Homeland Security Focus Areas

Government and Political Issues

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - PLAYERS

July 21, 2003 - 9:51 p.m.
A Veteran Diplomat Heads Up Homeland's New International Office
By Martin Edwin Andersen, CQ Staff Writer

Cresencio Arcos, 59, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) new international point man, is a savvy retired diplomat with a life-long knack for being where the action is.
Today he faces issues that are worlds even farther away than the lands where he served his government, and even farther from the life he lived growing up in the 1950s in Texas, a place where "you could sleep without a latch on your door."
In his new post for less than three weeks, the 25-year veteran diplomat, a self-described "conservative national security hawk" - now confronts what might well be the greatest challenge of his long public career - how to make DHS's new Office of International Affairs a player in the inter-agency arena, as well as in representing DHS's ideas and interests on the myriad issues it faces abroad.
"Our biggest challenge is time," Arcos told CQ Homeland Security, "...how can this office enable [Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge] and this department deal with the multiplicity of international issues and challenges we face in trying to preserve the security of the United States."
Arcos emphasizes that his office's mission is not "operational," in the sense of running programs overseas, but nearly the opposite: to become the center for DHS understanding of all the U.S. international operations related to homeland security - such as those affecting immigration, transportation security and other issues - and how they fit into Ridge's agenda.
The office will also be responsible for interfacing with foreign officials who want to know more about how the department works and how they can they work with it - "getting the dialogue and socialization started," Arco said.
His long-term goal is "to imbue the office with the skills necessary not only to respond to emergency issues, crises, as they come up," he said, "but also to anticipate issues in the long haul that will impact the security of the United States."
The task is no small feat since, in turf conscious Washington, the international office is potentially irrelevant (as DHS officials themselves privately admit). One knowledgeable source, in fact, said its creation was an afterthought in the legislative process.
"It was just assumed everybody else would take care of these issues," said a DHS official, "there were all these little stovepipes going on."
Arcos will report directly to Ridge.
Drugs and Thugs
For two years in the mid-1990s, Arcos chaired the State Department-run 18-member interagency committee on narcotics, known widely even inside Foggy Bottom as the office overseeing "Drugs and Thugs."
Currently he says that he is in the process of trying to figure out just what meetings he should be going to.
"We're just a beginning agency," he said, "and people haven't figured out if they are going to invite us or not.
"And we have to figure out whether or not we get ourselves invited. Right now, if I went to all the meetings I am asked to go to, I'd have to cut myself into 15 pieces."
"We have an ambitious mandate because we have so many issues," Arcos admits, "but it is manageable. Fortunately we have good support from constituent agencies and also from State, NSC [the National Security Council] and Justice in the international arena."
He does not have much of a staff, however. Currently he supervises just three people, one each brought over from the Pentagon, the Treasury Department and the old Immigration and Naturalization Service (now reconstituted in DHS). It is a number he hopes will grow to 8 to 10 by September, when DHS will be "fine tuning" its "goals and objectives."
Arcos' budget for next year would be between $1 and $1.5 million, he said.
Arcos occupies a sparse, third-floor office in the gray, nondescript General Services Administration headquarters in Southwest Washington.
But, he said in an interview there last week, "I feel very proud and lucky that I am able to engage in a national security issue like homeland security.
"At the same time, I bring a skills set both from my public service and my private service that sort of gels in with these efforts on the international side -understanding countries and their processes, trade issues, law enforcement and security concerns that they have," Arcos said.
He added that his experience also has given him "a sensitivity to legal systems that run counter to ours and how to reconcile those differences."
"We're not going to try to replicate expertise that already exists out there," he said. "We're going to try to make sure that Homeland Security has a coherent approach to its international responsibilities. We're not going to be the hands-on operators - that's left to the component agencies."
Coordinating training programs with the Transportation Security Agency and foreign counterparts may also fall under the office's purview, Arcos said.
"One of my jobs is to prioritize what are the security concerns that we have and how each of these countries fit in. Clearly Mexico and Canada loom very big in this, given the borders, the commonalities, the proximities, the North American Free Trade Agreement-all these things that glue us together."
Straight Shooter
Those who know him best say that "Cris" Arcos, a former U.S. ambassador to Honduras and most recently AT&T's regional vice president (for Latin America and Canada) and managing director for international public affairs, is just the right person for the job.
"He actually gets things done and can be blunt when no one else has the guts to be," one long-time friend said by telephone.
Another said in admiration, "He's a master of the interagency process ... someone who sees issues ahead of everyone else and knows what to do to bring attention to them."
Arcos grew up in San Antonio, Texas, in a middle-class Mexican American home, attending Catholic schools through the 9th grade. Spanish was his family's language of choice until he reached the 4th grade.
"My Dad, who worked in wholesale produce, always said, 'English for business, but Spanish at the kitchen table,'" he recalled.
Friends say that his appointment to head what one observer hopefully called DHS's "own State Department," came after Arcos, a registered Republican, was considered, and then passed over, by the Bush administration for at least half a dozen positions.
Bested for the post of assistant secretary of state for western hemisphere affairs by Cuban American conservative Otto Reich, knowledgeable sources say that Arcos was also in the running for such jobs as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Warfare, and chief of staff to former New Jersey Republican Gov. Tom Kean, in his current capacity as chair of the National Commission to investigate the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
For a variety of reasons, which knowledgeable sources say were almost all extraneous to Arcos' reputation and resume, these did not pan out.
Respect from All Quarters
But both friends and former policy antagonists say the DHS slot may be the best match for Arcos's own talents.
Even those opposed to Arcos and the policies he represented during the U.S. involvement in Central America in the 1980s and early 1990s profess to be fans.
Arcos, says one former Democratic Capitol Hill staffer who has long tracked his career, is the "perfect choice" for the international billet, a "consummate bureaucrat who transformed himself into the consummate national security politician, someone [who is] a master of Washington's version of tribal warfare - the interagency process."
"The beauty of Arcos," the former staffer added, "is that he is all things to all people at all times, and everyone enjoys the process. He is so capable, so articulate, and so competent that he would be the perfect action officer."
Calling him "a terrific human being and a terrific" foreign service officer, retired U.S. Ambassador Jack Binns, for whom Arcos worked as press attache in Honduras in the early 1980s, enthused:
"Cris was the best political officer I ever saw in terms of getting to know people, establishing relationships with them and getting the information the embassy needed about what was happening around the country."
Binns, a Carter-era appointee who was replaced by the Reagan administration after making numerous complaints about Honduran military human rights abuses, also credited Arcos, who himself later became ambassador to the small military-dominated Central American country, with sensitivity to human rights issues.
"To the extent he could, given the administration he was working for," he said, "[Arcos] tried to bring human rights abuses under control."
Last week, Arcos pledged that he would continue to be "very sensitive" to issues involving civil liberties in other countries. "I am personally very sensitive to that."
One longtime family friend who worked with Arcos in Latin America and asked not to be identified, called him "brilliant. I don't think there is a subject he doesn't know something about. He is very accessible and, if you do right by him, you have a friend for life."
Even less than total fans tend to rate his skills fairly high.
One fellow Reagan-era senior diplomat, who asked not to be quoted, called Arcos "a typical foreign service officer, with all the baggage that that implies," but gave him a "7 or 8 on a scale of 1 to 10."
The Back Story
After earning his B.A. from the University of Texas in the 1960s, Arcos came to Washington for a master's degree at the Johns Hopkins University's elite School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). One of the highlights, he remembered, was meeting John Lennon at a party hosted by Arcos's academic advisor, who happened to be the Beatle's brother-in-law.
Early in his career, Arcos, who speaks Spanish, Portuguese and Russian, found himself landing in geopolitical hotspots-the kind of places that can make or break a career.
During 1973 to 1975, with Portugal roiling under a left-wing military junta, he served under Ambassador Frank Carlucci. In the Soviet Union during 1977- 1980, he was press and cultural attache in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), where he served as the U.S. liaison to the region's artistic and intellectual community.
He was also the diplomatic mission's "synagogue watcher" - the person in charge of monitoring the communist regime's harassment of Jews.
Paris By Night
After a tour in such inhospitable climes, Arcos was given the opportunity for a posting in Paris-a dream assignment for many-but instead opted for Central America, then unraveling with civil wars. He landed at the U.S. embassy in Tegucigalpa as press attache.
Arcos's forceful anti-communism soon brought him to the attention of the new Reagan administration.
By 1985 he was deputy director of the humanitarian assistance office providing aid to the contras, Nicaragua's U.S.-backed anti-communist insurgents. There he was part of what one critic called "Elliott's team" - meaning Elliott Abrams, the neo-conservative architect of much of the Reagan administration's Latin American policy. Abrams is now director of Middle East Affairs on the National Security Council.
In 1989 Arcos returned to Honduras, this time as ambassador. His public criticism of the regime's human rights record provoked something unheard of in Latin America-a demonstration at the U.S. embassy in favor of the ambassador.
His last diplomatic job was as senior deputy assistant secretary of state for international narcotics and law enforcement (the so-called "drugs and thugs office) from 1993 to 1995.
In 1999 he was appointed by President Clinton to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board after being promoted for the slot by Vice President Al Gore and then-Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, previously U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
One of those with whom he served was former Republican Sen. Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, an early advocate of creating a homeland security department.

