: Well, I'm very hopeful and I'm actually expectant. I think there's been so much attention on this issue, and rightly so, on the part of the American people themselves and on the part of their representatives in Congress. I think the administration gets it. I think the administration understands that there was a failure not just at the state and local level -- and there was...
KAGAN: Clark, I'm just going to jump in here because it looks like they're ready to go in Washington, D.C.
Let's listen in.
(JOINED IN PROGRESS)
FRANCES TOWNSEND, ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT FOR HOMELAND SECURITY: Every day and night, millions of men and women in the federal government, both military and civilian, worked to achieve that objective. Given the dangerous world we live in, they do an outstanding job.
Despite all we do, however, Hurricane Katrina was a deadly reminder that we can and will do better. This is the first and foremost lesson we learned from the death and destruction caused by the country's most destructive natural disaster. No matter how prepared we think we are, we must work to improve our performance every day.
When you look at prior natural disasters -- and I direct you to pages 6 and 7 of the report, which are graphs that really make the comparison -- the scope of the devastation, the size of the disaster area was extraordinary. The second lesson we learned and we hope everyone listening today will learn, is that it will take all of us working together to put our country in the best position to be prepared for, to defend against, to respond to, and to recover from future natural disasters or terrorist attacks. And I really do mean all of us.
It will require not only federal, state and local governments, it will require schools and churches, individuals, citizens, communities, workplaces all across our nation. Those of us in government must take the lead. And President Bush made clear he is doing just that.
Like all Americans, he was not satisfied with the federal response to Hurricane Katrina and he accepted responsibility for the shortcomings in the federal response. He demanded that we find out the lessons, that we learn them, and that we fix the problems, that we take every action to make sure America is safer, stronger and better prepared.
That, Ladies and Gentlemen, is what this Hurricane Katrina lessons learned review has been all about.
Before moving on to the lessons -- the 17 lessons learned, before talking in greater detail about what went wrong -- and as you know, much did -- I must say, for a moment, I'd like to speak about what went right.
In Appendix B of the report, we go through in some detail, particularly state and local efforts. There were thousands of lives saved by the United States Coast Guard and the United States military to -- and they put their own lives at great risk to save others stranded on rooftops, to rescue them in boats, and otherwise to bring them to safety.
The Coast Guard alone rescued and evacuated over 33,000 people, which is over six times the number that they do in an average.
Volunteers, charities and other nongovernmental organizations were outstanding partners, and we need to treat them as the valued partners that they are.
In addition to ground operations, joint Homeland Security, Transportation and Department of Defense airlifts successfully evacuated over 24,000 people, constituting the largest domestic civilian airlift on U.S. soil in our history.
So, much that did go right the president has made clear we will build on, and we will duplicate it in the future. But now let us turn to the lessons learned.
In any emergency, there is a before, a during and an after. And we've got a lot of work to do in all three areas.
In total, we've identified 125 specific recommendations in 17 general categories. And these 17 categories, by and large, fall into each of the three phases of a response.
First, preparation and planning before.
Our National Response Plan is a 600-page government document complete with organization charts, procedures, rules of engagement, annexes and enough government acronyms and jargon to make your head spin. The answer is, I know a lot of work went into the NRP, the National Response Plan. And I know that it was well intentioned.
The fact is, it didn't measure up. In the response to Hurricane Katrina, the National Response Plan came up short.
Unfortunately, the one thing that the government tends to be best at is red tape. But what we know is, when we're fighting a deadly hurricane or a terrorist threat, red tape can no longer be tolerated or accepted.
So we need to rewrite the National Response Plan so it is workable and it is clear. We will require officials at all levels to become familiar with it. We will draw from the expertise at the state and local levels to ensure that we get it right. And we must exercise it before the next event.
We will train personnel like we do in the military through the creation of a new National Homeland Security University based on the successful model of the National Defense University. And part of this planning must involve better lessons learned, both internally to the federal government, in all of our operating agencies and departments, as well as from the private sector.
We heard time and again from the private sector that plans to protect and restart power plants and other critical infrastructure was woefully inadequate. We also learned from the private sector that they have state-of-the-art systems in supply chain management, inventory tracking and real-time delivery of commodities.
We will work with them on all of these.
FedEx can track a package anywhere in the world real-time. FEMA should be able to do the same thing for ice, water and food.
Evacuation.
President Bush publicly urged evacuation of the region, and many people who heard and could evacuate did follow that urging. But not enough people heard the call or had the means to evacuate.
