Return to Transcripts main page

American Morning

Fmr. Deputy National Security Adviser Discusses Government Bunkers

Aired March 01, 2002 - 08:09   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: And the guidelines for this precautionary measure have been available to the government, as Barbara just mentioned, since the Cold War. And one of the locations which was ready to protect members of Congress was the set of elaborate bunkers, which you'll see shortly, located at the Greenbrier resort in the White Sulfur Springs area of West Virginia. And the site has actually been open to the public. You can take tours of this place. Since the mid 1990s, thousands of people have done just that, including myself. You can see the facilities, including the dorms and the clinics and the command centers.

And the deputy national security adviser in the Clinton administration, Jim Steinberg, is very familiar with the plans. He joins us now from Washington.

Welcome, good to see you, sir.

JIM STEINBERG, FMR. DEPUTY NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: Good morning. Good morning.

ZAHN: So were you surprised by this news?

STEINBERG: I think it's -- it's interesting that the administration has decided to activate this on such an extensive basis. But this is something that's been planned for for a long time. As you mentioned, it's a -- it comes out of the Cold War, but there's been actually a lot of updating of the plan since the Cold War, as we've begun to realize that there are risks in addition to the risks of a nuclear catastrophe. The possibility of a biological or chemical attack even in the end of the Cold War period means that we had to have some ideas and some plans ready to go in the event of an emergency.

ZAHN: All right. Jim, you said you're somewhat surprised this is being -- and I want to make sure I'm using the correct words -- activated so widely. Why is that a surprise, because this potentially could cause undue alarm?

STEINBERG: No, but I think that it's -- the question is whether you need to be on a permanent basis. I think the plan has always provided for having the operations to be able to be implemented very quickly, within a matter of hours. And I think the decision now to move this towards, in fact, a semi-permanent arrangement, will be more problematic in terms of making sure that we don't get confused about what the priorities are in a time of attack.

But it is certainly the case that we need to have these plans as a standby. It's a matter of reassurance. We have a lot of critical functions that need to be preserved. And I think what we'll need to do now is examine what is the best strategy in the ongoing campaign against terrorism to do this in a way that provides that continuity and assurance, but also doesn't create confusion with the regular operations of government.

ZAHN: So let me understand this morning fully what you're saying. I know you think it's a prudent thing to have these kinds of contingency plans in place. Certainly, you did during the Clinton administration. But are you fearful that it will cause Americans great unease?

STEINBERG: I don't think it's a question of causing Americans great unease. I think it's more a question of what's the most efficient way to use our government and our government capabilities. I think if it becomes simply a routine matter in which people are sent out for extended periods of time, that it won't necessarily improve our ability to react to contingencies that we haven't planned for. It's very important to test these capabilities. We've run exercises and it's important to do that. Obviously, in times of greater alert, it's important to do it.

We need to have an effective capacity on a standby basis. And I think it's just important to assure that we're not taking out key personnel out of their day-to-day functions of government in a way that doesn't make us able to function as well in a non-crisis situation.

ZAHN: Jim, final question for you. When you ran your own exercise in the Clinton administration, did you find the same thing that reportedly Bush administration officials are finding? That some of these bunker areas are highly antiquated, that they don't have enough phone lines, that the computers aren't up to snuff?

STEINBERG: I think it's certainly true that with the end of the Cold War that the resources that were put into this declined, because we began to feel that there was very little likelihood of a nuclear attack. But as we've come to understand more about the capability of terrorists, there has been an upgrading. In 1998, President Clinton issued a new directive to upgrade the capabilities. That was a process that was underway because we recognized that the threat of a chemical or biological attack could, in many ways, have some of the same kinds of problems that a nuclear attack would have had during the Cold War.

ZAHN: Jim Steinberg, nice to have your insights this morning. We identified you as the former deputy national security adviser, you're now at the Brookings Institution, right?

STEINBERG: Thank you.

ZAHN: Good luck with your new job.

STEINBERG: Thanks a lot.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com