Return to Transcripts main page

On the Story

Bush Introduces Homeland Security Plans; Are We Safer Than Nine Months Ago?; How Will 9-11 Affect Campaign 2002?

Aired June 08, 2002 - 10:00   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.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: This great country will lead the world to safety, security, peace and freedom.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

JONATHAN KARL, HOST: The president gets back in front of homeland security, as Congress keeps hammering away at the failure so far. We'll talk to the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Shelby, Republican of Alabama, about the investigation.

Our panel of experts will debate new powers for the feds, how new visa rules will single out Middle Easterners, and whether we're safer now than nine months ago.

Plus, the political fallout. How will 9/11 and the new security policies play out over campaign 2002 and beyond?

All just ahead on CNN's SATURDAY EDITION.

Good morning to California, the rest of the West and all our viewers across North America. I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington.

We want to hear from you over the next hour. Your questions about the president's new plan for homeland defense, Congress' investigation into pre-9/11 intelligence failures, and how safe are we nine months removed from the terrorist attacks. Our e-mail address is saturday.edition@cnn.com.

The vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Richard Shelby, is with us, but first this news alert.

(NEWSBREAK)

KARL: And we're just a couple of minutes away from the president's weekly president address, but first, joining us is the top Republican on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Senator Shelby, welcome to the show.

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R), ALABAMA: Well, thank you.

KARL: There's a report -- couple reports out now that the National Security Agency had intercepted communications from terrorists, or suspected terrorists, that named September 11 as the date for something big. Do you know about this?

SHELBY: I couldn't comment on it. I haven't seen that report. But nothing would surprise me, Jonathan, as events progress in our investigation.

The National Security Agency, overall, does a tremendous job. It collects a lot of information. What I have asked for years, how much of that information, first, is translated? Secondly, how much is analyzed? And more importantly, how much is disseminated to the policy makers?

KARL: Well, this report said that this was not translated -- it wasn't even translated until after September 11, so obviously it didn't do much good.

SHELBY: Well, if that were true, and I don't -- I cannot confirm that, but if that were true, it would show again that we need massive overhaul of our intelligence agencies, as a lot of us have been pushing for a long time.

KARL: OK, and I want to talk about your investigation. But first, the president's radio address is going to be about his new plan for this Department of Homeland Security. Do you think this will solve the kind of problems you've been uncovering?

SHELBY: I don't know that it will solve them. That will depend on what unfolds in the future. But I believe it will help a lot. As a matter of fact, Senator Graham and I met with Governor Ridge back in, I believe it was November or December. And part of the plan that the president has brought forth is some things that we recommended to Governor Ridge through our TAG group, that is the technical advisory group, some of the brainy people of the country that advises intelligence committees.

I think we have to have something better than what we do today. We've go to have somebody responsible, somebody that's going to take control, take control of the security of this country in the domestic way.

KARL: OK. But you've talked eloquently about the problems at the CIA and at the FBI. This plan doesn't touch the CIA, and leaves 97 percent of the FBI untouched. I mean, does that really do anything?

SHELBY: Well, I -- it does. It does a lot. But it's not a plan to supersede the work of the FBI and the CIA and the NSA and all the other agencies in the intelligence community.

What it is, it's a plan to bring together a lot of the agencies that have a piece of domestic security, plus sort of clearing house or a repository of any intelligence information that would come to the U.S. dealing with terrorists in this country or anything else.

KARL: But, I mean, clearly, if this was an intelligence failure, September 11 was an intelligence failure, there must be much more to do than simply talk about this restructuring of defense.

SHELBY: Well, I don't believe this is a proposal to just deal with the intelligence agencies per se. I believe this is a proposal to deal with domestic preparedness, and...

KARL: Virtually everything else but intelligence.

SHELBY: But what we're doing in our investigation -- and we're going to come up with some tough proposals dealing -- and recommendations -- to deal with our intelligence agencies. We're not there yet. The president is not there yet. But we're going to get there because it's very important.

KARL: OK. And the president's radio address is going to start right now. Let's listen.

SHELBY: Let's listen.

BUSH: Good morning.

Nearly nine months have passed since September the 11th, and America is leading the world in a titanic struggle against terror. The first and best way to secure America's homeland is to attack the enemy where he hides and plans, and we are doing just that.