Evacuation is primarily a responsibility of state and local governments. But in events like Katrina and those where resources at the state and local level are overwhelmed, the federal government must be in a position to ensure people are moved to safety.
We must work with state and local governments to ensure that evacuation plans work. And DHS has already begun that process. Those plans must especially include accommodating the ill, the elderly and the disabled, those who may require additional assistance on the part of state, local or federal government. Ultimately, evacuations will only work if people are aware of them and they follow the evacuation orders, which leads me to public communications.
One stunning fact that we learned during the course of the lessons learned review was that the Emergency Alert System -- the old system that most of us are familiar with is the Emergency Broadcast System, that sound on your television when the screen goes black -- was not activated in a fulsome way, as fully as it could have been prior to landfall. The National Hurricane Center did a magnificent job in trying to communicate the urgency of the threat. But we didn't use the public communications that we had available in the Emergency Alert System to the extent that we could have and should have.
We need to look at 21st century technology and utilizing that to better communicate with the American people, whether that means using cell phones, pagers, and satellite TV and radio.
The second category during -- during a crisis is response to the actual event.
One of the most important lessons that was learned was the departments and agencies with a response mission had real problems obtaining situational awareness, military speak for knowing exactly what is going on, where it is going on, and when it is going on. Every decision made in an emergency can only be as good as the information you have at the time, and the fog of war and confusion in the early hours of this event was an issue.
To address this, we will develop a more comprehensive national emergency communications system that ensures survivability, operability and interoperability. We will be ready to employ all federal communications capabilities for major events and have more redundancy in our communications system. We will have more equipment, more satellite phones, more radios and more ways to get the information we need to make critically important decisions.
We found during the course of the lessons learned that we had not -- we had not utilized all the federal assets that we had available to us. We need to understand what's available, we need to be able to deploy it effectively so that we can make the best possible decisions for the American people.
There were two missions that worked well that would benefit from more -- more and a better integrated, more comprehensive system for deployment. One was search and rescue, the other were public health and the national disaster medical teams.
In both instances, these first responders were real heroes of Hurricane Katrina. But in both instances, we owe them a more integrated system that deploys them effectively with the supplies they need, and so that when they -- when you drop off a rescued victim, you do something better for them than merely taking them to high, dry ground. But you're taking them to a place where they can get the attention that they need from officials. The mission which needs improvement was ensuring the law enforcement and security both during and immediately after the event. Local law enforcement officials were overwhelmed by the storm, and many, in fact, were victimized by it. While the National Response Plan called for federal law enforcement capabilities to be available to backfill that vacuum, the response was slow and disjointed.
One key recommendation is that the attorney general take the lead in fixing this problem and put in place a deputization process so federal officials can immediately be deployed so that we know what federal law enforcement assets are available and that we have the capacity to surge them. This isn't the first -- the first place that state and local officials will go when they need law enforcement backup.
This is, again, primarily a state and local responsibility. But when they're overwhelmed, they have neighbors and National Guard to look to for state and local law enforcement assistance, and then the federal government needs to have a plan to understand what surge capability we have and efficiently and effectively surge it to the disaster area.
Finally, we need a better structure at the White House to ensure that all aspects of the response are moving forward, a process to cut through the red tape and to referee any needless disputes that arise in the heat of an emergency. Under the auspices of the Homeland Security Council, we will form the Disaster Response Group, which I will personally oversee. The Disaster Response Group will be very much modeled along the same type of a group that we have that deals with terrorism threats and responses in the Counterterrorism Security Group.
In the end, we must do a much better job at preparation, at planning, and improve our response. But even if these all go flawlessly, people will still need help in the wake of a crisis. So recovery is critical.
First and foremost is human services. This includes creating a truly integrated one-stop assistance process that is disaster victim oriented.
The federal government needs to organize and deploy itself to meet the needs of our citizens in their hour of crisis, not to have several locations where individuals -- individual victims must go to seek the assistance that the government can provide. It includes setting up voluntary registry for people so that they can access important -- they have a place to store personal information that they can access should important documents be unavailable to them.
Key to this is public health and medical support. And while I said that this was an example of success, many people were treated by emergency public health officials. We need a system of fast deployment with supplies, and Secretary Levitt already has a process under way to address this need.
People who evacuate must have some place to go that is safe for themselves and for their families, which is why housing and sheltering are so important. You have heard in recent days Secretary Chertoff talk about working with the American Red Cross to have a system of registration at shelters so we can track people when they move from -- between shelters or out of shelters, so we can facilitate their receiving of benefits that they require, or assistance, and that we can use it to reunite separated family members.
