Return to Transcripts main page
American Morning
Safer at Home
Aired November 19, 2002 - 08:32 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: In the Senate today, a crucial test for the homeland security bill, with respect to all the side issues attached to the bill. Senator Arlen Specter called it a -- quote -- "legislative blackmail." But about the guts of the bill? Will a new Homeland Security Department make the country safer? To debate that, we're joined now from Washington by Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, and from our Boston bureau this morning, Elaine Kamarck from the Kennedy School Government of Harvard.
Welcome to you both.
Elaine, I'm going to start with you this morning. If this bill passes, do you think Americans will be any safer than they are now?
ELAINE KAMARCK, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Only marginally. At the steps of this bill is a very good idea, an idea to create a border patrol agency, which frankly, has been around for 70 years. It was first proposed by Herbert Hoover in 1930. So that will, I think, help us at the borders.
But frankly, the bill doesn't address the really important elements of making us safer. It doesn't strengthen in FEMA so that we can respond quickly and effectively and so that local and state first responders can practice response to terrorist acts, and secondly, it doesn't do anything about the intelligence problems we have. It does not include, by the way, the FBI or the CIA, and it doesn't do anything about straightening out our intelligence gathering capacity so that we can prevent acts of terror. So it's only a marginal improvement in making us safer.
ZAHN: All right, Peter, let's let you attack that argument that Elaine just made. For starters, that it doesn't address the intelligence problems and the lack of cooperation between the CIA and FBI. Is Elaine right?
PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: That's not true. This will, over time, immensely increase our security, our homeland security. It's going to be a common command structure for all these 22 disparate agencies, and 170,000 U.S. government employees who are involved in homeland security. There are tremendous efforts here to increase coordination and cooperation, to integrate and consolidate, provide a unity of vision, a synergistic effect for all these people working together. This is like...
ZAHN: Peter, before you go any further, Elaine was making a specific point that the bill does not talk about the CIA and the FBI directly, nor does it address the issue of intelligence gathering. Talk about just that specific point.
BROOKES: Well, this is just the first step. There is going to be a significant intelligence fusion center within the Department of Homeland Security that will address it, that will take information that's gathered not only by the CIA and the FBI, but by other organizations out there, that will increase our security. So this fusion, bringing all source intelligence analysis within the department of Homeland Security focused on the borders and homeland security will increase.
Now the CIA has a mission that includes homeland security, but also oversees intelligence gathering. The FBI is involved in law enforcement, as well as homeland security.
So within the Department of Homeland Security, there is going to be a fusion center that will bring all of these disparate types of information together to ensure that our infrastructure and borders are secure.
ZAHN: Elaine, what about that, Peter making the point that ultimately the fusion center will address those issues. Do you buy that?
KAMARCK: Well, no, it won't address those issues, because the fusion center will not provide for the kind of horizontal communication that allows agents, as we saw last year, agents in Arizona, agents in Minnesota, to compare bits of data, and perhaps put together a more comprehensive picture of a threat than they were able to do before September 11th.
You know, this department was put together in response to the allegations and the things that came out last spring, and it was kind of thrown together. Ironically, it doesn't answer the challenges that were placed by the revelations we had last spring.
ZAHN: Peter, let me ask you this. What in the bill would make Americans any safer from a bioterror attack?
BROOKES: Well, there's going to be an institute. There's going to be special efforts regarding bioterrorism. The Department of Defense is going to have an institute that's going to address this specifically. It also -- there will be other authorities for the president to go ahead and produce vaccines. There will be encouragement for a research and development in these sort of areas. There is a whole directorate for science and technology that will look at defending against bioterrorism, anthrax and other things out there, so there are several places where it's going to increase our -- over time.
Remember this is a tremendous undertaking. But over time, it will increase our security on bioterrorism.
ZAHN: Elaine, what about that, that it will happen, but it will happen down the road, can't obviously happen immediately.
KAMARCK: That's true of a lot of the things dealing with homeland security.
But look, the essential problem here is missed by this bill. We need one agency in the United States government that -- the natural agency is FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We need one agency to have the authority to put together defensive plans in -- among state and local responders for defending Americans against a bioterror attack. That is not included in this bill. FEMA is dumped in this bill, but there is no enhancement of the powers of FEMA. And without that happening, you are not going to have the systematic preparation for a bioterror attack that in fact a lot of people say are needed in this country.
You know, the emphasis on sort of spending money and security et cetera is coming at the expense of the fire departments, the first responders, the emergency personnel, and the hospitals that will be thoroughly and completely overwhelmed at this point in time in the case of a bioterror attack, and that's where I think we really need to enhance FEMA.
ZAHN: Peter, you get the last word.
BROOKES: I don't think that's correct at all.
ZAHN: ... Americans are only marginally safer.
BROOKES: I think Americans will be increasingly safer. Just look at the Transportation Security Agency. Now we have inspectors at all the major airports. We have to inspect 750 million people a year that travel on our airlines.
In fact, in Atlanta, over the last couple of weeks, they caught three people that tried to enter planes with loaded guns. So this is a monumental effort, a Herculean effort, and I think over time, it will definitely increase our security.
