7 June 2002. Description of the Department of Homeland Security:

http://cryptome.sabotage.org/home-sec.htm

6 June 2002
Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=02060603.plt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml


US Department of State
International Information Programs

Washington File
_________________________________

06 June 2002

Homeland Security Agency Designed to Enhance Intelligence Efforts

(Senior official discusses proposed cabinet agency) (5940)

President Bush is proposing a terrorist-fighting, cabinet-level
Department of Homeland Security that contains four key elements
ranging from border and transportation security to intelligence
analysis and emergency response, a senior administration official
says.

It brings together more than 170,000 current federal employees in a
new department that will have an initial budget of $37,400 million,
the senior official said June 6 at a special White House background
briefing.

"We have multiple agencies who are in the process of gathering
information, much of which relates potentially to domestic terrorism,"
he said. "But we don't have a central venue where it's all fused for
analytical purposes."

The new department will be tasked to carry out that mission, he said.
And the department is an outgrowth of President Bush's directive to
develop a comprehensive national strategy for dealing with homeland
security, he said.

The process of designing that strategy, he said, involves "outreach
not only to the federal agencies and federal government, but to state
and local government, [and] to the private sector."

Following is the transcript of the background briefing:

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 6, 2002

PRESS BRIEFING BY A SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL
ON PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT ON HOMELAND SECURITY

The James S. Brady Briefing Room

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, good afternoon. I'm pleased to
have the opportunity to spend some time with you this afternoon,
providing some texture and some information prior to the President's
address to the country this evening.

Months and months before the President created the Office of Homeland
Security he directed the Vice President of the United States to begin
the task of taking a look at the current structure of the federal
government and the means at the disposal of this administration to
deal with the possibility of terrorist attacks. I think by direction,
that was on May 8th [of 2001].

As a part of that discussion he assembled a small staff and they began
to take a look at the whole range of issues that we've all, both
publicly and privately, discussed since September 11th. But there was
this effort within the administration prior to September 11th to deal
with the possibility of a terrorist attack, and deal with the many
forms of possibility that terrorists can use to terrorize and
undermine the country.

I think the Vice President basically briefed you, perhaps even here on
September 20th, prior to the President's speech that night, and
announced the creation of an Office of Homeland Security, and
indicated that the President would identify the Governor of
Pennsylvania as moving into that new position.

The directive, that I'm sure many of you have read, to the Office of
Homeland Security was to design and then implement a comprehensive
national strategy dealing with homeland security. The process of
designing that strategy is involved in outreach not only to the
federal agencies and the federal government, but to state and local
government, to the private sector, to discussions I've had with
Senators Hart and Rudman, and Governor Gilmore in reviewing what a lot
of the experts who had talked about the need to be better prepared for
a terrorist attack had written in previous months and years -- in
consultation. In other words, you're right, I wasn't up there
testifying, but I had a lot of good conversations with members of the
House and the Senate, frankly, about individual pieces of the package
that the President is going to talk about.

I mean, I could talk to Senators Graham and Senator Shelby and
Congresswoman Harman and Porter Goss and Burton and others, and talk
about information fusion and analysis. I could talk to Senator Stevens
and Senator Byrd and others about the role of FEMA [Federal Emergency
Management Agency]. And the list goes on and on. So during the course
of our conversations with members of the House and the Senate, we got
a feel for how they felt about reorganizing government, where they
thought the priorities were, and how we could best affect together a
change in the organization of government to meet the challenge of
dealing with a permanent, enduring vulnerability, and that is of
terrorism.

We've always operated that it's a permanent condition. And the
President has said over and over again, his job, his primary mission
is to protect and defend America, its citizens, and our way of life.

As you recall, on October 8th, we were -- I was sworn in, and within a
day or two I believe we had a meeting -- the President convened a
meeting with congressional leaders. It was at that time, as we were
asking the congressional leaders to wait, to give us a change to build
a staff, do the analytical work we thought was necessary in order to
advance a national strategy to the President, that we indicated to the
congressional leadership that reorganizing government was an option
that the President wanted us to take a look at internally with the
Office of Homeland Security.

The process of the culmination of those discussions, that consultation
and outreach, both the public and private sector, lends itself to the
President's remarks tonight where he calls for the creation of a
Department of Homeland Security. I think some of you may have received
some information, but I'd like to just distill it down into four basic
components, if I might.

There is no -- presently within the federal government, there is no
central venue where information from all the sources available to the
federal government can be fused and analyzed. The CIA [Central
Intelligence Agency] does their own analysis, the FBI [Federal Bureau
of Investigation]does their analysis, but you've got the DEA [Drug
Enforcement Agency], the NSA [National Security Agency], Customs, INS
[Immigration and Naturalization Service]. We have multiple agencies
who are in the process of gathering information, much of which relates
potentially to domestic terrorism. But we don't have a central venue
where it's all fused for analytical purposes.

One of the four components of the new Department of Homeland Security
will be an information analysis and critical infrastructure
protection, where we have the analytical capability coupled with a
vulnerability assessment, coupled with the responsibility within that
department, depending on the threat, depending on the vulnerability
then to give prescriptive direction to either the federal government,
the federal agency, the local government, whatever, to adopt certain
measures depending upon the vulnerability, depending on the threat.

It's a seamless effort to do an analysis in the same area where we --
in the same component that has done the vulnerability assessment, and
depending on the analysis, to give specific direction as to what
things need to be done. It's not operational, in the sense that nobody
is controlling satellites, nobody's hiring spies, nobody's doing any
of that. It's an analytical function. Some place where all -- as many
pieces of the puzzle can be turned up. It's about managing the
knowledge and the information we have in this country in a different
way, in a 21st-century way.

The second component has to do with providing strategic direction on
behalf of the federal government to deal with weapons of mass
destruction, radiological, nuclear, biological and chemical. And
you'll see from the information that we're going to look to the
Livermore Laboratory and have that become a center of excellence to
help us deal with the development of technology. We will look to other
public and private research institutions to direct research based on
threats, based on vulnerabilities.

But we need within -- the President has concluded that there needs to
be someplace within the executive branch of government to give a
strategic vision to the research and development that has an impact on
either detection, protection or response to a weapon of mass
destruction. So, from time to time, these dollars will come [through]
the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, and they will
direct them to the NIH [National Institutes of Health], the CDC
[Center for Disease Control], to Lawrence Livermore, to Sandia,
whatever. But strategic direction to much of the research that
heretofore has been done, but more on an ad hoc basis, not with an eye
toward addressing specific needs based on specific potential threats.

The third you've written and reported about with some interest is
border consolidation. The INS, Customs, Coast Guard will be included
in that consolidation. But there's another element that is included in
there, as well, and that's the new Transportation Security Agency. We
will unify the agencies responsible for our borders.