At Homeland Security, Doubts Arise Over Intelligence
Unit Is Underpowered, Outmatched in Bureaucratic Struggles With Other Agencies, Critics Say
By John Mintz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, July 21, 2003; Page A12

The intelligence unit of the four-month-old Department of Homeland Security is understaffed, unorganized and weak-willed in bureaucratic struggles with other government agencies, diminishing its role in pursuing terrorists, according to some members of Congress and independent national security experts.
The vast majority of the department's intelligence analysts lack computers that are able to receive data classified "top secret" and above. The department has only three experts on biological terrorism, a number that lawmakers said falls far short of expectations, given U.S. officials' grave concern about that kind of attack.
In passing the law establishing the department last year, Congress intended Homeland Security to be the focal point for handling intelligence to protect America from terrorists. The current controversy over its intelligence unit shows how elusive that goal has become since the Bush administration decided in January that the agency should not have the standing of the CIA or FBI in analyzing intelligence about terror threats.
Homeland Security officials acknowledged growing pains in their intelligence wing, citing the difficulty of creating a full-fledged member of the U.S. intelligence community from scratch. They also point out that the head of their intelligence section, retired Marine Lt. Gen. Frank Libutti, was sworn in only on June 26.
Libutti, the undersecretary in charge of the department's information analysis and infrastructure protection unit, said that far from avoiding its key missions, the intelligence wing is "aggressively, crisply" acting on them. Critics of the department in Congress and outside government gave Libutti high marks for moving quickly to address the complaints in his first days on the job.
Frustration over the department's performance in intelligence work boiled over June 5, when Paul Redmond, then the head of Homeland Security's intelligence analysis unit, testified before the House Select Committee on Homeland Security.
Redmond -- a storied 33-year CIA veteran who exposed some of the nation's most notorious traitors -- angered committee members who said he seemed cavalier in describing the department's limited progress in intelligence work.
Redmond testified that his office then had only 26 analysts and lacked the secure communications lines required to receive many classified CIA and FBI reports. Asked when this would change, he replied, "That will depend on us getting larger quarters and things like that."
Committee members said they had hoped the department would have several times that number of analysts by then, or at least a number closer to the several hundred CIA and FBI terrorism analysts.
Committee members from both parties were incensed by what they viewed as the intelligence office's lethargy and lack of focus. "I'm going to be forgiving for a very limited amount of time," Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) said in an interview.
Rep. Jim Turner (Tex.), the committee's ranking Democrat, told President Bush in a letter last month that "a disturbing hearing . . . revealed that there are serious problems" with the department's intelligence unit. The department, he wrote, "is not remotely close to having the tools it needs to meet its critical mandate."
Redmond resigned three weeks after the hearing, citing his health. Members of Congress passed on their blunt observations to Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who is hastening to address them, officials said.
Cox said he was most frustrated that Homeland Security officials have accepted an arrangement in which the CIA, the FBI and the new Terrorist Threat Information Center (TTIC) pass intelligence reports about possible terrorist threats to the department. Homeland Security, in turn, analyzes the information and transmits warnings to state and local law enforcement agencies, as well as U.S. industry.
Cox and a number of other members of Congress, such as Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (D-Conn.), said that in last year's Homeland Security Act, which established the department, Congress intended that it would be responsible for sifting through terrorism intelligence and ensuring it was acted upon around the country. But now TTIC does most of that, leaving the department with the smaller job of tightening security on Main Street, USA.
Last year the White House embraced the view of the CIA and the FBI, both of which argued that Homeland Security should not routinely thrust itself into the minutiae of raw intelligence. That position leaves Homeland Security whipsawed between its congressional overseers and the White House.
Libutti, who most recently ran the New York City Police Department's 300-person counterterrorism squad, disputed the notion that his shop is a lightweight undertaking.
"Information analysis and infrastructure protection is the center of gravity of this entire department," Libutti said. He said he does not have the luxury of wishing the White House had settled old intelligence debates differently, adding, "TTIC is a fact on the ground."
Libutti also said he is swiftly recruiting intelligence analysts. Though there were 26 when Redmond testified last month, there are almost 50 now, a total that will double again in about seven months, Libutti said.
One ally of Ridge in the administration said the Cox panel has self-serving reasons to publicize a showdown with the department. Because some House leaders want Cox's temporary committee terminated, the panel is "fighting for relevance," the Ridge ally said.
Some in Congress want Ridge to fight harder for his department. He cultivates an image in the Cabinet as a team player, and insiders said he has not struggled behind closed doors for more clout in intelligence matters.
"The department is damned if it does and damned if it doesn't," said Richard A. Clarke, who was a top White House counterterrorism official in the Clinton and Bush administrations until his recent departure to become a consultant.
"The people in Congress who wrote the legislation creating the department wanted a 'Team B' analytical capability" that would reexamine every piece of terrorism intelligence assembled by the CIA and FBI, he said. But since the White House agreed with the FBI and CIA, he added, "that department is going to get squeezed and victimized."
Ridge has had a hard time recruiting people for the department's intelligence jobs. Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James R. Clapper Jr., who runs the secret U.S. National Imagery and Mapping Agency, initially agreed to be Ridge's undersecretary for intelligence, but reversed himself after concluding the job lacked clout and resources, friends said.
At the same time, the department is competing for intelligence professionals with the higher-profile FBI, CIA and TTIC.
Libutti said he and Ridge are addressing another problem the Cox panel noted: Members of the intelligence team were crammed into offices so crowded they were not allowed to have many classified computer terminals. Offices handling sensitive material require spacious quarters that allow for thick walls and widely spaced computer terminals.
Libutti said that in coming days his unit will move into one of the biggest buildings at the U.S. Navy facility that the Homeland Security Department occupies in Northwest Washington. He said there will be space for 250 analysts and links to secure telecommunications lines.
Homeland Security officials also said they connect well with TTIC. Of TTIC's 75 analysts, seven are from Homeland Security. Ultimately, the department will have 30 analysts there, out of 300. Libutti said they have access to all the classified data they need.
William H. Parrish, a retired Marine colonel who recently was named Redmond's acting successor, said TTIC and Homeland Security meshed well in May, in the hours after al Qaeda suicide bombers attacked several western residential compounds in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, killing 34. Soon after the synchronized strikes, in which terrorists rammed security gates, Homeland Security analysts at TTIC prepared warnings about the gate-crashing that were transmitted to state and local authorities, he said.
"It's one of our success stories," Parrish said.

House Passes Bill to Help Combat Bioterrorism

In the Senate, funding questions slow similar legislation seeking vaccines and treatments against anthrax and other deadly agents.

By Vicki Kemper
Times Staff Writer

July 17, 2003

WASHINGTON - The House overwhelmingly approved legislation Wednesday designed to encourage private industry to develop vaccines and other treatments needed to protect U.S. residents from acts of bioterrorism.

The House's 418-to-2 approval of Project Bioshield, first proposed by President Bush in his State of the Union address in January, comes almost two years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks that killed about 3,000 people and the mailing of anthrax-filled letters that killed five people and injured 17.

Two Republicans, Reps. Jeff Flake of Arizona and Ron Paul of Texas, voted against the bill. All members of the California delegation, with the exception of Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald (D-Carson), who did not vote, voted for the bill.

In the Senate, similar legislation has bogged down on when to fund the program - all at once or year by year.

"This legislation will help spur the development and availability of next-generation countermeasures against biological, chemical, nuclear and radiological weapons," Bush said in a statement released by the White House. "I urge the Senate to act on this very important legislation."