We've also concluded that our government must be reorganized to deal most effectively with the new threats of the 21st century. So I have asked the Congress to join me in creating a single, permanent, Cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security with an overriding and urgent mission: securing the American homeland and protecting the American people.

The Department of Homeland Security will unite essential agencies that must work more closely together. Among them, the Coast Guard and the Border Patrol, the Customs Service, immigration officials, the Transportation Security Administration and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Employees of this new agency will come to work every morning knowing that their most important job is to protect their fellow citizens.

The Department of Homeland Security will be charged with four primary tasks: This new agency will control our borders and prevent terrorists and explosives from entering our country. It will work with state and local authorities to respond quickly and effectively to emergencies. It will bring together our best scientists to develop technologies that detect biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and to discover the drugs and treatments to best protect our citizens.

And this new department will review intelligence and law enforcement information from all agencies of government and produce a single, daily picture of threats against our homeland. Analysts will be responsible for imagining the worst and planning to counter it. What I'm proposing is the most extensive reorganization of the federal government since the 1940s. During his presidency, Harry Truman recognized that our nation's fragmented defenses had to be reorganized to win the Cold War. He proposed uniting our military forces under a single Department of Defense and creating the National Security Council to bring together defense, intelligence and diplomacy.

President Truman's reforms are still helping us to fight terror abroad, and now we need similar dramatic reforms to secure our people at home.

Only the United States Congress can create a new department of government, so I'm asking for your help in encouraging your representative to support my plan.

We face an urgent need, and we must move quickly, this year, before the end of the congressional session.

All in our government have learned a great deal since September the 11th, and we must act on every lesson. We are stronger and better prepared today than we were on that terrible morning. And with your help, and the support of the Congress, we will be stronger still.

Thank you for listening.

KARL: All right, the president's radio address, talking about his new plan, Senator Shelby, for a new Department of Homeland Security.

The Democratic response, which will come next hour I am told, will include Representative Dick Gephardt calling for Congress to pass this plan by September 11. Is that realistic?

SHELBY: I think we could do this -- this is very important -- if the Democrats and the Republicans work together. There might be some modifications to the plan, but I believe the thrust of it, the central part of it, should be enacted. I'll do everything I can to bring it about. That doesn't mean we won't change a few things for the better as we get into the details of it .

But I believe, Jonathan, this will give the homeland security director a lot of power. It is sweeping in nature. Up to now, Governor Ridge has been a man without -- a title, but without a lot of power to do a lot of things. And he's an able man. Perhaps he will be, ultimately, the Cabinet-level man.

KARL: Do you think he should be?

SHELBY: I do, but I think he has a lot of ability. He's toiled down there. He's caught a lot of hell over the last few months. But he had no power to do a lot of things. This will give him sweeping power, which he needs.

KARL: Including the power to testify before Congress and make some... SHELBY: Absolutely.

KARL: ... of your colleagues happy.

SHELBY: Well, me included on the Appropriations Committee. I think he should do that.

KARL: Yes. Well, that's interesting. We have to take a break, but we'll talk, when we get back, more about this, because President Truman's plan, which we just heard President Bush talk about, wasn't passed by Congress for two years. It took two years for Congress to get that done.

So we need to take a quick break. Still ahead, what's the political buzz about another powerful Republican senator switching parties? Our guest, Senator Shelby, knows the answer, as CNN's SATURDAY EDITION continues.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

COLEEN ROWLEY, FBI AGENT: ... when people make decisions, and it's basically so that I can get to the next level and not rock -- either it's not rock the boat or do what boss says without question. And either way that works, if you're making the decision to try to get to the next level but you're not making the decision for the real right reasons, that's a problem.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley telling the Senate Judiciary Committee this week about her views of the culture of the FBI.

We're continuing our conversation with the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Republican Richard Shelby of Alabama.

Well, there you saw Coleen Rowley talking to Judiciary, but it was just about her, kind of, analysis of the FBI's problems. She will be talking to you guys on the Intelligence Committee about the Moussaoui investigation.

SHELBY: She will, and it will be a closed hearing, at least to begin with, Jonathan. I think it's very important. I think she's a very smart, a very brave woman that's putting her country first, above anything. And I think we need more and more of those people.