Again, very consistent with the President's belief that you enhance
your ability to protect America if there's a clear chain of command,
and if you match authority and responsibility with accountability. So
you're going to have the INS, you're going to have the Coast Guard and
you're going to have Customs. You're going to have the Transportation
Security Administration; you're going to have the Border Patrol;
you're going to have the animal and plant health inspection, a little
piece of the Department of Agriculture that -- and we couple it with
the Department of Transportation.

And then finally, as you know, FEMA operates as an independent agency,
but it will now become the fourth critical component of the new
Department of Homeland Security. It has core competencies that lend
themselves to working with state and local governments to deal with
disasters -- historically ,to deal with either manmade disasters or
accidentally caused by arson or what have you, or natural disasters
precipitated by Mother Nature. So they've got the core capacity, they
have the relationships. Now they become the agency that has primary
responsibility to deal with all hazard response: preparedness,
response, and recovery.

Interesting, had a couple conversations earlier today. I had 50-some
people on a conference call that included governors and homeland
security advisors, and we had another conference call where we talked
to some mayors and others around the country. And we've been dealing
with them on a very -- on a regular basis for the past eight months.
And to give you an example of how practically I think -- and I believe
they'd be very supportive -- at least they certainly sounded that way
when I talked to them. It depends, I guess, on the details. But right
now, there are five or six agencies that have grant programs that the
cities and the states can apply for, in order to get federal financial
assistance to deal with preparedness and response and recovery.

We think -- the President believes that we ought to have a one-stop
shop; that if it is a national plan, then we need to integrate the
states and the federal governments, and we need to make it easier for
them to access federal dollars. And our return response to them is, we
want to issue those dollars. Those dollars should be delivered based
on a statewide plan.

So those are the four basic components. A couple final thoughts, and
then I'd be happy to respond to some questions I'm sure that you all
have.

This is -- the Office of Homeland Security has always operated that
the condition with which we are confronted is a permanent condition.
It is an enduring vulnerability. And I guess the question the
President asked of us on October 8th was, are we organized as a
government to maximize our ability to detect, prevent and respond to a
terrorist attack? That's part of the mission implicit in his executive
order.

We'll never be able to eliminate surprise, ladies and gentlemen. This
very complex world, when you've got thousands and thousands of
terrorists, and cells all over the world, so I can't guarantee you
that we can eliminate surprise. But I can say that is our belief,
certainly the President's belief, that if we rethink the structure of
government, and align authority with accountability, and create one
agency whose primary mission is homeland security, while we may not be
able to say that for all times we've been able to avoid a surprise
attack, we can say that we've made a dramatic improvement in our
ability to protect and defend the interests of this country, its
citizens, and our way of life.

I think in times of crisis, we ask our leaders to do big things, to
respond to the crisis. The President is providing that leadership
tonight by asking the Congress of the United States to do a big thing.
Look, I spent 12 years up there. You and I both know that when you
start putting these agencies and departments together, a lot of men
and women up there spend a lot of time waiting to become committee
chairmen who have responsibilities over some of these things. I mean,
this is going to cause -- this is a real challenge for Congress, and
we say that in a very respectful way, because we're asking them to
rethink the kind of partnership relationship they have with the
homeland security function. And I'm convinced that if we couple
congressional leadership with presidential leadership, we'll do a
great thing for America, and be better prepared to defend ourselves
against future terrorist activity.

Q: Can I ask you a couple of different scenarios, and how do you
explain how, with this new agency, things would be different? The
first is, lets say a CIA agent picks up something overseas that
there's going to be a chemical attack, a terrorist attack in Omaha,
Nebraska. The second scenario would be, that actually happens in
Omaha, Nebraska. How does this agency deal with those two prospects
different from how the order of the world is now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: If -- the whole question of
intelligence analysis and dissemination of information calling for
action is one of the most complicated we have in this country. It's
one of the toughest jobs that anybody has in the executive branch, in
order to identify and sort out between rumors, speculation,
misinformation and actual fact that gets you to where you want to go.
And so without commenting on the specific hypothetical that you
propose, under any set of circumstances, I think if you have a central
clearinghouse turning up pieces of the puzzle -- because it's never
that direct, at least in my eight months of experience -- we will be
in a better position to deal with that information in a way, and give
the kind of advice we want to give to the people of Nebraska or
anyplace else.

Clearly, there may be -- and I'll conclude with this -- there may be
times when the credibility is so strong, the information is so
precise, and the direction is so clear, but by and large, just trying
to disseminate through rumor, misstatement, misinformation and some
fact -- it's in tiny little pieces, sometimes it's discrete, sometimes
it's not -- in order to give some direction.

Q: What about the second scenario, where it actually happens, so it's
more of a response function? How would this agency deal with that
differently than the existing agencies?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Again, this Department -- again, we
still have to work with Congress to get it done. But if FEMA is the
agency that's given the responsibility to help that state and that
community prepare, you'd have a consolidation of all the federal
dollars coming in through one agency, rather than five or six. You
would have FEMA working with them on building up a capacity to
respond. Depending on the nature of the capacity, if it was a
biochemical attack, under this, we're going to bring some of those
resources that -- the National Pharmaceutical Stockpile, that will be
under the control, not under HHS, but under the control of this
department or agency.

So, again, you will have under the control of one Secretary and one
agency, the ability to help communities prepare to respond to the
attack, as well as the resources available to help them if an attack
occurs.

Q: The last point that you made in your opening address, some 88
committees and subcommittees on the Hill now have jurisdiction for
homeland security -- have you made a calculation as to how far that
will be whittled down? And I have a second question.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Sure. We respect the fact that the
committee organization has developed over the decades, in response
particularly to challenges that Congress has had and tried to respond
to. And we don't presuppose to give them direction as to how to deal
with the challenge of reorganizing in order to respond to -- to
determine what their response is to a new approach to protecting
America. That's up to them --

Q:  -- come down to the low double digits?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I have no idea. Let them decide how
they reorganize themselves, if they choose to do so. That's strictly
their prerogative.

Q: -- making a wild assumption here that you just might be the nominee
for Secretary. The President has said repeatedly that he was very
comfortable and wanted to keep you as a confidential counselor, very
much in the same way as Dr. Rice is, and that he wasn't particularly
comfortable with you up on the Hill before congressional hearings
talking about homeland security. Why is he suddenly comfortable with
that whole idea now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I will have a lot to say to Congress
in the time ahead. We'll just -- all I'll tell you is that the
President has never done anything other than protect what he believed
to be a very important constitutional principle. And that is, the
President of the United States should have -- is entitled to have --
and he's not only protecting his prerogative, but future Presidents'
prerogative -- people around him that are accountable to him --
accessible to Congress, but accountable to him; not subject to the
call of one of the 88 committees or subcommittees.