On housing, we did not maximize and leverage the expertise of the Housing and Urban Development Department to the extent we might have. HUD's got great expertise in public housing, but we did not have an inventory of federal housing assets that were available and that the federal government owns.
That's not good enough.
Katrina was rare because it was the biggest dislocation of Americans since the Dust Bowl, but we have to be better prepared. A dirty bomb or a pandemic or other unfortunate but potential threat would bring similar challenges in housing. And we have to be ready. We have to know what federal housing assets and stock are available, we have to make those options available to the victims.
Fortunately, we were blessed by the true spirit of America through volunteer and charitable organizations which will continue to play an enormous role in this area. But even then, their efforts were burdened by confusion and no clear direction from the government on where they could be most effective.
We have already begun discussions with charitable organizations, faith-based groups, and will ensure that they get the best information in the most direct fashion, hopefully from one person. We look to state and local partners and their best practices in this area.
In the states of Florida and North Carolina, they have volunteer coordinators in their state emergency operations center. And this has proven to be a very effective tool in coordinating volunteer efforts.
Finally, there is debris -- there is debris cleanup. We can and will do more contracting before the disaster to do a better job and facilitate the quick removal of debris immediately following the disaster. Too often, we heard the frustrations of governors and mayors that the slowness in debris removal inhibits the sense and the speed of recovery.
Let me close with two important and overriding challenges that we face going forward. One, which you've heard, is the proper role of the military. And the second is the overall transformation of our national preparedness capability.
In truly catastrophic events, state and locals may be incapacitated or overwhelmed, or even worse. The fact is that the United States military may be the only entity available to the federal government to protect the American people.
Both the state Nationals Guardsmen -- and there were over 50,000 at the height of the response -- and America's active duty military forces performed magnificently on behalf of the victims. But we need a greater integrated use of the military.
There are very good reasons why the United States military does not in the first instance do homeland security. But we -- and we fully respect and want to preserve those bright lines. But we also recognize we have the United States Northern Command, who works as a partner with the Department of Homeland Security on homeland defense issues, and when state and local first responders are overwhelmed or incapacitated, it may be that our military is the last and only resort. We need to plan and prepare for the Department of Defense to play a significant supporting role during future catastrophic events.
And finally, transformation.
In the transformation section of the report, you will find a discussion of developing the concept of jointness in the homeland security community. We take the time to go through in that section the military's experience tracking from the National Security Act of 1947 and the Goldwater-Nichols Act and the benefits of developing a joint community, of requiring joint assignments. That, is between and among federal agencies with Homeland Security admissions, and also intergovernmental with our state and local partners.
That will be part of the objective of establishing a National Homeland Security University. And we believe that we need to have that sense of jointness so we understand within the federal government and with our state and local partners what the capacity and capabilities are that are available and how most effectively to deploy them.
The second part to transformation is creating a culture of preparedness. This is not preying on fear. This is talking about what the current threats are that we face as a nation and how best individuals, communities and governments can prepare for them.
What the threat is to Biloxi will be different than what the greatest threat is to Manhattan or Los Angeles. We need to understand that, we need to respect that, and we need to work with our state and local partners about preparing America's communities.
I think it's fair to say to you that it's not only because I am the mother of two small children, but our kids will lead us in this effort. I venture to say that any of you who have small kids know you can't get in your car without putting on your seatbelt without being corrected by your children. And that's a result of the Click it or Ticket campaign in our education system.
Secretary Spellings has been very supportive. We've talked to the governors, and we will talk to them when they are here in town next week about state and local efforts in the education system to make preparedness a part of sort of our national approach so that we're not discussing it, you're not hearing about it for the first time amidst a crisis, but it's something that we have thought about, planned for and all have participated in.
With that, that's a brief overview. You'll notice that I have not touched on all of the 17 issue areas. I'm happy to take your questions and discuss it in that context.
In the back.
QUESTION: I have a question. After the storm, Louisiana Governor Blanco and President Bush argued for several days about the control of the military in Louisiana delaying the arrival of the federal troops for, I think, it was five or six days until after the storm.
How does your recommendation for a more aggressive use of federal troops balance the need for state sovereignty?
TOWNSEND: There -- I would -- I'm not sure that I accept your recitation of the facts, frankly. But let me address the integrated use of the military because that's really the lesson learned, and the recommendation goes to that.