And I think it points out that we've got great agents in the field. Look at Mr. Williams out in -- the FBI agent out in Phoenix that wrote the Phoenix memo, with his supervisor. Great agents. Then what happened in Minnesota, on top of things. And all their work was choked to death, stifled here in the bureaucracy of the FBI.

KARL: Your hearings have been closed. They started this week. They've been closed; they'll be closed again next week. I mean, what can you tell us, if anything, about where this investigation is going?

SHELBY: I think we're off to a good start, a lot better start than people ever dreamed that the joint investigative committee would do.

We have a great chief of staff for the investigative committee, Eleanor Healy (ph), somebody we needed all along, we weren't sure we could get her. She brings experience -- former prosecutor, former inspector general at the Department of Defense, associated with Senator Nunn for a long time. She's going to take this investigation, drive this investigation, with her staff, to do something for America that needs to be done.

KARL: I'd like you to listen to another exchange at that very same hearing, Judiciary Committee hearing, this between Robert Mueller, director of the FBI, and Joe Biden.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROBERT MUELLER, DIRECTOR OF THE FBI: But I do not believe that it is appropriate for me to, because of the coincidence of this hearing today, to get into discussions that the president may have had with regard to whatever he is going to announce tonight.

SEN. JOSEPH BIDEN (D), DELAWARE: I'm not even asking -- has he spoken to you about this?

MUELLER: Again, senator...

(LAUGHTER)

BIDEN: I think this is ridiculous.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Well, now, what's going on there is Biden and others were asking him, was the FBI director consulted about the president's new plan for this national security agency? They took away that he was not consulted, that he didn't even know about it.

SHELBY: I don't know if he was consulted or not. I'm not privy to that. But it will affect some of the workings of the FBI. It's affect a lot of the agencies. But whether he was consulted or not, you know, is up to the White House.

KARL: But there's a point here, though, because Mueller announced his own reorganization of the FBI just 10 days ago that included the National Infrastructure Protection Center being moved to another part of the FBI. Now, under this plan, it's totally taken away from the FBI. I mean, is this -- this seems, like, haphazard.

SHELBY: Not necessarily haphazard. The Congress will have to deliberate this, will have to push the plan, just as President Bush said on the radio just a few minutes ago. We will have a chance to look at it. But I believe the bottom line here is, can we streamline the home security agency, can we put power in there to try to prevent what happened on September 11 and even before then? And we've got a chance to do it right and do it. And I believe we will.

KARL: OK. A lot more to talk about on that, but we're running out of time. I want to ask you about this report yesterday in the Washington Times that you may switch parties.

SHELBY: Oh, that's the most...

KARL: Let's take a look at the specifics of this.

SHELBY: OK.

KARL: Here's one of the quotes. Quoting a Democratic aide, "He's fed up with Bush and the Republican bungling in the Senate," said one Democratic leadership staff member, who claims Democrats have met with Mr. Shelby to raise the possibility of his return to the Democratic Party.

SHELBY: Nothing could be farther from the truth. First of all, I'm a big Bush supporter. I'm working with the president on a lot of issues. As a matter of fact, I'm looking forward to going to Alabama with him some time in July for an event and perhaps a fund-raiser for our, hopefully he'll be the next governor of Alabama, Congressman Bob Reilly.

KARL: But have your old Democratic colleagues talked to you about switching?

SHELBY: Oh, no, not really. I mean, they talk to me -- I've got a lot of friends in both parties, and they say, "Gosh, we'd like to have you in our party." I say, "No, you really wouldn't, because I've got a home over here." It took me a long time to get here. My only regret was I didn't follow President Reagan in '81. And when he asked me to change parties, I should've done it then.

I am in the Republican Party. I support the president. I'm going to continue to work with the Republicans and build the party in my state and across the nation.

KARL: You're also a Republican who I've seen get a 100 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. I don't imagine you'd be too comfortable in the Democratic Party.

SHELBY: Well, I'm very proud to be a Republican. I wish I'd been one many, many years ago.

KARL: Senator Shelby, thank you very much for...

SHELBY: Thank you.

KARL: ... coming on a Saturday. Appreciate it.