So I think the President's resistance to the notion of testifying is
based on preserving not only himself, but for future Presidents the
constitutional prerogative to have advisors.

Q: Is that a suggestion then that he saw the need for the creation of
a Department of Homeland Security superseded his needed to keep you as
a confidential advisor?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think you raise a very, very good
point, because it is my belief as part of the examination of the
current structure that this President and future Presidents will be
well-served if they entertain the idea of having an Assistant to the
President for Homeland Security remain in the White House, because
you're still going to be interacting with the Department of Defense
from time to time, with the intelligence community, with the
Department of the Interior, with the Department of Justice. So it is
not inconsistent to have a Cabinet-level department whose primary
mission -- primary mission is to protect and defend America from
terrorist attack and have a homeland security advisor.

Q:  Are you a candidate for that job?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I'm the Homeland Security Advisor
right now. I've got one job and I can only do one at a time.

Q: All these disparate parts of the government which will come under
the jurisdiction of this government right now don't have compatible
systems, administratively, IT [information technology], or otherwise.
What kind of time frame are you looking like at -- I mean, they aren't
even geographically located together -- what is that going to be like,
and what will it do to the budget, which right now the White House is
saying will remain neutral?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: But they all have IT budgets. You
raise a very good point. I mean, one of the -- it is our hope -- let
me back up -- that as we send specific legislation to the Hill that
this new Cabinet secretary and the men and women with whom he or she
works in order to protect America will be given the freedom to manage
-- i.e., we'd like to see some flexibility built in here, number one,
so that they can move people and resources around in times of crisis
or emergency. I think that's critical.

Number two, one of the advantages of having one department is that the
question of whether or not INS, Customs, Coast Guard and TSA
[Transportation Security Agency] have one or more different platforms,
computers, software, is resolved by the secretary. And I think you can
avoid conflict and bring a lot more efficiency to the deployment of
technology this way. You don't have to coordinate it, you can man it
and it's done.

Q: I have two questions. Number one, the fusion of intelligence -- was
that always part of the original proposal or was it really influenced
by the disclosures over the past several weeks, over the FBI and CIA
communicating properly?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: One of the opportunities the President
gave to me with such a wide portfolio of -- gave me a chance to take a
look at all of government through the lens of security was to interact
with former members of the intelligence community, with members of
Congress. I mean, I've had various interesting conversations with
Senator Shelby and Senator Graham and Porter Goss and others. I've
talked to former members of the CIA, I've talked to [former national
security adviser] General Brent Scowcroft. We've talked to a lot of
people out there about intelligence fusion and analysis. And at a
fairly early date, it was pretty apparent that while we had the
ability to capture a lot of information, to be able to manage that
information and use it more effectively would be -- should be a
21st-century way of dealing with a new threat.

Q: Before the disclosures came to light over the past -- it was well
before that, you're saying?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I can reference -- yes, absolutely. I
mean, this has been an ongoing process. And if you talk to the Vice
President, that concern about intelligence fusion and how you deal
with all that information is one of -- a longstanding concern of his,
as well.

Q: -- timing is not because of all the leaks in the last couple of
weeks about what happened -- then what is the -- why is this happening
now? And also, it's my understanding -- the FBI and the CIA will still
be independent agencies.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: We'll be a customer of those agencies.

Q: Right. So how will you guarantee that they actually give you the
information that you need?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's a very good question. One,
we're doing it -- we're making the announcement now because we're done
with our work. It's been an ongoing process. It's pretty simple and
straightforward, and that's it. But we -- again, the legislative
language we send to the Hill will be proscriptive, in that those
agencies are to share that information by legislative directive with
the new Department of Homeland Security, as it relates to domestic
terrorism.

Q: On that point, on the intelligence focus, how is this different
from the CIA counterterrorism center, which includes FBI personnel?
How will this system work differently than the system that is now in
place, which has been continuously improved since September 11th --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It has been continuously improved. And
the FBI Director has -- his reorganization is going to improve their
ability to aggregate and then analyze information. And I can't say to
you there might not be some overlap and some redundancy, but you can
never have too many eyes and too many ears and too many minds. But at
the end of the day, they will do their work, and their analysis, and
make that available to the Department of Homeland Security. The FBI
will do their work and analysis, and they'll make it available, and
Customs and DEA and everybody else.

And then we'll have the Office of Homeland Security, with the benefit
of their analysis, looking for trends, looking for MOs [methods of
operation], and then coupling the analysis with the threat assessment
-- coupling the threat assessment with the vulnerability assessment;
then determine based on that information whether we give specific
direction to agencies or state and local government.

Q: In other words, Homeland Security people would be looking at the
same body of information that the counterterrorism center is, but
making their own analysis?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I suspect that there will be -- the
body of information will be broader, significantly greater than it is
now. And another couple sets of eyes, and a couple sets of -- a couple
more minds looking at fusion. But we want to be as efficient as we
can. But if you're going to ever have redundancy, having a few more
people take a look at what's out there, perhaps drawing different
conclusions, and pressing the envelope a little bit further I think is
-- force protection.

Q Forgive me, but I don't see any numbers in here of how many people
this actually involves -- all these different agencies, combined into
one.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: It's totally -- it's a reorganization
of existing structure. There will end up being about 170,000 people in
this agency. The budget will be, right now, $37 billion [$37,000
million] and then --

Q: Haven't you been opposed in the past to creating such a department,
such an agency?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Personally, or as the Office of
Homeland Security?

Q:  Well, both.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: No, I just -- if you take a look at
some of the things we -- reorganizing government to meet the needs and
opportunities of the 21st century is something that I think President
Bush has embraced, I've certainly embraced, and it's certainly part of
the mission that -- I was given the responsibility to look at that.
And if you'll -- I'll go back to the first meeting we had with
congressional leaders and specifically indicated to them that part of
my mission was to look at the reorganization of the government.

Q:  You're not opposed to a Cabinet agency  --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I have been -- if I've told my
colleagues, former colleagues on the Hill once, I've probably told
them a hundred times, one, the President has tasked me to take a look
at -- I've had conversations with Senator Lieberman and Diane
Feinstein about different ways of reorganizing government to meet
this. But I've said to them, we may come back with a recommendation
about reorganization. That doesn't necessarily mean that you should
conclude that I believe that the President shouldn't have an advisor
on homeland security. It's my judgment both ought to be a permanent
part of the infrastructure of the executive branch. But we have always
been supportive of the notion that there was always a possibility to
reorganize.

And as you know, I tried to reorganize -- there was a lot of
discussion up on the Hill when we tried to reorganize the borders.
That was an initiative -- the response was delayed, but now it's a
part of the President's plan. So that's good.