The House bill would establish a $5.6-billion, 10-year fund for the development, production and stockpiling of vaccines and other drugs to combat such deadly biological agents as smallpox, anthrax, botulinum toxin, Ebola and plague.

A ready supply of such treatments would serve as "both an antidote and a deterrent to future attacks," said Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio).

The Bush administration conceived of Project Bioshield as a way of giving pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies financial incentive to develop products for which there is no commercial market.

"Without this clear commitment of funding in future years, private-sector companies that are capable of such development simply won't undertake the heavy investment and risk," Rep. W.J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.), the bill's sponsor, said Wednesday.

Industry response to the initiative remains unclear.

Last month, President Bush addressed the annual meeting of the Biotechnology Industry Organization, telling executives to lobby Congress if they were "interested in seeing more flexibility and more research dollars for the sake of national security."

Yet the House bill does not provide for one of the industry's key demands: broad protection against lawsuits.

The bill is intended to give the departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services new powers and personnel for assessing bioterrorism threats and responding to them.

In addition, the HHS secretary would have the authority to declare a national emergency and, under such conditions, make available to the public drugs and vaccines that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Meanwhile, a smallpox vaccination campaign, the administration's first major post-Sept. 11 effort to prepare the nation for a possible bioterrorist attack, has all but stalled.

Fewer than 38,000 people had been vaccinated against smallpox as of July 4, almost six months after Bush unveiled his plan to inoculate up to 500,000 civilian health workers and 10 million police, fire and other emergency personnel.

The campaign has been hampered by uncertainty about the threat of a smallpox attack, concerns about the safety of the vaccine and a delay in the provision for the compensation of people injured by it.

Six people who received the vaccine suffered heart attacks some time later, and two of them died. At least 17 others suffered inflammation of the heart.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which has continued to investigate a possible connection between the vaccine and heart ailments, advised people with heart conditions or certain risk factors against being vaccinated.

Last month, the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices recommended that officials suspend the vaccination program until the CDC's research had been completed.

From the "Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security Daily," 15 July:

Hillary: Show Me the Money

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., has a suggestion for communities that can’t figure out what to do with their share of the homeland funding pie: donate their dollars to New York. “We know exactly how we would use it, and we’re behind,” Clinton said in a conference call with reporters Monday. “Endorse that check over to New York.” Clinton called for a more threat-based funding formula for homeland security. “We are wasting money if we send it out across the country just because it’s there,” she said. The New York senator has said homeland security funding should focus on areas such as New York that are likely targets rather than on per capita spending. “I believe I’ve got an ally in Secretary Ridge,” she added. - Amy Menefee

Bush stands up for Tenet
President says CIA director has his support

By Cam Simpson and Bob Kemper, Tribune correspondents. Cam Simpson reported from Washington and Bob Kemper from Nigeria

July 13, 2003

ABUJA, Nigeria -- President Bush expressed confidence Saturday in CIA Director George Tenet--one day after the administration blamed Tenet for dubious information in the State of the Union address relating to Iraq's nuclear ambitions.

Bush's comments, made to reporters at Nigeria's presidential villa in Abuja, came after a firestorm that overshadowed the president's Africa agenda and was quickly becoming a major embarrassment for the White House.

In an unusually public move to place blame in the matter, Bush and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice blamed Tenet on Friday for a claim in the speech that Iraq sought to buy processed uranium in Africa, presumably to make nuclear weapons. Bush cited the alleged bid to purchase uranium from Niger during the run-up to the Iraq war, but the White House now acknowledges that the evidence supporting the assertion was faulty.

After the comments by Bush and Rice, Tenet said it was his fault that the State of the Union address contained the claim. "These 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president," Tenet said. "It was a mistake."

On Saturday, Bush was asked by a reporter if he had confidence in Tenet as the director of central intelligence. The president responded: "Yes, I do. Absolutely. I've got confidence in George Tenet and in the men and women who work at the CIA."

Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary, said Saturday that Tenet's mea culpa followed days of discussions between the intelligence chief and Rice. The White House was clearly hoping that the finger-pointing, apologies and, finally, Bush's statement of support for Tenet would end the controversy.

Some prominent Democrats and Republicans have called for further investigation and for someone to be fired over the Iraq claims. But many intelligence insiders and observers believe that by shouldering the blame, Tenet, Washington's ultimate political survivor, will be able to weather one more scandal.

The ordeal is just the latest political bruising for the 50-year-old Tenet, the son of a Greek restaurant owner who rose in little more than a decade from the obscurity of being a Senate staff member to the powerful post of director of central intelligence.

Tenet has survived the missteps of the Clinton administration, countless calls for his resignation, reported assassination plots and even what critics call the largest intelligence failure since Pearl Harbor--the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11.

Tenet has kept his job, thanks in large part to what intelligence insiders say is his political savvy and the tight bond he has forged with the one person who really matters in Washington: President Bush.

Insiders and observers agreed that Friday's mea culpa was classic Tenet: It has the potential to defuse the controversy while giving Tenet one more chip to use in Washington's power poker game.

`A good soldier'

"You have to be a good soldier, which is exactly what he's doing," said Vince Cannistraro, a former top CIA official and an outspoken critic of the intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq. "I think he will survive it because he is taking the fall for them, on their behalf. ... Now they owe him one."

Cannistraro said it would be difficult for the Bush administration to let Tenet go so close to an election and with so many intelligence issues swirling.

Controversy is nothing new for Tenet, a native of New York who spent his formative years in Queens. While few CIA directors of the modern era have avoided muddles, Tenet has managed to survive some of recent history's most blazing criticisms. In fact, he has become one of the nation's longest-serving spymasters and, some say, one of its most powerful.

"If there is one thing he [Tenet] knows how to do, it is survive an intelligence failure," said Nick Cullather, the CIA's former historian and now a professor of American history at Indiana University. "There is a method that he uses, and he did it brilliantly [Friday]."

Cullather said Tenet "first gives political cover to the president, which makes the president very grateful," then diverts the issue by raising technical concerns.

"He's really a master at playing the game," said a senior intelligence official who has watched Tenet work upclose and spoke on condition of anonymity. "I think George likes the political part of it."

Tenet honed his political skills after starting in 1985 as an ordinary staff member on the Senate Intelligence Committee. From there, his career skyrocketed.

Within three years, he was the staff director for the committee, one of the intelligence community's most influential posts.

In 1992, President-elect Bill Clinton tapped Tenet to be a member of the national security transition team for the new administration. He was then a special assistant to Clinton on the National Security Council until being appointed deputy CIA director in 1995. In December 1996, he was appointed acting director of central intelligence, a post he assumed permanently after unanimous Senate confirmation the next year.

Trouble came early

Even before his confirmation, there was trouble. In early 1997, CIA security investigators discovered that Tenet's predecessor, John Deutch, kept highly classified documents on his home computer. Investigators would later determine that the CIA botched the inquiry into Deutch's lapses under Tenet's command, though he was not accused of covering up for Deutch.

Still, his critics found plenty of ammunition, especially because Tenet waited until June 1998 to tell Congress. Tenet's press secretary, Bill Harlow, later acknowledged Congress "should have been advised of the situation sooner."

Weeks earlier, Tenet faced a firestorm over his agency's core mission: to anticipate global security threats. In May 1998, the governments of India and Pakistan launched dueling tests of their nuclear weapons, which shocked and frightened the world. The tests were also a shock to the CIA, which had not foreseen them.

On Aug. 7, 1998, when Al Qaeda simultaneously attacked two U.S. Embassies in East Africa, the CIA also was caught off guard. About three weeks later, with Clinton eager to retaliate, the CIA helped direct U.S. cruise missiles to a facility in Khartoum, Sudan, that the agency said was producing precursors necessary for Al Qaeda to manufacture the deadly nerve agent VX. But it turned out to be a pharmaceutical factory.

On May 8, 1999, trying to strike at the repressive regime in Yugoslavia, U.S. warplanes instead bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, once again acting on intelligence from Tenet's CIA. The bombing, which killed three people, provoked outrage from China.

Despite those missteps and others, Tenet survived. He was the most senior official from the Clinton administration to find favor with the Bush White House, where there was often open derision for Clinton and his key advisers. Even after the attacks of Sept. 11, which congressional investigators found were preceded by extensive intelligence failures, especially at the CIA, Bush kept Tenet.