First and foremost, it talks about training, equipping and resourcing state National Guards. They live in our communities. There was at the height of it more than 50,000 National Guardsmen there. And whether you are a National Guardsman or an active duty military officer is not really relevant to the people who need the help. They see -- they see an individual in uniform who's there.
And so, in the first instance, we need to maintain and equip our National Guard, who will get there quicker.
Secondly, the president did commit federal forces, and as you know, General Honore was there very quickly after landfall, moving in right behind the storm. He also had troops moving in behind him to support him.
The answer is, what we want to be sure is, as we move both National Guardsmen and active duty forces in that they have interoperable communications, that they are able to deploy efficiently and effectively, and we will need to work both with the Department of Defense, DHS and our governors to do that in a way that respects state sovereignty but gets the American people the help they need when they need it.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) number one problem was a lack of reporting from the principal federal officer to the White House. There was too much bureaucracy within DHS, especially between FEMA Director Brown and Secretary Chertoff. Past FEMA directors, successful ones that were deployed in other disasters, say that's the number one problem right now.
Why don't you address that here?
TOWNSEND: I'm not sure that I agree with you that -- one of the things we looked at, and you'll see in the report, is what is the authority of the principal federal officer in making sure that they have the authority to meet their mission requirement?
We know from Director Brown's testimony that Secretary Chertoff reached out for him a number of times. It wasn't that the there was bureaucracy between them. It was that he didn't -- he's testified that he didn't want to deal with the secretary.
The answer is, what we need is a system that gets the information and the needs of the people in the disaster area up to the decision- maker, who is Secretary Chertoff, who is responsible for the department. Those operations aren't run out of the White House. They never are.
It's in the Department of Homeland Security. Obviously, people here at the White House are available and do support the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security and will continue to do that. That's one of the reasons for the establishment -- the establishment of the Disaster Response Group to make sure that if there are disagreements or any bureaucracy, there's a -- there's a mechanism here at the White House to break through that.
QUESTION: (INAUDIBLE) there's a lot of assignments of responsibilities to other agencies that had been mostly worked through Homeland Security. Do you think it was a mistake to have so many of the response functions sort of directed to Homeland Security, or was it mismanaged by Homeland Security, and, therefore, you're now redirecting to HUD, to Justice, to these other agencies major responsibilities that had been primarily handled through Homeland Security previously?
TOWNSEND: I think -- I think the best way to capture the sentiment that you're referring to is, there's a lot of expertise resident in the federal government. The secretary of the Department of Homeland Security is the president's incident manager, federal incident response manager. But you're going to ask him -- you're going to ask him to do things in a crisis that he doesn't normally do or his department doesn't normally do day to day.
Why not leverage the expertise where he can coordinate it, he can task other agencies, he can pull in that expertise and get it done more effectively than having to have responsibility in his department, just there?
QUESTION: Are you going to be...
QUESTION: Looking at the recommendations for the Department of Homeland Security itself to implement, they are extensive. And there's a deadline for many of them of the 1st of June. Given that Secretary Chertoff's behavior has been described as disengaged and his department's performance was described as alarming and non-functional by some of the senators, is a Department of Homeland Security under Secretary Chertoff one in which you can have confidence to get this work done by the 1st of June?
TOWNSEND: Secretary Chertoff enjoys the confidence of the president. He enjoys -- he's been a tremendous partner. And I will tell you, in coming to the 125 recommendations, the secretary personally and his department played a large role in working with us to identify the shortfalls and what we need to work on.
You'll notice in the epilogue 125 recommendations is a lot of work we have to do. And we had to prioritize. We went to the commanders in the field like Admiral Allen and General Honore and said to them, what are the things we need to do first? What are the things we absolutely need to get done before June 1st? And you'll find in the epilogue there are 11 laid out there that the operators from the field, the commanders from the field have told us, those are the critical ones to get right. Won't surprise you. Integrated command at the field, level, communications capability, the things we've talked about.
Yes, ma'am.
QUESTION: Are you going to need a change in the law to have more military involvement in these kind of disasters in the future? And as you said, you know, how do you go about preserving the bright lines on one hand, and on the other hand having the military be more integrated?
TOWNSEND: There are two issues. When I say preserving the bright lines, we're talking about posse comitatus and law enforcement authority. If you have an integrated use of National Guard and active duty forces, this shouldn't be an issue. National Guardsmen are trained and have -- can support law enforcement functions in a way that active duty military can not. And so you can preserve the bright lines and not seek additional authorities.