Q: -- a piece of this is certainly reorganization. But there's a lot
of policy nuance that the President was expected to present to the
nation. For instance requirements for chemical plants, or what you
would expect in civil defense initiatives, that kind of thing. Where's
the rest of the President's national strategy right now?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That's a very appropriate question. We
have indicated publicly that we'd like to get -- for his review, July
1. Because this is the centerpiece of that national strategy. But,
again, with the Office of Homeland Security -- what our group has been
doing for the past couple months is working with critical
infrastructure within the private sector to come up with standards and
best practices. And that work product and a way forward would be part
of the overall national strategy.

Let me give you an example. You are going to see in the reorganization
of this that we have the threat analysis and the critical
infrastructure piece together, because they fit. You have to have
somebody looking at the threat -- if it's real, if you need -- whether
it's in Nebraska or anyplace else, you've got to go to it. You've got
the threat analysis, you've got the vulnerability analysis, you've got
to communicate protective conditions.

President Clinton, in, I think, May of '98, directed nine or ten, or I
think 12 agencies to come up with a critical infrastructure plan, and
then put them into a cohesive unit by January of 2003. Well, ladies
and gentlemen, they're not close. The bottom line is that there has
been a lot of talk about doing that. This will help consolidate it,
this will help accelerate it. So you've got threat analysis,
vulnerability, and if we think there's something that needs to be
done, we can give specific direction to the entities to do it.

Q: When would you expect the President to talk to the American people
about the rest of his plan?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Listen, the President sets his own
schedule and his own time frame. I give him advice, but not on
scheduling.

Q: The Secret Service right now is charged with protecting the life of
the President and the Vice President, and the function belongs to the
Treasury Department. What will happen to Secret Service under --

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Secret Service reports directly to --
thank you -- two other components. Secret Service reports directly to
the new Secretary for Homeland Security, for a variety of reasons. You
highlighted the most important; they've got to protect the President
and the Vice President of the United States. They also have
responsibility over national special security events. And while we
can't have everything declared a "nation special security event",
because so much of our way of life and our recreation around large
audiences and public events, they'll be in a position -- and, frankly,
we're working on a plan right now where you can bring in the NCAA
[National Collegiate Athletic Association] or NASCAR [National
Association for Stockcar Auto Racing] or these organizations and say,
here's how we think you ought to address security issues. They also
have a cyber-security team; it fits in with our critical
infrastructure protection plan. So they have a direct report.

And the other direct report to the Secretary is intergovernmental.
This is a national strategy, we have to continue to build on the
relationships we have with the governors and the mayors.

Q: Sir, no doubt that you're doing your best to protect Americans from
further terrorist attacks of any kind. But some Americans here who
look like foreigners are worried about what is their future, how can
you protect them? Because now many of them are suing a number of the
airlines, because of discrimination and all that. So how -- what will
be the -- how will you protect them as Americans?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think at the very heart of a
homeland security strategy is not compromising our way of life and
making sure that the freedoms that we all enjoy are preserved. And
from the President on down, these issues, and the sensitivity to these
issues, are very much on our minds. And I understand that the lawsuit
has been initiated on behalf of four or five people. I happen to
believe the face of terrorism is changing all the time, and will
change in the future. And so it's a lesson to be learned that we have
to be real careful before we point an accusatory finger.

Q: -- Americans are still living under fear. What message do you have
for them, because one day we hear that there's a threat of terrorist
attack, and another day everything is fine. So what message do you
have for Americans living still under threat?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don't believe the administration has
ever indicated to Americans that one day we're under threat and then
the next day that everything's fine. We've had, using the new National
Threat Advisory System, an elevated level of risk since its
initiation. By the way, the comment period has expired. The Attorney
General has got about 700 comments about that.

I will just tell you that the second piece of that advisory system is
one that most people have ignored, and that is -- and this is an
agency that will be able to promote it even quicker -- depending on
the level of threat, these are the protective measures that we
recommend to you to take. And again, we are trying to develop a
national system and get the input not just of federal government and
federal agencies, but of state, local, public leaders, and the private
sector, as well.

Q: Will the Secretary of Homeland Security be able to call up the
Director of the FBI and ask him to investigate a certain particular
thing, if he deems it necessary?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Based on the -- again, we don't have
any operational responsibility, but if the Secretary of Homeland
Security, based on their threat analysis, deems something should be
investigated further, that's exactly what we would want them to do.

Q:  But what if the Director of the FBI doesn't want to do it?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I think the way this structure is
being arranged and the kind of relationship that I've seen between the
intelligence community and the Cabinet, I don't anticipate that to be
a problem. But there's always a final arbiter, and it goes even higher
than the Director of Homeland Security.

Q: Was the Director of the FBI consulted in -- as this document was
put together? He was asked about that today.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: The -- and I also believe his answer
was that he would let the President make his announcement tonight, and
come back to the Hill and give an answer, and I think I'll let him
give the answer when he goes back to the Hill tomorrow.

Q: Following up on an earlier question, sir, what's going to happen to
the Secret Service component involving currency and counterfeiting?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: As you'll note, when you see the
restructuring, many of these Departments and agencies have multiple
tasks. They will continue to do those tasks. But if you scrub them
down, you'll see that either their primary mission or a significant
part of the mission warrants their inclusion under this Department.
They'll continue to do that.

By the way, I just wanted to be so flip about that. Over time, the
Secretary -- the Director of the FBI and I have had many, many
discussions about the need to get information together, and to analyze
it, and the need for new technological architecture to facilitate the
processing of more information.

Q:  But why can't you say if he was consulted or not, sir?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Because he said that he would answer
the Senator's question tomorrow, and I want to leave it to the
Director of the FBI to answer the Senator's question, not me.

Thank you.

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)


Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=02060640.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

06 June 2002

White House Daily Briefing Transcript

(President's schedule, Bush to propose to Congress a Department of
Homeland Security at the Cabinet level, a budget-neutral major
reorganization to be done this year, FBI/CIA to continue with no
substantial changes, turf battles, background briefing at the White
House this afternoon, President's nationwide television address
tonight at 8pm EDT) (4450)

White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer briefed mid-morning.

Following is the White House transcript:

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary

June 6, 2002

THE WHITE HOUSE DAILY BRIEFING WITH ARI FLEISCHER

The James S. Brady Briefing Room
10:04 A.M. EDT

MR. FLEISCHER: Good morning. Let me give you a very brief walk-through
of the President's day, and then I have a lengthy statement I'd like
to make. The President began with his usual morning briefings from the
CIA and the FBI. Then he convened a meeting of the Homeland Security
Council. Later he will do a drop-by -- the Prime Minister of Croatia
is here to see Dr. Rice. And those are the public events on the
President's schedule today.

Let me get to another item. Last year, you may recall, on May 8th, the
President directed the Vice President to oversee the development of a
coordinated national effort to protect America from catastrophic harm
from weapons of mass destruction. Flash forward to the events of
September 11th, and in the aftermath of the attack on our country, the
President moved immediately to help protect the country by the
creation -- through the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.