Just ahead, targeting certain visitors to the United States for special scrutiny, and whether nine months and billions of dollars later, is the U.S. a safer place?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JOHN ASHCROFT, U.S. ATTORNEY GENERAL: On September the 11th, the American definition of national security changed, and changed forever. A band of men entered our country under false pretenses in order to plan and execute murderous acts of war.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: Attorney General John Ashcroft announcing a new plan this week to fingerprint and photograph U.S. visitors who are deemed to be security risks.

Joining us to talk about the implications of this, as well as other security measures imposed to respond to September 11 are two guests: In Boston, Juliette Kayyem. She heads the Domestic Preparedness Program at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government and was a member of the National Committee on Terrorism. And in Philadelphia, Daniel Pipes. He is the director of the Middle East Forum and the author of a new book due out this summer entitled "Militant Islam Reaches America."

Mr. Pipes, if I can start with you. Nine months later, are we safe or have we taken the steps needed to protect this country against terrorism?

DANIEL PIPES, DIRECTOR, MIDDLE EAST FORUM: We've taken a few steps, Jonathan, but not really serious ones. So basically, my answer would be no, not much has changed yet.

KARL: Not much has changed. Do you agree with that assessment?

JULIETTE KAYYEM, DOMESTIC PREPAREDNESS PROGRAM, HARVARD UNIVERSITY'S KENNEDY SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT: I think Professor Pipes is right in the sense that there's still much further to go in this regard, for a number of reasons. As we saw two days ago, we're not just beginning to recognize we have to totally restructure government to respond to the terrorist threat.

And there's little things that can be done that I think will go a long way. For example, the State Department, to date, still does not have the ability, the consular -- let me be specific here -- the consular offices abroad in other countries, you know, Germany, in Africa, wherever else, still do not have the ability to check intelligence information from the CIA, the FBI or the Coast Guard or Department of Defense to determine whether the person standing before them should actually get a visa to come into this country. That seems to me like a simple fix that would go a long way to ensure that terrorists don't enter this country.

KARL: OK, well, we saw this proposal from the Justice Department. The INS will now fingerprint and photograph visa holders who are from countries that are known to sponsor or support terrorism. Ms. Kayyem, what do you make of this plan?

KAYYEM: Well, nine months since this war began, I'm very wary of procedures that give the illusion of security which won't work.

First of all, let's be clear here, as the INS admitted the day after John Ashcroft announced this, they are years behind in the present fingerprint assessing that they have. So even if we put this into place tomorrow, we're talking a couple of years ahead.

Secondly, I don't actually know what it would do to stop terrorists. Let's assume I'm Mohammed Atta number two. I come into this country because for some reason I've gotten a visa because the State Department doesn't know that I'm a risk. I come into this country, and so you take my fingerprints and you take my picture. Not quite sure what we do with that. Mohammed Atta, when he was in this country, did nothing wrong. That's the scary part of these terrorists, is that they actually are, in some ways, lawful immigrants until the very moment of their terrorist attacks.

So I think this is completely an illusion of security at the expense, of course, of particularly community -- Arabs and Muslims -- and, I think, at the expense of really looking hard at our immigration policy and, in particular, the INS and what they're doing.

KARL: And Mr. Pipes, shouldn't we call these what it is? I mean, this is specifically fingerprinting people who come from that list of countries that we believe sponsor terrorism or pose a terrorist risk. This is racial profiling, is it not?

PIPES: We should be very clear that the problem that we're dealing with, as Lou Dobbs on CNN pointed out just three days ago, is not terror, it's militant Islam. And we need to go after those people who are supporters of militant Islam.

Now, they can come from any nationality. They can be either gender. But unfortunately, the fact is, it's a delicate and difficult fact to deal with, but they will all be Muslims.

Now, not all Muslims will be supporters of militant Islam, but all supporters of militant Islam will be Muslims. There is no choice...

KARL: So in this case...

PIPES: ... but to focus in on Muslim populations.

KARL: So, in this case, you're saying maybe not racial profiling, but religious profiling is justified because we think a threat will come from Muslims.

PIPES: Well, I prefer not to use the word "profiling" because it has all sorts of connotations, but the police...

KARL: But that's what it is, right? PIPES: No, it's not. Look, when there's been a report there's been a burglary and it's a tall, say, dark haired man, the police are not looking for short, light-haired women. You know, there's a certain logic to it.