In terms of the deployment of active duty forces, we looked at the president's current authorities, and at least in the review of this group, we did not believe the president needed additional authorities.
There will be, as you go through the 125 recommendations, there will be some legislative change required. I've had the privilege of talking to, on a number of occasions, Senator Collins and Senator Lieberman. And we look forward to working with our colleagues on the Hill and going forward.
Yes, ma'am?
QUESTION: Is there anything that you would think is a really new revelation? Many of these ideas have been talked about in various forums since Katrina hit. Is there one thing, whether it's a small observation or an overarching thing, that you think is a new way of looking at this disaster?
QUESTION: I actually think the transformation section is not something that we've heard talked about. And I think the whole transformation of national preparedness, which calls for really an integrated approach, that the military is found to be incredibly successful, is the biggest new idea here.
Many of these are bringing together, as you point out, observations from field commanders. I talked to all of the governors involved, and many who were in receding states. We talked to lieutenant governors and mayors of little towns and big cities. We really threw a very wide net. We talked to Academia and thinktanks, NGOs, private sector people, because what we wanted to do is bring together the best ideas.
I don't claim that every one of them was mine. They're not. I had a terrific group of people, all experts, all professionals working on it. and we reached out beyond that group.
QUESTION: Will there be additional money for the National Guard to play a greater role in domestic response to disasters?
TOWNSEND: The secretary of defense has spoken to the National Guard as has the president when he spoke at the National Guard Bureau. The president has said he will man it to their recruitment capability, to the ceiling. And we will work with U.S. Northern Command, Admiral Keating and General Blum, to make sure the training and equipping that they need to do the Homeland Security mission take place.
Yes, sir?
QUESTION: Is the effort to get the military, the federal military, more directly involved and integrated be done already, or is it still in the talking stages? Is the Pentagon already working on any plans to become better integrated with the National Guard?
TOWNSEND: Absolutely. And you'll see in the 125 recommendations, which go into greater detail, which go into greater detail than I have, the Joint Staff, Chairman Pace, has been tremendous, and had a tremendous investment. In fact, they talk about making the National Guard a joint activity, incorporating to a greater extent National Guard into the U.S. Northern Command. They've already begun the planning for that, as well as they've assigned a strategic planner over to DHS, so that they can cut through -- you'll see in the report, where you've heard the horror stories, as I have, a request for assistance can go through a 21-step process. We've got a strategic planner over at DHS today working through how do you cut through that red tape, so in a crisis, it doesn't take the 21-step process. You can get the assets you need -- Dana?
DANA BASH, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Different subject, and that is the port issue.
As the president's homeland security adviser, when were awe made aware of this?
And also, isn't it a requirement because we're talking about a state-owned company, that there should have been an extra 45-day review?
TOWNSEND: I'm going to answer it backwards. No, there's only an extra 45-day review if one of the participants in the Cissius (ph) process, that is the review process, the mandated review process, has an objection or a concern. Nobody in this instance did that. In fact, as is now public, DHS to the extent they had any concerns, engaged directly with the company, got an additional security agreement in place, and they were satisfied. So there was no need for an additional 45 days or an investigation. The intelligence committee was involved. Treasury chaired the process. I was not personally involved. I don't sit on the committee. But I will tell that you the Homeland Security and national security concerns or issues are well represented. You've got the national security adviser on the board. You've got the DHS involved. And I will tell you that the United Arab Emirates is a tremendous ally in the war on terror. That's been acknowledged both by the intelligence community and General Pace himself talked about the extraordinary military relationship.
This is -- I think we need to step back for a minute and just make clear, this is not about outsourcing port security, which is in the very capable hands of the United States Coast Guard, and the Customs and Border Patrol. This is about commercial operations at a port, many are foreign owned. This was controlled by a British company before, and there are other ports in this country owned by other foreign concerns.
BASH: Given the political sensitivities that are now blatantly obvious, do you wish somebody would have given you a heads up as the president's homeland security director, so that perhaps you could have said what you just said to us perhaps to members of Congress a little bit earlier?
TOWNSEND: Well, you know what, we're looking at how we can communicate better with members of Congress. They are briefings going on today. We're getting them the facts. And I think once people are satisfied that they have the facts, and we've got to look at that process going forward, there'll be satisfied that the security concerns have been addressed.
QUESTION: Two-part question on this aspect that she just raised.
TOWNSEND: Yes, sir.
QUESTION: The top of page one, headlines this morning, report "Bush Learned of Port Deal From Press." Now this news also reported Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and Treasury Secretary John Snow both say they didn't know about it until it was approved.