On September 20th, the President appointed Governor Ridge as the
Homeland Security Advisor and announced the creation of the office.
Governor Ridge was sworn into this office on October 8, 2001.

At the end of October, on October 24th and 25th, the President was in
meetings with members of Congress where they were discussing the war
on terrorism, our response. And members of Congress discussed with the
President some of the issues that they had viewed as important about
the structure of the Office of Homeland Security. At those meetings,
the President and Governor Ridge indicated that there was an immediate
need that could not wait for legislation to get America protected
through an immediate creation in the White House of Office of Homeland
Security.

Members of Congress who had suggested legislation to make it a
Cabinet-level post and a statutory post said at that time publicly
that they would not proceed with their legislation, given the results
of that meeting. At that meeting, Governor Ridge made clear -- and
this is a quote -- that "he may recommend down the road a
realignment." Members were assured that because of the immediate
threat to the nation, what was most important was to focus on security
through an immediate office that was empowered by the President to
protect the country, and not to get into jurisdictional or legislative
proposals that can take quite a bit of time to get enacted into law.
Nevertheless, Congress understood then that this administration would
take a look down the road.

From December through March of 2002 -- and to March of 2002, Governor
Ridge and Homeland Security conducted a review of options for
consolidating and reorganizing border agencies. Throughout the same
time, at the President's direction, Governor Ridge and Nick Calio
consulted with members of Congress to discuss ideas for border
reorganization. I think you're familiar with much of that. As a result
of the process and the experience that the border reorganization
effort led to, the President, in discussing the structure of
protecting the country, with Andy Card and with Governor Ridge, gave
impetus to today's announcement.

On April 11th, if you recall, Director Mitch Daniels testified before
Senator Lieberman's Government Affairs Committee and said, quote, "The
President has said from the outset that the structure for organizing
and overseeing homeland security may evolve over time as we learn more
and as circumstances changed." He further noted that, "Should the
review ultimately recommend to the President a different homeland
security structure, there is a chance it may resemble Senator
Lieberman's bill."

On April 23rd, Andy Card and Governor Ridge convened a small White
House working group that put into motion today's announcement in
specifics. This working group began meeting on a daily basis to put
the details out that I will discuss with you in a moment, and that
will lead to the President's announcement tonight. Throughout April
and leading into early May, they refined the proposal that the
President will make to the Congress tonight, worked on the specifics
of it. And the President was briefed on it throughout this period by
Andy Card and by Governor Ridge. This was something that was discussed
at length, throughout that time and results in tonight's announcement.

Tonight -- I have just gotten off the phone with the bureau chiefs for
the networks and others, and the President tonight will give an
address to the nation. We have requested time from the networks. And
in that address, the President will give an update on the war on
terrorism. He will also announce the largest reorganization of the
United States government since Harry Truman reorganized the government
in 1947. And the purpose of this reorganization is to protect the
homeland from terrorist attack.

The President believes that as much as has been done by the various
entities of the government, with great success, that we can and we
should do more. Specifically, the proposal the President will make
will create a Department of Homeland Security at the Cabinet level. It
requires congressional approval. And this new department would have
four key components in it. The first is border and transportation
security; the second is emergency preparedness and response; the third
is chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear countermeasures; and
the fourth is information analysis and infrastructure protection.

This new department would draw from -- principally from eight Cabinet
agencies, as currently constituted. In some cases, it would draw
substantially from the resources within those agencies, and redirect
them into the new department. In other cases -- it would draw from
some small elements of those existing eight Cabinet departments. It
would also reach into and touch other independent agencies.

And the President looks forward in remarks that will last
approximately 15 minutes to discussing the reasons why he believes
this is so important to the protection of our nation, as he addresses
the American people tonight.

Q:  What time?

MR. FLEISCHER: At 8:00 p.m. And with that, I'm happy to take your
questions.

Q:  Are the leaders coming in?

MR. FLEISCHER: The Vice President and others are briefing members of
Congress about it. So the leaders have been informed, and are being
informed.

Q:  On the Hill, not here?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Yes, that's correct.

Q:  Will Governor Ridge head the new department?

MR. FLEISCHER: Governor Ridge -- by the way, we will arrange for the
White House press corps a background briefing by a senior
administration official --

Q:  When will that be?

MR. FLEISCHER: We're working on the exact time. I'm going to try to do
it early to mid-afternoon. And our intent there is to give you as much
specific and substantive information as is possible. But let me put it
to you this way: Governor Ridge will be the one fighting for the
creation of this department. Governor Ridge will be the voice and the
face of the message for creating this department.

Beyond that, as you know, Congress has to also approve it, the
creation of it. But beyond that, I have to fall into our normal
formula of not discussing personnel. But you will see the Governor.

Q:  Will the President be appointing him?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, I just indicated the formal answer to that is I
never discuss personnel. But Governor Ridge is going to be the face
and the voice of the person fighting for the creation of this
department. I mean, he's the one -- he and Andy Card really are the
two who led the internal effort to create this department and make it
Cabinet level, its new structure.

Q: So this would take, say, Coast Guard from Commerce and the
Immigration portion of the INS from Justice, Customs from Treasury --

MR. FLEISCHER: You will get those specific answers a little later
today. Just because there are briefings underway, I'm not at this
specific moment going to describe which specific entities. But you're
thinking along the exact right lines. This is a major restructuring of
the federal government, the biggest restructuring of the federal
government since 1947. The 1947 restructuring was as a result of the
need to fight and win a Cold War, to recognize the differences in
moving from World War II to the fight in the Cold War. This is a
restructuring of the government recognizing the need to fight an
enduring war against terrorism on a permanent basis, because it's the
creation of a Cabinet department, which is permanent.

Q: Ari, how will this address intelligence gathering, sharing, and
analysis specifically in the wake of the investigations going on, and
more broadly, why is this necessary?

MR. FLEISCHER: As I mentioned, there are four major divisions within
the department: border and transportation security; emergency
preparedness and response' chem, bio, radiological and nuclear
countermeasures; information analysis and infrastructure protection.
So within that fourth, there would be a component within the fourth
that deals with information analysis. And the purpose of that is to
pull information together to provide for a fusion of information.

That entity within the broad department will serve as a customer of
the FBI and of the CIA. Their central mission is unchanged. But this
new department will have an entity that works with them as a customer
to receive information, to provide a central place for systematic
analysis of terrorist threats within the United States, and as a way
to have better fusion of information. It's complementary to FBI/CIA in
that sense.

Q:  Where will the President be giving this address?

MR. FLEISCHER:  From the Cross Hall in the Residence.

Q: Everybody is going to say that this is an effort on this day, when
Judiciary Committee hearings are getting underway, to divert attention
from whatever intelligence analysis failings there have been. Would
you respond to that?