An intelligence official, also speaking on condition of anonymity, said, "Tenet is extraordinarily skillful in the interpersonal sense," adding that his close relationship with Bush has been the key to survival.

Charisma critical

This official, who is a critic of Tenet, said the CIA director has made himself vital to his boss through his charisma, his persuasive manner and an extraordinary grasp of details.

"You see the guy, and you're looking at him, and your eyes are going around in your head, but you think, `He's actually making sense,'" the official said.

Insiders say the Sept. 11 attacks only made Tenet more influential, as he worked face-to-face with Bush around the clock.

The senior intelligence official, the one who has closely watched Tenet work, said many CIA chiefs have walked into the Oval Office, delivered their intelligence to the president, then left before the policy discussions began. That way, the purity of the intelligence can't be questioned.

"But George clearly is part of the policy," this official said. "When you are part of the policy, the lines get blurry."

From the "Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security Daily," 10 July:

GSA Judges Courthouse Security Funding to be Insufficient

The war on terror has increased the workload of the nation’s federal courts - and necessitated major security upgrades which the federal government can’t afford, a General Services Administration official told a congressional committee Wednesday. “Congress provided some funds after September 11, 2001, for the judiciary to enhance its security, but the security of some courthouses is so inadequate that it can only be remedied by replacement of the facility,” Public Buildings Service Commissioner Joseph Moravec told the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management. Moravec noted that while the president’s fiscal 2004 budget request includes $257 million for 11 “court-related repair and alteration projects,” it includes no money for courthouse construction. - Amy Menefee

• Transcript of Moravec’s testimony

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - GOVERNMENT REORGANIZATION
July 8, 2003 - 7:20 p.m.
Ridge Advisory Panel Biased Toward Industry, Watchdog Group Charges
By Christopher Logan, CQ Staff Writer

A panel formed to advise Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge on a range of policies is unfairly biased towards industry, a government watchdog group said Tuesday.
The Homeland Security Advisory Council includes executives from Dow Chemical, pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly, and the Union Pacific Railroad.
In a July 8 letter to Ridge, the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) said the council's makeup "does not currently bring the balance necessary to ensure that security interests prevail over corporate interests."
The advisory council originally was formed in March 2002 to advise the president on homeland security policies. In March of this year, however, President Bush transferred the panel to the new Department of Homeland Security.
Ridge reconstituted the group last month.
Noting that more than 80 percent of the critical infrastructure in the United States is privately owned, POGO said the council's members are in a position to influence decisions "that will directly effect [sic] their bottom lines, despite their lack of homeland security experience."
At the same time, the letter said, "members from groups that do have such expertise and who have raised concerns about the inadequacy of our nation's security have been denied similar involvement."
POGO also complained that the law creating the Department of Homeland Security exempts the advisory council from provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The act requires panels advising federal officials to advertise their meetings and to meet in public.
"Without proper oversight, the financial interests of the private sector will vie with the security interests of the American public," POGO warned. "Given that increased security will undoubtedly cost money, the question will be who pays - private industry or the taxpayer?"
The makeup of the Homeland Security Advisory Council was first reported in October 2002 by CQ Homeland Security. At that time, a White House Office of Homeland Security spokesman said the council's members had been told to recuse themselves from deliberations directly involving their industries.
But POGO said the conflict between increased homeland security costs and the private sector's financial interests are difficult to avoid.
The group noted it has been pushing for mandatory security upgrades at nuclear power plants, but has met resistance from representatives of the nuclear industry "who were determined to limit the scope of any security upgrades that would require additional spending on their part - regardless of how urgent the need."
The nuclear industry's policies were driven by its financial interests, POGO charged, and other companies can be expected to oppose mandatory security improvements for similar reasons.
The new advisory council, the group said, "should not institutionalize this kind of conflict of interest by relying on representatives of industries that have such a clear financial stake in homeland security decisions."
Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse had not seen the POGO letter late Tuesday afternoon.
CQ Homeland Security forwarded a copy of the letter to Roehrkasse, but he had not offered a response by deadline.

On the Hill:

Monday, July 7
House Government Reform Committee
Humanitarian Assistance
National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations Subcommittee hearing on "Humanitarian Assistance Following Military Operations: Overcoming Barriers." (Note: At 10 a.m. the full committee will receive a briefing via video conference from the Administrator of the Office of the Coalition Provincial Authority Paul Bremer from Baghdad.)
Witnesses: Susan Westin, managing director of international affairs and trade, General Accounting Office; Jay Garner, former director, Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, Defense Department; Arthur Dewey, assistant secretary for population, refugees and migration, State Department; Pat Carey, senior vice president of programs, CARE; Charles MacCormack, president, Save the Children; Bruce Wilkinson, senior vice president for programs, World Vision, Inc.
Location: 210 Cannon House Office Building. 11:30 a.m. (July 7, 2003)
Contact: 202-225-5074   http://www.house.gov/reform

Wednesday, July 9
Senate Armed Services Committee
Iraqi/Afghanistan Lessons
Full committee hearing on "lessons learned" during Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan and Operation Iraqi Freedom, and to review ongoing operations in the U.S. Central Command region. (Hearing will adjourn into a closed session in 219 Hart Senate Office Building.)
Witnesses: Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld; Gen. Tommy Franks, commander, U.S. Central Command
Location: 216 Hart Senate Office Building. 9:30 a.m. (July 9, 2003)
Contact: 202-224-3871 http://www.senate.gov/~armed_services

From the "Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security Daily," 3 July:

SENATE LEADERS DESCRIBE NEW FOCUS IN SEARCH FOR IRAQI WEAPONS

Leaders of the Senate Select Intelligence and Armed Services committees today defended U.S. efforts to maintain order in Iraq while searching for proof that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction (WMD). Returning from a three-day visit to Iraq, the committee leaders described a shift in focus of the U.S. search for weapons of mass destruction, whose existence was cited by President Bush as a primary reason for the pre-emptive U.S. attack on Iraq. Pat Roberts, R-Kan., chairman of the Select Intelligence Committee, said U.S. authorities are
pursuing a "new paradigm," as he put it, that concentrates on proving Saddam had a weapons program, even if no actual weapons can be found.  Ranking Intelligence Democrat John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia nonetheless voiced concern about the switch in administration focus. When Congress voted last fall to go to war, he said, lawmakers "had assumed WMD posed an imminent threat. This is a different consideration. We need to
look at that carefully."

Air Marshals Grounded due to Problems Found in Background Checks

The federal air marshal program, significantly beefed up following the commandeering of four commercial aircraft by terrorists on 11 September 2001, has grounded over 100 air marshals, some permanently, leading to further criticism of the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) management of airline security, MSNBC.com and The Associated Press reported on 24 June. According MSNBC.com, "TSA has fired between 20 and 30 federal air marshals, or FAMs, for issues stemming from their background investigations...And more than 80 FAMs have been grounded and are currently on administrative leave because of questions arising from their security investigations." TSA spokesman Brian Turmail admitted the agency was having problems with clearances, saying while "we won't disclose the exact number, a very small number of air marshals are on administrative leave pending the adjudication process" to address issues arising from background investigations. However, he told the AP that none of the air marshals had been fired. MSNBC.com also reported that FAMs are being allowed to fly before receiving final security clearances, meaning their background investigations have not been completed. Turmail denied this allegation. Yet, MSNBC.com said several sources, "including working air marshals, confirmed that they knew of air marshals either without completed background checks or without having received their final clearances. One TSA administrative source said that as many as 60 percent of all air marshals hadn't yet received their final top secret security clearances."

ANALYSIS: While the exact number of air marshals is classified, it is estimated that the number rose from roughly 33 prior to 11 September to several thousand currently. The management of that rapid expansion has been identified as having problems. While TSA was still a part of the Department of Transportation, a DOT inspector general's investigation found that while TSA "made commendable progress in expanding the program," four pivotal areas, which were not disclosed for security reasons, were found "needing immediate attention." AP reported that disgruntled marshals, who are legally barred from talking about the program, complained that "hiring standards were lowered because of the haste with which the program expanded." Problems with the federal air marshal program could not have come at a worse time for TSA. Only recently has the agency experienced severe criticism for its handling of background investigations of some 55,000 people hired as airport screeners. Over 1,200 have been fired for issues resulting from background checks, including past crimes.