And my question, first of two, what will be done, if anything, to those responsible for this being done without the knowledge of the president or the secretaries of defense and treasury?
TOWNSEND: OK. The first question, I can't speak to what will be done to them. I will tell you there are tens of these every year. They are handled and they only come up to the president and to the members of the cabinet if there's an objection, if the concerns can't be addressed in some way and can't be resolved. This is how the process has worked. And so I can't speak to, having -- I wasn't personally involved in it. So I can't speak to what the process -- how it performed.
QUESTION: On page 11 of the 9/11 Commission's Report that you're undoubtedly familiar with...
TOWNSEND: Yes, sir. QUESTION: It says from 1999 through early 2001, the United States pressed the United Arab Emirates, one of the Taliban's only travel and financial outlets to the outside world, to break off ties and enforce sanctions, and these efforts achieved little before 9/11.
My question, why should we now give this nation any control of our ports which so refuse to help in stopping a worse killing of Americans than at Pearl Harbor?
KAGAN: We've been listening in to a briefing at the White House. It's Francis Townsend, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security, talking about this report coming out in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, what can be done differently and what can be improved on.
Now with more on what's actually in the report, let's go to our Jeanne Meserve -- Jeanne.
JEANNE MESERVE, CNN CORRESPONDENT: They looked at three separate areas, Daryn, preparation, response and recovery, came up with 17 areas where they wanted to see improvements. They made very specific recommendations about what should be done. A lot of this familiar territory that evacuation plans have to be improved, that the delivery of supplies has to be improved, that victims have to be better served by the federal government.
Probably the section here which is going to be most controversial is this area about the military. The White House saying that they'd like to see the military play a greater role in a natural disaster or a manmade disaster of this dimension.
Probably the best illustration of how controversial this will be is what happened in the state of Louisiana, where you had Governor Blanco very much resisting efforts to federalize the National Guard. She's a governor who felt this should be a state response. She wanted to be in control. And this delayed the deployment of the federal troops by a matter of some days.
So this is not going to be easy. You heard Francis Townsend say she didn't think this would require a change in the law, but this is something that Capitol Hill is going to want to take a careful look at -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Jeanne, it does talks about the increase role of the military, but it doesn't specifically say, it doesn't say definitely that the military would become the lead agency, but it does dance around that idea.
MESERVE: Yes. Well, she said pretty specifically that the Department of Homeland Security would be in the lead, but there should be better coordination.
I have to jump in here and say that although many positive things happened as a result of the military involvement, the House report on Katrina, which was released just about a week ago, indicated that the Defense Department response wasn't perfect, either, and that there were real problems with coordination, both with DHS and also with state officials and local officials, that the Department of Defense didn't have a clear understanding of those state and local responsibilities.
So there is a lot to be waded through here. It's going to be very difficult to see how that recommendation and the scores of others are going to be implemented in time for this June 1st deadline that they've set -- Daryn?
KAGAN: Jeanne Meserve in Washington, D.C., thank you.
Let's go now back to the White House. Our White House correspondent Elaine Quijano is standing by. Another thing not in this report, Elaine, no calls for any resignations.
ELAINE QUIJANO, CNN WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: That's exactly right, Daryn. There is really no sense that they are laying blame at the foot of any individuals. There are no calls in this for the resignation, as some on Capitol Hill have called for, of the Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, nor are there any calls for the resignation of any other senior officials.
Now what we had heard from this White House, even before the report was officially released, is that they believe this really was a problem with this system, that it was not necessarily an individual failure but, really, as you've heard the Homeland Security Adviser Fran Townsend lay out, problems within the system itself.
And so as Jeanne was saying, they are approaching this looking at all phases of this disaster, of the Katrina response beforehand, the preparations, the response during the actual disaster itself, and then the recovery efforts afterwards. But, again, no calls for any resignation in this report -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Elaine Quijano at the White House.
Let's get more on this idea of an increased role, possibly, for the military in this type of situation, and go to our Pentagon correspondent Barbara Starr -- Barbara.
BARBARA STARR, CNN PENTAGON CORRESPONDENT: Well, Daryn, the report calling for more robust role for the United States military, but now those details really do have to be worked out. Until now, the basic way it has all worked is the United States military, of course, does not push into a state unless a governor asks. And clearly, that didn't work very well in Katrina.
So now, there will be much more of an effort to see how state, local and the federal government and the U.S. military can work together, potentially. Possibly pre-position supplies, communications gear, medical equipment, helicopters, boats, earmark the military supplies that would be needed in a disaster to move in relief, move people out, get them evacuated and make sure that it's all ready to go much more quickly.