MR. FLEISCHER: The purpose of this is the same as the purpose of what
Congress is involved in, which is to protect the country. And
protection of the country -- as I indicated, you know the time line
this was done -- protection of the country is a priority any time.

Q: If it's in the Cross Hall, does that mean there will be an
audience?

MR. FLEISCHER:  No, no.  A speech to the nation on camera.

Q:  -- chose that spot?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Yes.

Q: Ari, on the tick-tock, when exactly did the President sign off on
the idea? You talk about April 23rd, Card and Ridge and a small --
when did the President get the proposal and say, this is a good idea?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes. Well, throughout that period, right around the
time of the border reorganization, as we talked about just doing a
very small piece of this, that's when the President, discussing this
with Andy Card and with Governor Ridge, said we need to really take a
look broadly at the total way we protect our country. The time is
coming to act. And as I indicated, the first small working group
meeting took place on April 23rd.

Q:  Who was in that?

MR. FLEISCHER: Secretary Card, Governor Ridge, White House Counsel --
it's an internal White House working group. And throughout that period
then, from late April into early May, Andy and the Governor would
discuss the ongoing project with the President, fill him in. On May
3rd, Secretary Card described the working groups -- well, Andy
repeatedly described it to the President. The determination by the
President to proceed was made at the end of May. That's when the
President, having viewed this for one of the approaching final times,
gave the go-ahead and said, I sign off, I agree. So, late May.

Q: One final question. In terms of, how much did discussions about the
FBI -- the President even saying the other day that the FBI and the
CIA were not communicating properly -- how much did those revelations
come out over the past few weeks influence this new agency?

MR. FLEISCHER: It was not a part of it because this is so much bigger
and broader. In fact, to go back and -- not a part of it except to the
degree, as Director Mueller has said, we need a fusion of information,
analysis of information. So there is the recognition that we still
need to keep the FBI, CIA working closely together. And this new
entity will be one place where information will get pulled together.

But I went back and I was looking at my notes of some of the
discussions that the President had with the members of Congress in
October of 2001, and the President in that meeting said we weren't
communicating as well as we needed to be doing. So when the President
said it last week, I think many of you have heard the President say
things like that before. And it's all part of the -- going from a
peacetime society to a society that's mobilizing for war.

Q: When you say Ridge will fight for it, do you expect strong
opposition?

MR. FLEISCHER:  I'm sorry?

Q: You said that Ridge will be fighting for it. Do you expect strong
opposition?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President hopes not. I mean, the President views
this as the best way to protect the country. Now, the initial reaction
from the Hill has been good. But reorganizing the government is never
easy. It involves turf, it involves hardworking Americans who enjoy
being in the agencies that they're in who will have to adjust to
change. And as the President discussed with the Homeland Security
Council this morning, change is not easy, but it's important to do
this.

Joe Allbaugh, the head of FEMA, said to the President this morning in
the Homeland Security Council meeting that -- he congratulated the
President on the initiative, and said, you're an agent for change,
we're all agents for change, or else what are we doing here? And I
think that represents the thinking of the Cabinet and the people who
are directly affected by this.

But we will work very closely with the Congress on it. Congress --
this must be approved by Congress if it is to be put into law.
Congress currently has 88 committees and sub-committees with
jurisdiction over homeland security. So clearly, it does raise issues
as far as jurisdiction on Congress. And these issues are important,
these issues are sensitive. And we will work with the Congress to make
the case why this is the best way to protect the country. And many
members of Congress have legislation that is similar to this.

Q:  What will this cost?  Do you have any idea what this will cost?

MR. FLEISCHER: The cost of this will be essentially budget neutral,
and the reason -- well, the reason for that is, I'm not going to name
any specific agency until a little later in the day, but an existing
agency that's part of one department will be picked up in whole, and
moved to this department.

Q:  Physically?

MR. FLEISCHER:  No, not physically.  (Laughter.)

Q:  Well, where will it physically be?

MR. FLEISCHER: You're misunderstanding how some of these agencies
work. There is one agency in particular that has its own building, its
own office, they report -- they are part of a different department
right now. They will remain in that building, they will remain in that
office, they will have the same employees, the same people, but they
will not report to the Secretary they currently report to, they will
report to the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

Q: At some point that new Secretary is going to want his own building,
or her own building.

MR. FLEISCHER: Oh, okay, but it doesn't mean that everybody working
for that Secretary needs to pick up and move, and go to that
Secretary's building.

Q:  Now?

MR. FLEISCHER: Just as -- well, just as currently you have entities
within the federal government that report to Cabinet Secretaries who
don't physically house out of that Department. Now, there will be
transition costs, so there will be some level associated with such
things as physical or geographic movement. There will be some element
to transition costs.

Q:  Ari, do you --

MR. FLEISCHER: Wait a second. I'm going to stay here for a little
while. But essentially, it is a budget-neutral move, because you're
talking about essentially the same number of people with the same
budget, reporting to a new Cabinet Secretary.

Elizabeth.

Q: But the budget for the agency, after it's established, what are you
anticipating, what would you like, what do you want?

MR. FLEISCHER: We'll try to get you more specific information on that
later today. That will be available.

Q: Did you mention Senator Lieberman because the President's proposal
is close to his?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I would -- I know you will talk to Senator
Lieberman, you'll talk to other people on the hill. But I think
members of Congress, when they hear this, will realize just how
carefully this administration was listening to their ideas. There are
many proposals that were studied by this group. There are different
commissions that have weighed in on the best way to protect the
homeland. Many members of Congress in both parties had specific ideas.
And you will now be able to compare this proposal to their specific
ideas. And that's another reason the President believes that this will
be received well by most of the Congress.

Q: Many Americans may see this as a bureaucratic reshuffling or an
addition of a new layer of bureaucracy. How will this be more
effective than the current state of affairs?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think the President will explain that tonight when he
describes the reason for this, the mission that these people will
have. But the President views this as a way to help people who are
doing their job and doing it well now, so they can do it even better
by bringing it into one domestic agency that has responsibility as the
one lead department with Cabinet-level status for protecting the
homeland. And the fusion of these various departments which are mostly
entities within this new department, which are to a substantial degree
security related, protection related, border related, transportation
related, there's a health element to it, as well -- what they do every
day for a living, these people, is focus on protection. Now they will
be able to focus on protection with like-minded colleagues in one
department whose goal is domestic -- is homeland protection.

Q: Do you have any sense of the magnitude, of the size of the agency,
in terms of staffing? Hundreds, thousands?

MR. FLEISCHER: Again, the reason I -- we will have that for you and I
think we'll have it for you a little later on. But there's
notifications going out to various departments and those notifications
are going to proceed before I say so publicly.

I want go to people who haven't had questions yet.