Well, similarly here, we know who has carried off incident after incident for about 20 years against Americans -- murder after murder, I should say, killing by now nearly 4,000 people. We have to go after the suspected perpetrators, not the whole population.

KAYYEM: You know, in this regard, I will agree with Daniel Pipes. I mean, you can't -- you actually can't deny the fact that the 19 hijackers were all from a particular area of the world and all believed in a perverse version of a religion.

That tells me nothing in terms of how to stop the next attack. And I think what we're learning is, these sort of broad statements to interview particular immigrants from Islam or specific countries, the detention, at one stage I think, close to 2,000 immigrants, the continuing questioning and deportation, have got us nothing.

And I, like Daniel Pipes, want to get these guys. So let's talk about the serious and specific procedures that we can use to go after and to curtail the threat of terrorism.

This particular fingerprinting, it's a distraction, and it comes at a tremendous cost, not simply to the Arab and Muslim communities, but certainly to the INS, which seems to have enough to do and not doing it so well at times.

But there was a reason why the State Department opposed this. This is going to have international implications which I think hurt our overall war on terrorism.

KARL: OK, we'll pick it up there. We do need to take a quick break.

Debating homeland security measures, our guests will take your questions, plus a check of the hour's top stories when we come back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: An important source of information about the news of the day, the war on terrorism and the investigation on terrorism can be found online at CNN.com or AOL keyword CNN.

It's time to check the hour's top stories. Here's Kyra Phillips in Atlanta with a news alert.

(NEWSBREAK)

KARL: And we're back to our show. We're talking about homeland security with Juliette Kayyem, who heads the Domestic Preparedness Center at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, and Daniel Pipes, the director of the Middle East Forum.

Mr. Pipes, I would like to go to something you wrote not too long ago and ask if you still feel the same way.

You wrote, "The U.S. government won't name militant Islam as the enemy, but hides behind the euphemism of terrorism. The CIA and FBI remain largely unchanged. Airline security is a sham. As the sense of vulnerability and resolve of seven months ago dissipates, North Americans are returning to business as usual."

You wrote that on May 1, before the president made his latest proposal for a national security department. Do you still believe that, or do you believe this was a major development this week coming from the White House?

PIPES: I'm afraid I still do believe it, Jonathan. I don't think that reorganization of government is the key. I think what we have to understand that is, in addition to a military conflict and a counterterrorism conflict, this is also an ideological conflict. It's a conflict of ideas.

What the 19 suicide hijackers and people like them represent is a body of ideas. These are not just simple criminals. They're people who are devoted to militant Islam, and we have to combat militant Islam.

My one sense, aphorism, is militant is the problem; moderate Islam is a solution. And until the U.S. tackling with these issues, I think we're basically adrift.

KARL: But how? I'm unclear. So what would the president do? Come out and give an Oval Office address announcing militant Islam is the enemy? What should he do?

PIPES: Well, once you understand -- look, in World War II we understood that beyond Germany, Italy and Japan, there was fascism. In the Cold War we understood that beyond the Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, Cuba there was communism. There was a set of ideas that we had to do battle with. Same thing here.

It creates all sorts of changes in the way we approach homeland security. Our diplomacy, our military efforts, our counterterrorists efforts, everything is changed once you take away this simple notion of terrorism or this abstract notion of terrorism, I should say, and replace it with the much more accurate one of extremist Islam.

KARL: Ms. Kayyem?

KAYYEM: I think Professor Pipes is sort of conflating sort of two separate issues. There is of course the root causes problem, which is why are there populations within the world that hate America and men and women willing to die to harm American citizens? So that's one separate issue.

The other issue, of course, is, how do we prepare Americans and American society for the immediate threat of that violence? You can call it whatever it is, but if you're sitting in the World Trade Center, it doesn't matter if it's called terrorism or militant Islam, it is violence. And so to the second part, how do you protect Americans, I think what happened this week is a good first step. For those of us on the outside of government, it's still kind of unclear what exactly is going to happen, so I think a lot of us are looking forward to the congressional hearings.

I think there is a problem that it did not address some of the FBI-CIA issues, which were clearly at the root of sort of why we were unable to sort of link the dots as regard September 11. And I think you'll hear a lot more about that.

But I think it was sort of a tremendous first step, but let's see. You know, the next couple of months are going to be very interesting for those of us in this field in terms of not just the bureaucratic fighting but, actually, you know, sort of the mission of this new department.