But, of course, for the U.S. military, this also poses a number of challenges. Because their mission, their role, is to operate abroad, to defend the United States from national security threats outside the border. So to take on this homeland role, if you will, is something that they're going to have to look at very carefully, decide whether they want to have units on standby.
Where would they position them? You can predict, perhaps, where hurricanes may fall, but where to position that kind of material for a potential terrorist attack possibly, an outbreak of bird flu -- these are the scenarios that become very, very difficult.
What is also very interesting in this report, according to senior U.S. military commanders we've spoken to, no call for a change in the military's law enforcement role on the streets of America. That is something that the United States military commanders did not want to see happen as a result of Katrina. They feel that that is the role for the National Guard on a state level, the U.S. military having no desire to have a reaction in this country, "let's fix it, by giving the U.S. military a law enforcement role." They don't want to be on the streets arresting people.
The recommendations in this report, according to military commanders, are doable, are workable. They will work it out for hurricanes. But, again, what concerns them now is what could be next. You know, the hurricane had a huge impact area, a huge geographic area, but it was contained. It hit where it hit. What happens if there is an outbreak of bird flu and it spreads across the United States uncontrolled, God forbid? How does the military deal with being ready for that?
Daryn.
KAGAN: Barbara Starr, live at the Pentagon. Barbara, thank you.
This just in to CNN. Other military news. We told you earlier that four U.S. soldiers were killed north of Baghdad earlier today. They were in their vehicle when it was struck by a roadside bomb. Now we're hearing an additional three soldiers have also died, bringing a total seven north of Baghdad dying. Those additional three also dying at the hands of an IED, an improvised explosive device.
We'll have more news out of Baghdad and out of Iraq just ahead.
Also ahead, if you're still interested in listening to the briefing with Francis Townsend, the assistant to the president for Homeland Security, just go to CNN Pipeline, CNN.com/pipeline. And that briefing continues.
We're going to be going live to New Orleans in just a bit and we're talking about port security, as well. Who should be running America's ports? All that's just ahead, after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
KAGAN: We are monitoring two live briefings for you right now. On the left side of your screen, Francis Townsend. She is the assistant to the president for Homeland Security. She's talking about this post-Katrina report that was sponsored by the White House. If you'd like to listen in to more of this briefing, you can go to CNN.com/pipeline.
And on the right side of your screen is the Senate Armed Services Committee, and they talking about port security and the controversial deal that allows a company that is run -- or ultimately owned by the United Arab Emirates government to run six major ports here in the United States.
We're also watching a story just in to us from Oregon, from Roseburg Oregon. Roseburg High School, there's been a shooting at this high school and the school is in lockdown. Hearing from police that it's not clear if the person is a student or a staff member. The extent of the injuries on the injured person is not known. But about 7:45 a.m. local time, the gunman was cornered by police after fleeing the campus. He was arrested after holding a gun to his own head. No immediate information on what the motive for this shooting might have been in Roseburg, Oregon.
Let's head south to New Orleans now. Mardi Gras right around the corner, and our Sean Callebs standing by with more on that.
Hi, Sean.
SEAN CALLEBS, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Daryn, indeed, a lot of the attention down here has been focused on Mardi Gras, but back to the report that they talked about in Washington today, none of this is a news flash to the people who lived and suffered through the aftermath of the hurricane that blew through here more than just about six months ago, I think, to the day.
So much had been made about the fact that this report is focusing on better coordination among the federal entities involved, better planning. And really, if you go down the list of recommendations, they really jump out. Communications, the way the law has been written for the federal authorities to come in here. Federal troops that we saw involved in search and rescue, search and recovery operations -- a local entity must act for that help. Well, under this recommendations, apparently, as soon as the need is there, federal troops, military troops could come in. Also better communication with the National Guard. People who live and work in this area certainly would have a better understanding of how those operations -- of course, we all remember the tens of thousands of people languishing in the Superdome, as well as the Convention Center, in those horrific days after August 29th. While another call is for a better mass care and housing.
Yesterday I had chance to speak with New Orleans superintendent of police, Warren Riley. We asked him about this, what he had heard. He said he heard a lot of conversation, a lot of discussion about ways that FEMA and other federal authorities were going to work with state authorities if indeed another disaster like this happened. He said all he's heard is conversation.