President Bush Calls on Pharmaceutical Industry to Lobby for BioShield Legislation

In a speech to the Bio 2003 Convention Center and Exhibition in Washington, DC on 23 June, President George W. Bush encouraged the pharmaceutical industry to lobby Congress to push forward legislation authorizing Project BioShield, a White House statement reported. Project BioShield, which was proposed during the president's January 2003 State of the Union address, would allocate nearly $6 billion over the next 10 years to developing vaccines and antidotes to biological agents most likely to be used in bioterrorism attack including botulin toxin, E-bola, and plague. "Project BioShield will give our scientific leaders greater authority and more flexibility in decisions that may affect our national security," Bush said. Calling on the pharmaceutical industry, the president said, "...I need your help in lobbying the members of the United States Congress. And the message is clear: for the sake of our national security, the United States Congress must pass the BioShield legislation as soon as possible."

ANALYSIS: While appropriations committees in both the House and Senate have passed BioShield legislation, lawmakers still disagree over some aspects of the bill. Some are hesitant to allow the administration discretionary spending over the fund, especially since the administration has come under criticism for not being prepared to identify which biological agents pose the greatest bioterrorism threat. The legislation would also permit the government to ease safety and testing regulations when necessary, according to Newhouse News Service. Raymond Gilmartin, CEO of Merck & Co., said that one of the best ways to ensure the development of vaccines against bioterrorism agents is the passage of the BioShield legislation, according to the Washington Times. Newhouse reported that lawmakers may reach a resolution soon and that both chambers of Congress could vote by late summer or early fall.

Jun 23, 6:31 AM EDT
GOP Sen. Presses Bush on Iraqi Weapons
By JENNIFER C. KERR
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction has left a cloud over the Bush administration's credibility that won't be removed until Americans know whether the administration was straightforward with them, a Republican member of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Sunday.
At the same time, the committee's chairman and its senior Democrat said it is too early to say whether prewar weapons intelligence was manipulated or hyped before the U.S.-led invasion in March, as some Democrats have suggested.
The committee began last week an inquiry into the administration's use of intelligence to justify the invasion, specifically assertions that President Saddam Hussein had thriving programs to develop chemical and biological weapons and had tried to obtain material for nuclear arms.
Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., said the administration is cooperating with the committee hearings, and he expects the cooperation to continue.
"This is a cloud hanging over their credibility, their word," said Hagel. "They need to get that dealt with, taken care of, removed."
Hagel, who spoke on ABC's "This Week" program, said: "The world - certainly Americans - must have confidence in this administration. ... And to resolve this issue is certainly in the interests of this administration."
The Intelligence Committee chairman, Sen. Pat Roberts, said he had seen no evidence in the hearings' early going of any manipulation or other questionable administration tactics, but his panel hopes to answer that question once and for all.
"That's why we have all of the voluminous material from the ceiling to the floor from the CIA," the Kansas Republican said.
The panel's top Democrat, Sen. Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, said he does not know whether intelligence may have been exaggerated to bolster the administration's case for going to war, but he added that he has misgivings over the possibility.
Rockefeller pointed to claims that Iraq sought uranium from Africa, which were later determined to be based on forged documents that came to the CIA through Italian and British agencies. President Bush mentioned the purported Niger-Iraq connection in his State of the Union address, apparently after the forgery had been discovered.
For now, Rockefeller said, "I am not going to conclude from that that the president was deliberately misleading."
Rockefeller and Roberts both appeared on "Fox News Sunday."
Their committee held one secret session last week. Roberts said three more hearings are planned, and they probably will be followed by an open hearing, which Democrats have demanded.
"At the end of it, doubtlessly, we will have a public hearing. We'll make a public report and probably a classified report," Roberts said.
The House Intelligence Committee is conducting a similar review on prewar weapons assessments, as is the Senate Armed Services Committee.
More than two months after the fall of Baghdad, no weapons of mass destruction have been found in Iraq, which has raised questions about the Bush administration's primary justification for invading.
Until recently, Bush and his aides had maintained prohibited weapons would be found. In his radio address Saturday, Bush made no such promise and said instead that documents and suspected weapons sites were looted and burned "in the regime's final days."

From the "Congressional Quarterly Homeland Security Daily," 20 June:

Ridge Says No One Agency Should Terror Intelligence Unit

He will have a “robust capability for fully independent terrorist threat analysis at DHS headquarters,” Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said, but no federal department or agency - including his own - “should control” the new Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC). That would defeat President Bush’s goal of corralling analysts from the FBI, CIA, DHS and other agencies under one roof, Ridge said in a June 17 letter to Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn. Lieberman had questioned whether the new center would be controlled by the CIA or otherwise evade the aim of Congress for a new analytical center. No problem, Ridge said, offering the Bush administration’s strongest defense yet of the new arrangement: “TTIC is entirely consistent with both the language and the goals of the Homeland Security Act.” - Jim McGee

June 18, 2003

Lengthy homeland security spending fight looms in Senate

By William New, National Journal's Technology Daily

The House is expected to debate homeland security funding on the floor as early as next week, but the fight over how much money to allocate for such initiatives in fiscal 2004 probably will continue until the budget crunch time of September, a top Senate budget aide said on Wednesday.

The long fight will be the result of a combination of a slower track in the Senate and the potential baggage of individual earmarks for lawmakers' districts along the way, said Bill Hoagland, the budget and appropriations director to Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

While the House will try to bring the homeland security appropriations bill to the floor next week, the Senate will not get to it until after the July 4 congressional recess, Hoagland said.

Speaking at an Equity International event sponsored by BearingPoint, Hoagland said final funds available for homeland security across the government are expected to top $34 billion in fiscal 2003. That would be a 23 percent increase over fiscal 2002, the largest increase for any sector of the government, he said, and it would represent growth three times faster than the 9 percent overall growth in spending this year, even including the cost of the Iraq war.

Hoagland said the administration's $34.6 billion request for security in fiscal 2004 would be a "significant slowdown" to a 1.8 percent increase. "Politically, this will become an issue as the spending bills work their way through the Congress this summer," he said, noting attempts this week to add billions for emergency "first responders."

On Tuesday, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., re-introduced a measure to eliminate earmarks in appropriations, Hoagland noted.

Hoagland also said the Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee is responsible only for about two-thirds of total security funding. The other one-third is spread across the jurisdictions of six appropriations subcommittees.

He raised the possibility of debate surrounding appropriations for workers in the Homeland Security Department's Customs and Border Protection Bureau. While Congress appears to be on track to expand on the Bush administration's request for security funding generally, it undercut funds for employees in that bureau, Hoagland said.

The House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee approved $1.06 billion less for bureau salaries and expenses than the White House requested. That appears counterintuitive given the pronouncements by bureau officials on Wednesday about the general level of accord for the massive transition occurring as border-related agencies meld, Hoagland suggested after the event.

Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror
By Laura Blumenfeld
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, June 16, 2003; Page A01

Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox.
"Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting.
Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?
"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."
No single issue has defined the Bush presidency more than fighting terrorism. And no issue has both animated and intimidated Democrats. Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush. The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing." Yet Beers decided that he wanted out, and he is offering a rare glimpse in.
"Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense," Beers said. "The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."
In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."
The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."
"I continue to be puzzled by it," said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. "Why was it such a policy priority?" The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully."
He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan," he said.
As for the Saudis, he said, the administration has not pushed them hard enough to address their own problem with terrorism. Even last September, he said, "attacks in Saudi Arabia sounded like they were going to happen imminently."
Within U.S. borders, homeland security is suffering from "policy constipation. Nothing gets done," Beers said. "Fixing an agency management problem doesn't make headlines or produce voter support. So if you're looking at things from a political perspective, it's easier to go to war."
The Immigration and Naturalization Service, he said, needs further reorganization. The Homeland Security Department is underfunded. There has been little, if any, follow-through on cybersecurity, port security, infrastructure protection and immigration management. Authorities don't know where the sleeper cells are, he said. Vulnerable segments of the economy, such as the chemical industry, "cry out for protection."
"We are asking our firemen, policemen, Customs and Coast Guard to do far more with far less than we ever ask of our military," he said. Abroad, the CIA has done a good job in targeting the al Qaeda leadership. But domestically, the antiterrorism effort is one of talk, not action: "a rhetorical policy. What else can you say -- 'We don't care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?' "
When asked about Beers, Sean McCormack, an NSC spokesman, said, "At the time he submitted his resignation, he said he had decided to leave government. We thanked him for his three decades of government service." McCormack declined to comment further.
However it was viewed inside the administration, onlookers saw it as a rare Washington event. "I can't think of a single example in the last 30 years of a person who has done something so extreme," said Paul C. Light, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. "He's not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office."
Although Beers has worked in three Republican administrations, he is a registered Democrat. He wanted to leave the NSC quietly, so when he resigned, he said it was for "personal reasons." His friends called, worried: "Are you sick?"
When Beers joined the White House counterterrorism team last August, the unit had suffered several abrupt departures. People had warned him the job was impossible, but Beers was upbeat. On Reagan's NSC staff, he had replaced Oliver North as director for counterterrorism and counternarcotics, known as the "office of drugs and thugs."
"Randy's your model government worker," said Wendy Chamberlin, a U.S. Agency for International Development administrator for Iraq, who worked with Beers on counterterrorism on the NSC of the first Bush administration. "He works for the common good of the American people. He's fair, balanced, honest. No one ever gets hurt feelings hearing the truth from Randy."
The first thing Beers noticed when he walked into his new office was the pile of intelligence reports. The "threat stuff," as Beers calls it, was 10 times thicker than it had been before the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.
He was in a job that would grind down anyone. Every day, 500 to 1,000 pieces of threat information crossed his desk. The typical mix included suspicious surveillance at a U.S. embassy; surveillance of a nuclear power plant or a bridge; a person caught by airport security with a weapon, or an airplane flying too close to the CIA; a tanker truck, which might contain a bomb, crossing the border and heading for a city; an intercepted phone call between suspected terrorists. Most of the top-secret reports -- pumped into his office from the White House Situation Room -- didn't pan out. Often they came from a disgruntled employee or a spouse.
When the chemical agent ricin surfaced in the London subway, "we were worried it might manifest here," he said. The challenge was: "Who do we alert? How do you tell them to organize?"
Every time the government raises an alarm, it costs time and money. "There's less filtering now because people don't want to make the mistake of not warning," he said. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the office met three times a week to discuss intelligence. Now, twice a day, at 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., it holds "threat matrix meetings," tracking the threats on CIA spreadsheets.
It was Beers's task to evaluate the warnings and to act on them. "It's a monstrous responsibility," said William Wechsler, director for transnational threats on Clinton's NSC staff. "You sit around every day, thinking about how people want to kill thousands of Americans."
Steven Simon, director for counterterrorism in the Clinton White House, said, "When we read a piece of intelligence, we'd apply the old how-straight-does-your-hair-stand-up-on-your-head test."
The government's first counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who left his White House job in February after more than 10 years, said officials judged the human intelligence based on two factors: Would the source have access to the information? How reliable was his previous reporting? They scored access to information, 12345; previous reporting, abcd. "A score of D5, you don't believe. A1 -- you do," Clarke said. "It's like a jolt of espresso, and you feel like -- whoop -- it pumps you up, and wakes you up."
It's easier to raise the threat level -- from code yellow to code orange, for example -- than to lower it, Beers said: "It's easier to see the increase in intelligence suggesting something's going to happen. What do you say when we're coming back down? Does nothing happening mean it's not going to happen? It's still out there."
After spending all day wrestling with global jihad, Beers would go home to his Adams Morgan townhouse. "You knew not to get the phone in the middle of the night, because it was for Dad," said his son Benjamin, 28. When the Situation Room called, Beers would switch to a black, secure phone that scrambled the signal, after fishing the key out of his sock drawer. There were times he would throw on sweats over his pajamas and drive downtown.
"The first day, I came in fresh and eager," he said. "On the last day, I came home tired and burned out. And it only took seven months."
Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."
In the end, Beers was arriving at work each day with knots in his stomach. He did not want to abandon his colleagues at such a critical, dangerous time. When he finally decided to quit, he drove to a friend's house in Arlington. Clarke, his old counterterrorism pal, took one look at the haggard man on his stoop and opened a bottle of Russian River Pinot Noir. Then he opened another bottle. Clarke toasted Beers, saying: You can still fight the fight.
Shortly after that, Beers joined the Kerry campaign. He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry's emphasis on national service.
On a recent hot night, at 10 o'clock, Beers sat by an open bedroom window, wearing a T-shirt, his bare feet propped on a table.
Beers was on a three-hour conference call, the weekly Monday night foreign policy briefing for the campaign. The black, secure phone by his bedside was gone. Instead, there was a red, white and blue bumper sticker: "John Kerry -- President." The buzz of helicopters blew through the window. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed, there were more helicopters circling the city.
"And we need to return to that kind of diplomatic effort . . . ," Beers was saying, over the droning sound. His war goes on.

CQ TODAY - APPROPRIATIONS
June 12, 2003 - 12:17 p.m.

First Spending Bill for Department of Homeland Approved in Closed-Door Session

By Martin Kady II, CQ Staff

House appropriators on Thursday approved by voice vote a $30.4 billion fiscal 2004 spending bill for the Department of Homeland Security. The first markup of a spending bill for the new department was conducted behind closed doors, over the protests of panel Democrats.

Congress created the Homeland Security Department in 2002 (PL 107-296) by merging 22 agencies that handled transportation and border security, immigration control and emergency response and preparedness.

Democrats objected to the decision by Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., to close the markup. David R. Obey of Wisconsin, the top Democrat on the full Appropriations panel, argued that there was no reason for a closed-door session because "there is not a single part of this bill that is classified."

Rogers said after the meeting that, "We had to talk about our vulnerabilities and how we're going to protect ourselves from attack." He said he was not sure if the information was classified, but said it was sensitive. The subcommittee voted, 9-7, along party lines, to close the session.

Other Appropriations subcommittees, including defense and energy and water development, traditionally mark up their bills in closed session because they deal with sensitive national security issues, Appropriations Committee spokesman John Scofield said. The Defense Appropriations Subcommittee deals with classified military information, while the energy subcommittee handles appropriations for nuclear programs.

Of the $30.4 billion in the homeland security bill, about $29.4 billion is discretionary spending. That is about $1 billion more than President Bush requested and $536 million more than was approved for the same programs in fiscal 2003. The balance, about $1 billion, is for payments to Coast Guard retirees.

Rogers noted that the total exceeds his subcommittee's allocation by $890 million, which would be allocated to the bioshield program, a 10-year initiative to develop and stockpile vaccines and medications to combat a bioterrorism attack.

He said the allocation will be adjusted by the full Appropriations Committee to cover the bioshield funds.

Border and transportation security functions would receive $14.8 billion. That figure is $1.6 billion less than a year ago, because the one-time cost of an airline bailout in fiscal 2003 was not included in the fiscal 2004 numbers.

The bill includes $4.4 billion for first responders, $888 million more than Bush sought; $5.2 billion for the Transportation Security Agency (TSA), which is $360 million more than the administration request.Of the TSA total, $100 million would be earmarked for grants to improve port security.

The full Appropriations Committee will mark up the bill June 17.

BioShield Project Criticized by House Democrats

In a letter to President Bush on 9 June Representative Jim Turner (D-Texas) criticized the Department of Homeland's Security (DHS) ability to analyze and determine bioterror threats to the United States, as mandated under Project BioShield. President Bush proposed the project, currently under debate in Congress, which would allow the government to fund the research and stockpile of vaccines. A major point of contention for House Democrats is that the DHS is currently incapable of determining which biological agents pose a severe enough threat to "trigger the program" as the administration's plan calls for, AP reported. In his letter, Turner said that due to the "dysfunctional state" of the department's Office of Information Analysis it "is not remotely close to having the tools it needs to meet its critical mandate." At a press conference with House Democrats, Turner added, "We can't afford to make a multimillion-dollar mistake" on the $6 billion price tagged- project by buying vaccines and antidotes when the DHS cannot ascertain biological threats facing the country. Turner pointed out further that the Office of Information Analysis has only one microbiologist and 25 analysts to-date because of limited office space, and the analysts cannot receive Top Secret or higher materials and information due to do lack of secure technology.

ANALYSIS: Responding to Turner's letter, DHS spokesman, Brian Roehrkasse, said the department is working quickly to address staffing and space shortages, adding that since it inception three months ago, the Office of Information Analysis "has made significant progress in fulfilling its mission, and we realize there is a significant challenge ahead." The department plans to hire 20 more analysts by the end of June, 85 by the end of September, and 4 more microbiology specialists by the end of September, he stated. Turner has not yet indicated whether the department's intended moves will garner more support from House democrats for the Bioshield legislation.