Q: Will this announcement tonight in any way ease what the President
himself referred to the other day as some of the back-biting and CYA
activities going on interdepartmentally?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think this announcement is so much bigger than any of
this, the recent noise between level threes within the two agencies.
It's just so much bigger than that. Go back to '47. This is a major
reorganization.

Judy.

Q: Ari, will the President tonight lay out a deadline for when he
wants congressional action?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President will ask Congress to pass this
legislation this year.

Q: And will any functions currently done in the CIA and the FBI be
transferred into this new department?

MR. FLEISCHER: I think within the FBI there's one very small entity.
But no, the missions of the CIA and the FBI continue with no
substantial changes. This is the creation of a new department to make
all these departments stronger. That's why I'm indicating, if you look
at the structure of it, it's much bigger than that.

Q: Will there still be an Office of Homeland Security within the White
House?

MR. FLEISCHER: Yes, there still will be an Office of Homeland Security
in the White House. In those October meetings, Governor Ridge and the
President said to the members of Congress that were we to create a
department, we would still need a White House office to serve as a
coordinator. So there would still need to be a White House office to
coordinate all this activity.

Q:  Would the Cabinet Secretary work here or --

MR. FLEISCHER:  No, at the new agency.

Q:  At the new agency?

MR. FLEISCHER:  Just as current Cabinet Secretaries do.

Q:  Ari, I just have one more question --

MR. FLEISCHER: Wait a minute. I want to make sure we everybody who had
something. Sir?

Q: Ari, how does this square with or affect the report that Governor
Ridge was supposed to release this July?

MR. FLEISCHER: This is a central component of the strategy. This is
one key element in that strategy; this is the structure.

Q: Why did the President change his mind? When he created Governor
Ridge's office, he specifically said he did not think it should be a
Cabinet --

MR. FLEISCHER: Because -- and this is why I spent some time on those
October 24th and October 25th meetings -- watch what is about to
happen now. We have now a specific legislative proposal to the
Congress. It will be interesting to see how quickly the proposal can
be enacted into law.

In the wake of September 11th, the immediate focus was to protect the
country, to build the resources, the domestic preparedness, the
biological preparedness, stockpiling pharmaceuticals, the developing
of a budget, working with state and local law enforcement personnel.
The entire mission of homeland security in the wake of September 11th
was action.

Now what you will see is a shift to work very closely with the
Congress on a lengthy, internal, deliberative process that's
legislative, to get this enacted into law. There was no time for that
last year; it was time for action. And that was the mission of
homeland security.

This is going to be debated. This is going to be worked through with
the Congress. Again, the focus of the President last year was
immediate protection of America. And that's why the President and
Governor Ridge indicated an openness to doing it down the road, but at
that time, the immediate priority was the protection of the country.

Q:  Has legislation been written and a sponsor of it found?

MR. FLEISCHER: The President is making the proposal tonight, and we're
confident it will move forward through the Hill.

Q: -- to address this sort of surprising development here that a
Republican who came to Washington who believes in small government is
now creating a massive addition to the bureaucracy.

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, no, it's not a massive addition to the
bureaucracy.

Q:  You said it was the biggest reorganization since --

MR. FLEISCHER: Reorganization, but you said addition. A reorganization
is different from an addition. Keep in mind, if you take 100 workers
from Department X and put those 100 workers in Department Y, you still
have 100 workers. They've been reorganized. But it is not an addition
to the government, because you're working with the same, essentially,
group of people.

Q: Just to be clear on that, there will be no addition to the size of
the federal government, the overall bureaucracy?

MR. FLEISCHER:  That's correct.

Q:  No extra bodies?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct. That's why I said it's essentially
budget neutral. It's a reorganization.

Q: So what you're relying then on is having the intelligence analysis
from FBI, intelligence analysis from CIA to funnel their stuff to this
new agency. How do you still prevent turf battles from these agencies
who might want to hold on to that stuff? I mean, you're not saying
you're going to have new intelligence agents at this agency, you're
taking FBI and CIA, their information is supposed to be funneled --

MR. FLEISCHER: Kelly, so long as there is government, there will be
elements of turf. Nobody can deny that. But what this is designed to
do is improve the current system, by bringing all these various
elements of homeland security into one department. And it is viewed as
complementary to the efforts of the FBI and CIA in that one section of
it.

We'll take one more, and then I'm going to go.

Q: Ari, you touched this a little bit, if you could elaborate, though.
How does the President envision keeping this from becoming an unwieldy
bureaucracy, with so many different functions under one roof?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, actually it's -- the President views it just the
opposite, from a management point of view. And the reason for that is
because in the current structure, where all these different agencies
are, agencies that have a responsibility for homeland security are so
spread out and are so disparate, in so many different agencies, that
that's where it's really unwieldy.

In an effort to make it more organized and better -- functioning
better, with greater controls, is the effort to bring it all into one
agency. This is why members of Congress had suggested it. This is some
of the independent proposals that Governor Ridge and Andy Card and
their staff looked at. And that's why it's now coming together under
one department, for the exact purpose of making it more organized,
making it function better, making it function tighter.

All right -- oh, there will be no briefing today, since the President
is addressing the nation tonight. And we will get you the exact times
of the background briefing. There will be handouts, there will be hard
copies. You'll have a lot of information.

10:28 A.M. EDT

(end White House transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)


Source: http://usinfo.state.gov/cgi-bin/washfile/display.pl?p=/products/washfile/latest&f=02060645.tlt&t=/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml

06 June 2002

Bush Calls for New Department of Homeland Security

(New department draws from scores of federal agencies) (2050)

President Bush asked the U.S. Congress June 6 to create a new
permanent, cabinet-level Department of Homeland Security that will be
tasked to enhance the direct security of the United States to combat
terrorists and other threats.

Bush proposed, in a nationally-televised address, the creation of a
department with approximately 170,000 federal workers that draws from
scores of federal agencies in the largest restructuring of the U.S.
government in five decades.

"America is leading the civilized world in a titanic struggle against
terror," Bush said in an address from the White House's Blue Room.
"Freedom and fear are at war -- and freedom is winning.

"So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a single
permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission: securing
the American homeland and protecting the American people."

Congress would have to approve the plan, and the president hopes to
have it in place within seven months by January 1.

The new Department of Homeland Security would draw its $37,400 million
budget for the 2003 fiscal year, which begins October 1, from the
budgets of the existing federal agencies that would be consolidated
into the department.

Among those agencies that would be included in the new department are
the U.S. Coast Guard, Secret Service, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, and Federal Emergency Management Agency, he said.

The announcement from the White House comes at a time when
Congressional committees have begun hearings into potential
intelligence lapses by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) before the September 11th attacks on
the United States.