So people down here are not entirely convinced that even though there's this more than 200-page report about ways that the federal authorities could better deal with the disaster, until something like that happens, people here feel they have to depend on themselves. So they are also going back to the drawing board and trying to determine how they can better handle things such as evacuations, trying to get people out ahead of the storm. And then for those people who do stay, how to get them out, and also provide immediate health care for anybody who may have been trapped, dehydrated, injured.
So a lot of discussion about this, Daryn. But the report just coming out. We haven't had a chance to pour over all the particulars. But certainly it would be welcome news to people down here, who suffered through a horrific event.
They also focused on the fact that before Hurricane Katrina came through here, they went through a simulation. It was called Hurricane Pam. It was supposed to be a worst-case scenario if indeed a hurricane hit this area, causing flooding in New Orleans, which of course much of it is below sea level. They thought that that simulation went well. They thought that they learned a lot about that, how this area, how the federal government, how FEMA, could all come together and help people in a worst-case scenario. And quite frankly, it just didn't simply pan out. President Bush said he was not pleased at all with the federal response. Not a news flash to people here -- Daryn.
KAGAN: Sean Callebs live from New Orleans. Sean, thank you for that.
Right now, let's go live to New York City. This is the Plaza Hotel, or what was the Plaza Hotel. Apparently there is a two- or three-alarm fire under way there. This along Fifth Avenue, right across the street from Central Park. The Plaza Hotel was one of the most famous hotels in New York City. It's been shut down for renovation to be mainly condos, and private apartments and some hotel there. But apparently some type of fire taking place as what was the Plaza Hotel currently under renovation. More on that as it becomes available.
Now on to our Security Watch. The Bush administration dispatched aides to Capitol Hill this morning, trying to explain the ports deal with Dubai, and perhaps to lower the temperature on the controversy. Top Republicans and Democrats are outraged that a country they say has ties to 9/11 could manage six U.S. ports. President Bush insisted again this morning that the state-owned firm poses no risk.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GEORGE W. BUSH, PRES. OF THE UNITED STATES: Port security in the United States will be run by Customs, U.S. Customs, and the United States Coast Guard. The management of some ports, which heretofore has been managed by a foreign company, will be managed by another company from a foreign land. And so people don't need to worry about security.
This deal wouldn't go forward if we were concerned about the security for the United States of America.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KAGAN: But newly reported secret conditions on the Dubai deal suggest security was indeed a concern.
Our correspondent Andrea Koppel is keeping watch on this story today in Washington D.C.
Hi, Andrea.
ANDREA KOPPEL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Hi, Daryn.
What we're seeing here in Washington today is really the beginning of the Bush White House full-court press to try to take on those critics, both in their own party and among the Democrats. And they've been joined today by one of the few Republicans who has actually taken the side of the White House, and that is John Warner, who's the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
And what you see right there is the testimony that has begun in the last hour. The person who is speaking is Michael Jackson. He's the second-most senior person in the Department of Homeland Security. He is among about eight officials from both the Department of Homeland Security, Department of State, Department of Defense, and the Treasury Department, which chairs the committee that we've all now come to know quite well, the committee of Foreign Investment of the United States, known as Cissius. They're trying to explain how the approval process worked with this very controversial case, the Dubai Ports World.
Now the ranking member of the committee, Senator Carl Levin, a Democrat of Michigan, basically laid out what their concerns are. In particular, he said that it just seemed really remarkable that the decision took place without the president knowing about it, without the senior most -- the senior person in the Department of Treasury knowing about it, and without Congress knowing about it.
Here's what he had to say:
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. CARL LEVIN (D), MICHIGAN: The president's threat to veto any legislation that even delays this sale in order to give Congress more time to analyze it shows how out of touch the administration is with the public's and Congress' legitimate concerns about the vulnerabilities of our ports. It also demonstrates presidential disdain for outside views in general, and congressional views in particular.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
KOPPEL: Now, Carl Levin is one of four Democrats who was at today's hearing. The only Republican, Daryn, is Senator Warner, which really gives you a little bit of a insight into just how deep the divide is right now between President Bush and members of his own party. Congress is in recess, but they could have attended, just as those four Democrats did.
KAGAN: Andrea Koppel, thank you. Andrea Koppel live from Washington D.C. with the latest on the ports deal.
We're going to continue to monitor that. Also news coming out of the White House and news out of Oregon on that school shooting. International news is coming up next. I'm Daryn Kagan. I'll be back in about 20 minutes for your U.S. headlines, and we'll also bring you breaking news as it becomes available.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