From the Intellibridge "Homeland Security Monitor," 10 June:

U.S. Mayors Ask for Direct Homeland Security Funding from Federal Government

U.S. Mayors are pushing the federal government to establish direct homeland security funding to the nation's cities and counties instead of using state governments as middlemen, according to press reports on the U.S. Conference of Mayors annual meeting in Denver, Colorado. The mayors complained to Undersecretary of Homeland Security Michael D. Brown that the current system, which allows state governments to keep 20 percent of the funding, reduces the amount of money that can fund local homeland security projects, AP reported. Brown said the government has already allocated $4.4 billion to states and cities since March. The mayors said they need the extra funds for training, equipment, and increased patrols aimed at terrorism prevention and readiness.

ANALYSIS: The mayors used their meeting to express what the view as the need to improve and streamline relations between the federal government and cities. "It's taken us one and a half years to get any money designated, now it must go through another bureaucracy," the mayor of Long Beach, California, Beverly O'Neill said. "I'm not asking for a handout, I'm asking for partnership," Louisville Mayor Jerry Abramson added. Brown said that the federal government does not want to disrupt already established partnerships with state governments through federal agencies, like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), AP reported. The DHS is still trying to determine where the county is most vulnerable to terrorist attacks and Brown asked the mayors to continue cooperating in the counter-terrorism fight. Denver Mayor Willington Webb said, "We support President Bush's war on terrorism. But I personally believe we'll be hit again, and the cities are most vulnerable." Boston Mayor Thomas Merino said that the DHS is planning the appointment of several regional homeland security chiefs who will work with local governments, USA Today reported.

Antiterrorism Law Under Debate Again
3 proposals in Congress would ease some burdens on colleges

By MICHAEL ARNONE, Washington

Tensions are flaring again in Congress between lawmakers who want to expand the scope of the USA Patriot Act and those who want to scale it back.

Members of Congress opposed to the law's reach have introduced at least three bills that, if enacted, would ease the burden on colleges and other organizations of complying with the Patriot Act. But those proposals do not deal with the provisions that college officials find most troubling, like those requiring the tracking of foreign students and scholars at American institutions.

The House of Representatives is also expected to take up a proposal, overwhelmingly approved in the Senate, that would give the government more latitude in arresting suspected terrorists. The Senate bill marked the first time that a chamber of Congress has approved a measure based on draft legislation that the U.S. Department of Justice has written to widen its authority under the Patriot Act.

Known informally as Patriot Act II, the draft as a whole includes many measures that concern privacy advocates. Several provisions could have severe effects on colleges, including a proposal to make virtually all of a college's records available to law-enforcement officers without a warrant.

One thing is certain, at least for now. A sunset provision added to the original Patriot Act, under which some of its provisions are set to expire in 2005, will remain in place now that lawmakers fought off an attempt last month to repeal it.

Turning Back the Clock

Several changes in the Patriot Act are up for debate. Rep. Bernard Sanders, an Independent from Vermont, wants to exempt bookstores and libraries from the law's reporting requirements. His bill, HR 1157, would allow libraries to keep their patrons' records secret and require law-enforcement agents to get subpoenas to gain access to other information. Computer hard drives and other physical objects could not be seized as "tangible items" associated with investigations. Under the bill, libraries would be treated as they were before the Patriot Act was passed.

The bill would also require the Justice Department to make public a list of all requests for physical items, like computers, sought in terrorism investigations. The department would also have to account for what was seized and how effective the objects were in the investigations.

Mr. Sanders's bill, which is being reviewed by the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, has more than 100 cosponsors.

Meanwhile, two Patriot Act measures are under consideration by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The first, S 1158, a companion bill to Mr. Sanders's legislation, was introduced last month by Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat.

The second, the Domestic Surveillance Oversight Act, would require the Justice Department to respond more quickly and specifically to Congressional requests for information about antiterrorism investigations. Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, is sponsoring the bill, S 436.

It would require the FBI director to provide the Senate Judiciary and Intelligence Committees with separate lists of requests for telephone records and business records from libraries, including those at colleges. It would also require the attorney general to inform the Senate Judiciary Committee about Justice Department requests for financial records and credit reports from all investigations.

Even though the bills were introduced by Democratic or Independent lawmakers, strong support from influential Republicans bodes well for the bills in both chambers, says Prudence S. Adler, associate executive director of the Association of Research Libraries. Rep. Don Young, of Alaska, is a cosponsor of Mr. Sanders's bill; Sens. Charles E. Grassley of Iowa and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania are backing Mr. Leahy's bill.

Hunting 'Lone Wolves'

However, some other lawmakers are still interested in expanding the powers that law-enforcement agencies have to fight terrorism. Sens. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, and Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, recently introduced a bill that would allow the government to arrest a non-U.S. citizen whom it suspects of terrorism even if it cannot prove that the person is working for a foreign government or organization.

That bill, S 113, would allow the government to go after "lone wolf" terrorists who work on their own. It passed the Senate 90 to 4 last month. The House has yet to introduce a companion bill.

Senate approval of the measure worries some lawmakers and privacy advocates who still have misgivings about the original Patriot Act, which was written in six weeks after the September 11 attacks. If the "lone wolf" bill passes the House and the president signs it, says Lara Flint, staff counsel at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a group that advocates for civil liberties, "then anyone considered a criminal could be surveilled."

The "lone wolf" measure is based on the Patriot Act II draft legislation, formally titled the Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003, which was leaked to lawmakers and the press last February by the Center for Public Integrity, a government-watchdog group based in Washington. The Justice Department first denied and then admitted that it had written the draft. Civil-liberties groups, college officials, and some lawmakers have since banded together to criticize Patriot Act II, arguing that it would give law-enforcement agencies too much power to gather and share sensitive personal information. Judicial oversight of those activities would be reduced or even eliminated under the draft bill. And many of the surveillance activities that the Patriot Act authorizes against noncitizens would be expanded to cover U.S. citizens.

For example, one section of Patriot Act II would enable law-enforcement agencies to obtain library records, credit records, and many other kinds of information without a search warrant. Under another section, a defendant's use of encryption software while committing a computer crime would automatically add at least five years to a criminal sentence.

A third section would remove tax-exempt status from nonprofit organizations that the Justice Department designates as terrorist supporters. A fourth would allow the department to strip citizenship from Americans whom it deems to have contributed to a foreign organization that supports terrorism. Decisions in both instances could be made years after the fact, even if those penalized were unaware of the group's alleged activities.

Portions of Patriot Act II are cause for concern even if most of the legislation is still in draft form, says John C. Vaughn, executive vice president of the Association of American Universities, a group of 62 research institutions. But so far, he adds, he has not heard anything to indicate that the expanded powers given the government under the original Patriot Act have had any deleterious effect on colleges.

Indeed, some of the problems that college officials expected have not materialized, says Sheldon E. Steinbach, vice president and general counsel at the American Council on Education. Congress would be willing to change the law, he says, if specific evidence could be produced that colleges have been hurt by it.

At least one sector of higher education, though, does feel injured by the Patriot Act. International-student offices have complained bitterly about technical glitches in the student-tracking database that the act required to be ready by last January. College officials say the deadlines to use the system are unrealistic. Foreign students and scholars say the government is picking on them.

Untold Powers

Even some lawmakers say they do not know how the Justice Department has used the powers given to it under the Patriot Act. Many members of Congress feel that the department has not been forthcoming about its activities.

"I would hope that the administration would be more responsive to Congressional requests for specific rather than general information," Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, said last month at a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution. "'We can't tell you,' or, in effect, 'It's none of your business' are not adequate, acceptable answers to a Congressional committee seeking to exercise its legitimate oversight functions."

At that hearing, Viet Dinh, a former assistant attorney general who is one of the authors of the Patriot Act and Patriot Act II, said the Justice Department had released a report on its activities under the Patriot Act. Law-enforcement agents had visited about 50 libraries as part of terrorism investigations, he said. He did not specify whether any of them were college libraries.

All of the bills that have been introduced to ease the burden of the Patriot Act on libraries require that the Justice Department report its actions in detail to Congress.

Expiration Date

The debate over Patriot Act II in Congress has also sparked a fight about a key part of the original law: the sunset provision. To reassure lawmakers and privacy groups, a clause was added to end some of the expanded surveillance powers on December 31, 2005. That, supporters argued, would give members of Congress time to evaluate whether the Department of Justice had used its new powers effectively and constitutionally. If it had, then the president could sign a new law to extend them.