KARL: OK, and then quickly, the president is saying no budget increase, no new employees, just a reshuffling of agencies and restructuring. Can this be done without new resources -- to both of you, Ms. Kayyem first?

KAYYEM: Well, my concern -- I think it could be simplistically if you move the right numbers around. Anyone who has had to deal with a big budget knows that that's relatively easy. But I don't think that that should be our main concern.

Look, we need a domestic preparedness program that has priorities, and if it costs more, let's talk about that and let's debate that.

My concern is...

KARL: Mr. Pipes?

PIPES: Let me just take issue with the point that militant Islam won't help domestic security. Let me give you the example of airline security. So long as we're looking for terrorists at large, everybody is being searched randomly. But once we have an understanding of who the enemy is, once it's properly accepted by the Department of Transportation, then we can start focusing on the few people who are really a danger. So I think it really does have specific applicability.

KARL: So you start asking people at the airport if they're Muslim?

PIPES: Well, no, you don't ask that. You ask who you are, where you're going from, where you're going, why you're going. And you're looking for potential suspects. You use your brains, you use your experience, you use your intelligence.

KARL: OK, we are out of time. I want to thank you both for joining us...

KAYYEM: Thank you. KARL: ... on SATURDAY EDITION.

And straight ahead, editorial cartoons and how terrorism, homeland defense and wrangling over intelligence failures may play at the ballot box. Two congressmen take the country's pulse.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: Intelligence goofs and plans to correct them spilled over to this week's political cartoons.

Corky Trinidad of the Honolulu Star-Bulletin shows a figure labeled "J. Edgar Ashcroft" in bed with a terrified couple. The caption reads, "I guess it's all right. He says it's only while there's a war on."

Michael Ramirez of the Los Angeles Times shows the three pillars of homeland defense -- the INS, the FBI and the CIA. But they're posed as "see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil."

And Darryl Kagel (ph) of Slate.com has a box of detergent labeled "Cleaned-up FBI," boasting it's "new and improved, now works with CIA and gets out those stubborn evil-doers."

How does the cleaned-up FBI play in Peoria -- or, more specifically, in Memphis, Tennessee, and Allentown, Pennsylvania, from where our next two guests join us? Congressman Harold Ford, Democrat of Tennessee, who we are having technical difficulties, so he will be joining us by telephone. And Congressman Pat Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania.

Congressman Toomey, I want to start with you. The president is proposing yet another federal department, Cabinet-level department. I don't know where the building is that's going to house all of these employees. Conservatives like you usually don't like the idea of creating new departments. What do you think of this one?

REP. PAT TOOMEY (R), PENNSYLVANIA: Well, we don't like the idea of the government taking on whole new missions which are not appropriate to the federal government, but this isn't about that.

I think, as we have seen, this is about creating one agency that has the sole mission of homeland security. And that means tying together a whole lot of individuals, a whole lot of different groups from other agencies and other departments, bringing them under one roof where they can share information, work together in a coordinated fashion, and deliver that one vital mission of homeland security. I, for one, support this idea.

KARL: All right, Harold Ford, you're down there via telephone in Memphis, where of course Mike Tyson has got his fight tonight. But the president has promised us -- promised conservatives on Capitol Hill tat this will not increase spending, and Trent Lott even says that maybe you can do this with fewer employees and less spending.

Is that realistic, or do we need more resources for homeland defense?

REP. HAROLD FORD (D), TENNESSEE: I don't know. It's hard to say at this point. The president delivered what I thought was a pretty moving response the other evening on television. At this point, it's unclear as to how much this will cost and, frankly, the levels of bureaucracy that will actually add to the process.

I'm a believer that, in addition to this, we probably still need an independent commission to take a look at some of these issues and even report back to what I guess we will soon call Secretary Ridge and the number of bureaucracies and the number of organizations underneath him.

In an effort, I guess, to really streamline the process, in some ways we've added more burdens in many ways to this new agency. And I, like Pat, am very supportive of this, but I want to hear more details and see exactly how this is going to work, and I hope the president is able to do that.

KARL: And Congressman Toomey, you've seen Democrats like Robert Byrd in the Senate talk about the need to spend massively on homeland defense, new money. Do you really think the Democrats are going to let this work its way through Congress without adding in, you know, more resources, more employees?