"In protecting our country, we depend on the skill of our people --
the troops we send to battle, intelligence operatives who risk their
lives for bits of information, law enforcement officers who sift for
clues and search for suspects," Bush said. "We are now learning that
before September the 11th, the suspicions and insights of some of our
front-line agents did not get enough attention."

However, Bush said that "we need to know when warnings were missed or
signs unheeded -- not to point the finger of blame, but to make sure
we correct any problems, and prevent them from happening again."

And Bush said that based on what he has been told and has seen that "I
do not believe anyone could have prevented the horror of September
11."

The White House during briefings earlier on June 6 said that current
Homeland Security Director Tom Ridge would lead the president's
campaign to create the Homeland Security Department before Congress.
Ridge functions as an executive advisor to the president and would
most likely be chosen to head the new department.

Following is the White House transcript:

(begin transcript)

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
June 6, 2002

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT IN ADDRESS TO THE NATION

The Cross Hall

8:00 P.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Good evening. During the next few minutes, I want to
update you on the progress we are making in our war against terror,
and to propose sweeping changes that will strengthen our homeland
against the ongoing threat of terrorist attacks.

Nearly nine months have passed since the day that forever changed our
country. Debris from what was once the World Trade Center has been
cleared away in a hundred thousand truckloads. The west side of the
Pentagon looks almost as it did on September the 10th. And as children
finish school and families prepare for summer vacations, for many,
life seems almost normal.

Yet we are a different nation today -- sadder and stronger, less
innocent and more courageous, more appreciative of life, and for many
who serve our country, more willing to risk life in a great cause. For
those who have lost family and friends, the pain will never go away --
and neither will the responsibilities that day thrust upon all of us.
America is leading the civilized world in a titanic struggle against
terror. Freedom and fear are at war -- and freedom is winning.

Tonight over 60,000 American troops are deployed around the world in
the war against terror -- more than 7,000 in Afghanistan; others in
the Philippines, Yemen, and the Republic of Georgia, to train local
forces. Next week Afghanistan will begin selecting a representative
government, even as American troops, along with our allies, still
continuously raid remote al Qaeda hiding places.

Among those we have captured is a man named Abu Zabedah, al Qaeda's
chief of operations. From him, and from hundreds of others, we are
learning more about how the terrorists plan and operate; information
crucial in anticipating and preventing future attacks.

Our coalition is strong. More than 90 nations have arrested or
detained over 2,400 terrorists and their supporters. More than 180
countries have offered or are providing assistance in the war on
terrorism. And our military is strong and prepared to oppose any
emerging threat to the American people.

Every day in this war will not bring the drama of liberating a
country. Yet every day brings new information, a tip or arrest,
another step, or two, or three in a relentless march to bring security
to our nation and justice to our enemies.

Every day I review a document called the threat assessment. It
summarizes what our intelligence services and key law enforcement
agencies have picked up about terrorist activity. Sometimes the
information is very general -- vague talk, bragging about future
attacks. Sometimes the information is more specific, as in a recent
case when an al Qaeda detainee said attacks were planned against
financial institutions.

When credible intelligence warrants, appropriate law enforcement and
local officials are alerted. These warnings are, unfortunately, a new
reality in American life -- and we have recently seen an increase in
the volume of general threats. Americans should continue to do what
you're doing -- go about your lives, but pay attention to your
surroundings. Add your eyes and ears to the protection of our
homeland.

In protecting our country, we depend on the skill of our people -- the
troops we send to battle, intelligence operatives who risk their lives
for bits of information, law enforcement officers who sift for clues
and search for suspects. We are now learning that before September the
11th, the suspicions and insights of some of our front-line agents did
not get enough attention.

My administration supports the important work of the intelligence
committees in Congress to review the activities of law enforcement and
intelligence agencies. We need to know when warnings were missed or
signs unheeded -- not to point the finger of blame, but to make sure
we correct any problems, and prevent them from happening again.

Based on everything I've seen, I do not believe anyone could have
prevented the horror of September the 11th. Yet we now know that
thousands of trained killers are plotting to attack us, and this
terrible knowledge requires us to act differently.

If you're a front-line worker for the FBI, the CIA, some other law
enforcement or intelligence agency, and you see something that raises
suspicions, I want you to report it immediately. I expect your
supervisors to treat it with the seriousness it deserves. Information
must be fully shared, so we can follow every lead to find the one that
may prevent tragedy.

I applaud the leaders and employees at the FBI and CIA for beginning
essential reforms. They must continue to think and act differently to
defeat the enemy.

The first and best way to secure America's homeland is to attack the
enemy where he hides and plans, and we're doing just that. We're also
taking significant steps to strengthen our homeland protections --
securing cockpits, tightening our borders, stockpiling vaccines,
increasing security at water treatment and nuclear power plants.

After September the 11th, we needed to move quickly, and so I
appointed Tom Ridge as my Homeland Security Advisor. As Governor Ridge
has worked with all levels of government to prepare a national
strategy, and as we have learned more about the plans and capabilities
of the terrorist network, we have concluded that our government must
be reorganized to deal more effectively with the new threats of the
21st century. So tonight, I ask the Congress to join me in creating a
single, permanent department with an overriding and urgent mission:
securing the homeland of America, and protecting the American people.

Right now, as many as a hundred different government agencies have
some responsibilities for homeland security, and no one has final
accountability. For example, the Coast Guard has several missions,
from search and rescue to maritime treaty enforcement. It reports to
the Transportation Department, whose primary responsibilities are
roads, rails, bridges and the airways. The Customs Service, among
other duties, collects tariffs and prevents smuggling -- and it is
part of the Treasury Department, whose primary responsibility is
fiscal policy, not security.

Tonight, I propose a permanent Cabinet-level Department of Homeland
Security to unite essential agencies that must work more closely
together: Among them, the Coast Guard, 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 their most
important job is to protect their fellow citizens. The Department of
Homeland Security will be charged with --

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.

The reason to create this department is not to create the size of
government, but to increase its focus and effectiveness. The staff of
this new department will be largely drawn from the agencies we are
combining. By ending duplication and overlap, we will spend less on
overhead, and more on protecting America. This reorganization will
give the good people of our government their best opportunity to
succeed by organizing our resources in a way that is thorough and
unified.

What I am proposing tonight 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. 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 tonight, I ask for your help in encouraging your
representatives 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 tonight than we were on that terrible morning --
and with your help, and the support of Congress, we will be stronger
still.

History has called our nation into action. History has placed a great
challenge before us: Will America -- with our unique position and
power -- blink in the face of terror, or will we lead to a freer, more
civilized world? There's only one answer: This great country will lead
the world to safety, security, peace and freedom.

Thank you for listening.  Good night, and may God bless America.

END   8:13 P.M. EDT

(end transcript)

(Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S.
Department of State. Web site: http://usinfo.state.gov)