ZAHN: Peter Brookes, Elaine Kamarck, we appreciate your joining us. Thank you for both of your perspectives.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired November 19, 2002 - 08:32 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
PAULA ZAHN, CNN ANCHOR: In the Senate today, a crucial test for the homeland security bill, with respect to all the side issues attached to the bill. Senator Arlen Specter called it a -- quote -- "legislative blackmail." But about the guts of the bill? Will a new Homeland Security Department make the country safer? To debate that, we're joined now from Washington by Peter Brookes of the Heritage Foundation, and from our Boston bureau this morning, Elaine Kamarck from the Kennedy School Government of Harvard.
Welcome to you both.
Elaine, I'm going to start with you this morning. If this bill passes, do you think Americans will be any safer than they are now?
ELAINE KAMARCK, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Only marginally. At the steps of this bill is a very good idea, an idea to create a border patrol agency, which frankly, has been around for 70 years. It was first proposed by Herbert Hoover in 1930. So that will, I think, help us at the borders.
But frankly, the bill doesn't address the really important elements of making us safer. It doesn't strengthen in FEMA so that we can respond quickly and effectively and so that local and state first responders can practice response to terrorist acts, and secondly, it doesn't do anything about the intelligence problems we have. It does not include, by the way, the FBI or the CIA, and it doesn't do anything about straightening out our intelligence gathering capacity so that we can prevent acts of terror. So it's only a marginal improvement in making us safer.
ZAHN: All right, Peter, let's let you attack that argument that Elaine just made. For starters, that it doesn't address the intelligence problems and the lack of cooperation between the CIA and FBI. Is Elaine right?
PETER BROOKES, HERITAGE FOUNDATION: That's not true. This will, over time, immensely increase our security, our homeland security. It's going to be a common command structure for all these 22 disparate agencies, and 170,000 U.S. government employees who are involved in homeland security. There are tremendous efforts here to increase coordination and cooperation, to integrate and consolidate, provide a unity of vision, a synergistic effect for all these people working together. This is like...
ZAHN: Peter, before you go any further, Elaine was making a specific point that the bill does not talk about the CIA and the FBI directly, nor does it address the issue of intelligence gathering. Talk about just that specific point.
BROOKES: Well, this is just the first step. There is going to be a significant intelligence fusion center within the Department of Homeland Security that will address it, that will take information that's gathered not only by the CIA and the FBI, but by other organizations out there, that will increase our security. So this fusion, bringing all source intelligence analysis within the department of Homeland Security focused on the borders and homeland security will increase.
Now the CIA has a mission that includes homeland security, but also oversees intelligence gathering. The FBI is involved in law enforcement, as well as homeland security.
So within the Department of Homeland Security, there is going to be a fusion center that will bring all of these disparate types of information together to ensure that our infrastructure and borders are secure.
ZAHN: Elaine, what about that, Peter making the point that ultimately the fusion center will address those issues. Do you buy that?
KAMARCK: Well, no, it won't address those issues, because the fusion center will not provide for the kind of horizontal communication that allows agents, as we saw last year, agents in Arizona, agents in Minnesota, to compare bits of data, and perhaps put together a more comprehensive picture of a threat than they were able to do before September 11th.
You know, this department was put together in response to the allegations and the things that came out last spring, and it was kind of thrown together. Ironically, it doesn't answer the challenges that were placed by the revelations we had last spring.
ZAHN: Peter, let me ask you this. What in the bill would make Americans any safer from a bioterror attack?
BROOKES: Well, there's going to be an institute. There's going to be special efforts regarding bioterrorism. The Department of Defense is going to have an institute that's going to address this specifically. It also -- there will be other authorities for the president to go ahead and produce vaccines. There will be encouragement for a research and development in these sort of areas. There is a whole directorate for science and technology that will look at defending against bioterrorism, anthrax and other things out there, so there are several places where it's going to increase our -- over time.
Remember this is a tremendous undertaking. But over time, it will increase our security on bioterrorism.
ZAHN: Elaine, what about that, that it will happen, but it will happen down the road, can't obviously happen immediately.
KAMARCK: That's true of a lot of the things dealing with homeland security.
But look, the essential problem here is missed by this bill. We need one agency in the United States government that -- the natural agency is FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency. We need one agency to have the authority to put together defensive plans in -- among state and local responders for defending Americans against a bioterror attack. That is not included in this bill. FEMA is dumped in this bill, but there is no enhancement of the powers of FEMA. And without that happening, you are not going to have the systematic preparation for a bioterror attack that in fact a lot of people say are needed in this country.
You know, the emphasis on sort of spending money and security et cetera is coming at the expense of the fire departments, the first responders, the emergency personnel, and the hospitals that will be thoroughly and completely overwhelmed at this point in time in the case of a bioterror attack, and that's where I think we really need to enhance FEMA.
ZAHN: Peter, you get the last word.
BROOKES: I don't think that's correct at all.
ZAHN: ... Americans are only marginally safer.
BROOKES: I think Americans will be increasingly safer. Just look at the Transportation Security Agency. Now we have inspectors at all the major airports. We have to inspect 750 million people a year that travel on our airlines.
In fact, in Atlanta, over the last couple of weeks, they caught three people that tried to enter planes with loaded guns. So this is a monumental effort, a Herculean effort, and I think over time, it will definitely increase our security.
ZAHN: Peter Brookes, Elaine Kamarck, we appreciate your joining us. Thank you for both of your perspectives.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