TOOMEY: You know, frankly, I don't think that the total level of spending should be the driving consideration here. Homeland security is such a vital goal, such an important, fundamental responsibility of the federal government -- frankly, we've got to spend whatever it takes. And that's coming from one of the most fiscally conservative members of Congress, myself.

Having said that, we have dramatically increased funding for homeland security already. We may need to increase funding further, although there will be efficiencies to be had and redundancies that can be eliminated when we bring all these different folks under one roof.

I think the real danger that we've got to avoid is people using this as an opportunity to engage in wasteful spending that really has nothing to do with homeland security, but rather they see it as an opportunity to shepherd in funding for their favorite project. I think that's what we need to be conscious of and alert to and resistant to.

FORD: You know, even bringing it under one roof, Jonathan and Pat, the challenge still exists within those different agencies to even make its bureaucracy work better. I mean, bringing the CIA and the FBI and all these other agencies, the INS, under one roof frankly doesn't necessarily bring us to the conclusion or bring us to the point where I think all of us want to be, which is ensuring information, wherever it may come from, finds its way to the appropriate agency.

As much as I applaud Director Mueller, I'm particularly interested in what Coleen Rowley and others have indicated, the FBI agent from the district office, who, frankly, put forth that memo explaining some of the concerns she had about the way the bureaucracy works, I think that's the real question we've got to get to. And the answers that come from that, meaning how you ensure that those agencies work better, even being under one roof, how you make those agencies work better I think will provide the level of security and the level of comfort that the president wanted the other night, and frankly, the American people want.

TOOMEY: Well, certainly, that's the challenge. And I agree with Harold, putting them all together isn't a magic wand that solves all problems. But certainly, when the INS and FEMA and Coast Guard and all of those other folks are all reporting to the same boss, it creates a new opportunity for a new culture.

FORD: No doubt about it. No doubt about it. I would agree.

(CROSSTALK)

KARL: We have got to take a quick break, if you would hold with us for just a minute.

What are the political signals to look for in the coming months? Congressmen Toomey and Ford will take your questions when CNN's SATURDAY EDITION returns.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

SEN. CHARLES SCHUMER (D), NEW YORK: I give the president on fighting the war on terrorism overseas an A-plus. But on fighting domestic, the war on terrorism here domestically, he has not done the job.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

KARL: A mixed assessment from New York's senior Democratic senator, Charles Schumer, on how the war on terrorism is being waged.

We're talking about the post-September 11 developments and how they are playing out in campaign 2002 with two members of Congress running for re-election, Democrat Harold Ford of Tennessee and Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Congressman Ford, to you first, has the president done -- in a stroke of political genius here, switched the subject, so between now and the election, you guys are all going to be talking about homeland defense, which is an issue that voters give Republicans pretty high marks on.

FORD: I hope that that's not what motivated the president. I would hope that what's motivating the president here is actually homeland defense and providing...

KARL: OK, but motivations aside, as a practical matter, doesn't this help Republicans? FORD: I don't know. I mean, I hope it helps all of us. I'm not -- my support for him or lack of support for him or what he's attempting to do has little to do with that at this point.

I will say, I do know that there have been many that have been suggesting this. As a matter of fact, one of my Republican colleagues and Pat's friend and my friend, Mac Thornberry, suggested a year ago that we look at -- including Joe Lieberman, but Mac Thornberry did a year ago or over a year ago -- suggested that we create an agency that would consolidate many of the responsibilities that we're now seeing being consolidated in this agency here.

So I don't know who it may favor. And again, I just hope the president is not motivated to do this solely or even partly by the shift -- an effort to shift the debate in favor of Republicans here. This is a serious issue, and I would imagine, I would hope he and Rove and others at the White House would not do it for this purpose.

KARL: Congressman Toomey?

TOOMEY: I don't think there's a chance that it was done out of the political motivation. And if you're cynical enough to think that it was, then this wouldn't be very good timing. We're still five months away from an election, and this issue will be just one of many at that time.

You know, I think you make a big mistake if anyone underestimates the collective wisdom of the American electorate. What they expect is that on issues that should not have a partisan component, like homeland security, like the defense of our nation, they expect us to be working together and to be cooperating.

But on other issues, they recognize that we have very different ideologies. We have different views about appropriate level of federal spending, and taxes, and budgetary and economic issues. On those, they expect us to disagree, and they'll be evaluating us more on the areas that we disagree than on the areas where we come together.

KARL: OK, I have a couple of quick stack of e-mails I want to get through. First one, "Why doesn't homeland security fall under the Department of Defense?" That comes from Sally in Florida.

Why don't you take that, Congressman Ford.

FORD: Interesting question. You know, this is a new phenomenon, a new challenge for us in many ways. And it might be appropriate to look at the Department of Defense and see if indeed it can handle this sort of increased or added responsibility level. But what the president's proposing, again, I think is a good idea.

I'm just interested in knowing the agencies that we're going to consolidate, how will they change? How will those cultures change to ensure that they're able to fight crime and prevent crime and terrorist activity better than we've been able to prevent before September 11? KARL: OK. Another e-mail, this one from Robert in Massachusetts. "What is the role of Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, in all of this?"

Pat Toomey?

TOOMEY: Well, the national adviser is, you know, advising the president on a whole variety of security issues, many of which arise overseas, and that's really distinct from the mission of the homeland security.

You know, the reason I don't think it should be part of the Defense Department is because the mission of the Defense Department is to go out and fight and win wars, whereas the mission of the homeland security folks is going to be to protect Americans within our borders.

We're an unusual nation, to the extent that our borders themselves historically have been extremely secure and most of our nation's wars have been fought elsewhere. That's why homeland security is a unique function. Condoleezza Rice will continue to distill this enormous amount of information and intelligence that comes, primarily from overseas, and advise the president accordingly.

KARL: Do either of you have suggestions for who the new secretary of the Department of Homeland Security should be?

TOOMEY: Well, I'm biased. As a Pennsylvanian, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for my former governor, Tom Ridge, with whom I enjoy working, have done so. I think he's done an outstanding job in trying to guide this homeland security effort, and I think he would be a logical choice, but that's not to say there aren't others.

KARL: Harold Ford?

FORD: You know, as Pennsylvanians go, I like Pat Toomey. Tom Ridge -- whomever gets this nod, will need the authority and the confidence of the president and will need the ability to come before the Congress and express his or her ideas and, frankly, where the money is going to be spent.

I know I can speak from Tennessee's perspective and Memphis' perspective. You mentioned the fight, that Tyson-Lewis fight is here this evening. Our Tennessee task force, as well as our Tennessee homeland security director, has had little -- or I should say Tennessee task force and our first responders here have had little response or little interaction with our Tennessee homeland security chief. And I would hope that whomever the new chief is, he or she is able to communicate better with the local authorities across the nation, including Pennsylvania.

KARL: OK. Who are you betting on? I'm out of time, but who are you betting on, Harold Ford?

FORD: I'm not betting -- I wish you were down here, Jonathan Karl. I'll tell you, it would make it a lot easier for us, but it should be a great fight. Memphis loves it. TOOMEY: I just hope Mike Tyson is well fed before going into the fight.

(LAUGHTER)

KARL: All right, I want to thank you both. We'll see you (UNINTELLIGIBLE) next week. Take care.

When we come back, "My Turn." What do bees and coral reefs have to do with fighting terrorism?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

KARL: In the dead of the night on Thursday, the Senate passed a $31 billion emergency anti-terrorism bill.

There's nothing wrong with spending what it takes to keep America safe, but here's the outrageous part: The bill, which spends $4 billion more than the president asked for, is packed with spending that has absolutely nothing to do with the war. Items like $5 million to help farmers set up roadside produce stores, $2.5 million to map the coral reefs in Hawaii, $60 million for fishermen in New England.

This is an old Washington game. Politicians using emergency spending bills to sneak in money for pet projects. But with the nation at war and the budget falling deeper and deeper into the red, this smacks of wartime profiteering.

During previous wars, Americans were asked to sacrifice, and domestic spending actually went down. The same thing should happen this time, not the obscene explosion in domestic spending we are now witnessing on Capitol Hill.

Thank you for watching CNN's SATURDAY EDITION. I'm Jonathan Karl in Washington. Up next, a news alert, and "PEOPLE IN THE NEWS" profiles Michael Skakel and Britain's royal family.

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