The clause persuaded many leery lawmakers to vote for the bill, says Orin S. Kerr, an associate professor of law at George Washington University who has testified before Congress about the legislation. "People on the fence were more willing to go along with the sunset," he says.

The clause, however, covers only a small portion of the entire Patriot Act. Most of the law's elements, including those of most concern to colleges, will remain in effect. They include the tracking of all foreign students through the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System, a database known as Sevis, and the registering of the entries and exits of all foreigners through the U.S. Visitor Immigration Status Indication Technology System, a database known as US Visit. Both systems were required by the law.

What's more, the expiration date does not apply to investigations begun before December 31, 2005. Nor does it apply to investigations of terrorist activities that take place, or are suspected to have taken place, before that date.

Dueling Amendments

Feelings about the sunset provision run deep in Congress. That led to a recent showdown in the Senate, when Sen. Russell D. Feingold, a Wisconsin Democrat, proposed several amendments to limit the scope of the "lone wolf" bill. A vocal opponent of the original Patriot Act, he had cast the sole Senate vote against it.

Sen. Orrin G. Hatch, a Utah Republican who is chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, has opposed the sunset clause from the beginning. To counter Mr. Feingold, he proposed his own amendment to repeal it.

In a May 14 editorial in USA Today, Senator Hatch argued the clause was unnecessary, as "Congress can always exercise oversight and change or repeal any law if warranted." Besides, he argued, "why should we simply sunset these provisions when we know full well that the terrorists will not sunset their evil intentions?"

His maneuver angered Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner, a Wisconsin Republican and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. The sunset clause had helped convince him to support the Patriot Act, and he did not want to see it removed. "This will happen over my dead body," he told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Senator Feingold withdrew most of his proposals. Senator Hatch then withdrew his. The bill was approved by the committee and passed by the full Senate. One of its first provisions states that the new powers are subject to the sunset provision of the Patriot Act.

The USA Patriot Act greatly expanded the ability of law-enforcement agencies to gather and share information to fight terrorism, but critics say it does not allow sufficient judicial and Congressional oversight of the expanded powers and violates civil liberties. Congress is considering several bills that might alter some of the law's provisions:
S 113, sponsored by Sens. John Kyl, an Arizona Republican, and Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat, would allow law-enforcement officers to investigate and arrest non-U.S. citizens suspected of terrorism, even if they are not agents of a foreign country or a foreign terrorist group. The bill passed the Senate in May, 90 to 4. A companion bill has not yet been introduced in the House of Representatives.

HR 1157, sponsored by Rep. Bernard Sanders, a Vermont Independent, would exempt libraries and bookstores from providing investigators with records of patron use or physical evidence, such as computers.

S 1158, sponsored by Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat, is the Senate version of the bill introduced by Representative Sanders.

S 436, sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont Democrat, would require the Justice Department to report more thoroughly on its activities to Congress. It would also strengthen judicial review of requests for search warrants and would provide additional protection for libraries.
SOURCE: Chronicle reporting http://chronicle.com
Section: Government & Politics
Volume 49, Issue 40, Page A23

Terror-war stance hurting Democrats
By Stephen Dinan
Published May 30, 2003

A series of recent polls reveals what Democrats have known implicitly since the 2002 elections - not being tough on terrorism is becoming a disqualifier in presidential politics.
One recent poll asked whether voters would vote for a candidate whom they otherwise preferred, if they thought he wasn't tough enough on terrorism. The survey found that 47 percent said they would disqualify the candidate, against 42 percent who said they still could vote for him.
"This is the first election in the terrorist age. National security isn't abstract," said Michael McKenna, a Republican strategist who conducted the poll of 600 voters earlier this month for Andres McKenna Polling and Research.
"Democrats have to, have to, have to find a way to be competitive on this," he said.
Mr. McKenna said there was no "gender gap" on the issue, even though the sexes differed markedly on other issues, showing that people see this issue as directly affecting their lives at home.
"What it tells me is this is more than a national-security issue. This is a neighborhood-security issue. It's difficult to overestimate the importance of that," he said.
Some observers have likened terrorism to communism during the Cold War, when they say presidential candidates who could not prove they would confront communism vigorously could not get elected.
But Jeremy D. Rosner, senior vice president at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and a former adviser to the Clinton administration on NATO expansion, said the terror issue might not play out as communism did during the Cold War.
"We're not chasing an existential threat, as we were during the Cold War, staring at 20,000 hostile nuclear weapons," he said.
He also said that while the issue will be more prominent in this election than the three since the end of the Cold War, it's not clear it will carry beyond 2004.
"National security is going to be more salient in this presidential election than in the past several, but I think it would be a mistake to necessarily extrapolate that in a guaranteed way. It's going to be highly dependent on events," he said.
In the 2002 congressional elections, President Bush used his plan for the Department of Homeland Security as a campaign issue against several Senate Democrats.
Democratic leaders, including some of the nine running for their party's presidential nomination, have criticized the Bush administration for failing to fund the nation's homeland-security needs.
Still, when asked who's winning the issue of homeland security, polls show Mr. Bush has a gigantic lead.
A recent poll commissioned by Democracy Corps and done by Greenberg Quinlan Rosner found that 17 percent of respondents thought Democrats are better on homeland security; 57 percent said Republicans are better. And 64 percent strongly endorsed the direction Mr. Bush is taking in the war on terror.
Meanwhile, a CNN-Time poll from last week found that 62 percent of those surveyed said none of the Democratic presidential candidates is convincingly credible in handling terrorism.
One explanation may be that although Democrats are challenging the president's funding domestically, voters see the war on terror in global terms, which includes the war in Iraq, and homeland security, said Ronald A. Faucheux, editor of Campaigns & Elections magazine.
"One of the political risks that the Democrats have been running in recent months is that their opposition to the president's policy in Iraq has been seen by many voters as being part and parcel of the war on terrorism, and I think many voters see terrorist threats to the United States in global terms," he said.

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - LOCAL RESPONSE
May 23, 2003 - 7:13 p.m.
Money Scarce, Cities Crunched by Homeland Duties
By David Clarke, CQ Staff Writer

The rising costs of homeland security and public safety are causing cities to spend more money. But at the same time, poor economic conditions are driving down revenues, a survey to be released Tuesday by the National League of Cities concludes.
The survey is the latest in a string of evidence being offered by city, county and state officials who are hammering the federal government to help pay for escalating homeland security, medicare and infrastructure costs.
The survey of 330 cities found that spending will increase by 3 percent during fiscal 2003, primarily because of homeland and public safety programs, while revenues are expected to fall by 1 percent.
"As a result of this fiscal decline, essential services in cities and towns are suffering," John DeStefano Jr., mayor of New Haven, Conn., and president of the League, said in a release Friday. "Police, firefighters, and teachers are being laid off in many cities and spending on infrastructure and other priorities are being postponed."
Firefighter organizations scored a victory Thursday night when the Senate approved a three-year, $3 billion authorization for fire department hiring grants as part of the fiscal 2004 defense authorization bill.
The heavy lobbying by fire organizations focused on the fact that shrinking budgets are forcing some cities to whittle down their fire departments at the same time they have more homeland security responsibilities.
Cities and their fiscal woes have found sympathetic ears in Washington, especially among Democrats who have continually accused the Bush administration and congressional Republicans of shortchanging state and local governments' homeland security and fiscal needs.
Democrats have pushed for more homeland security funding, in particular for firefighters, police officers, emergency medical workers and other groups included under the "first responder" umbrella.
On Friday, Connecticut Democratic senator and presidential candidate Joseph I. Lieberman didn't miss the opportunity to take another swing at President Bush after both chambers passed a White House supported tax cut package (HR 2).
"Do you want year after year of Bush's big tax cuts, which don't help the economy and leave us with no additional money to invest in homeland security, health care and education?" Lieberman asked in a press release.

Stripped Act
City officials are upset that Congressional tax writers stripped a provision that would have sent $4 billion in aid directly to cities.
Instead, the final version passed by both chambers on Friday provides $20 billion to state capitols, $10 billion for medicare costs and $10 billion to spend at their discretion.
While united in their request for more money, state and city organizations have clashed over who should receive the funds.
The survey recognizes that states are facing their own budget crises, noting that they currently face a $29.9 billion budget shortfall that could increase to $78.4 billion in fiscal 2004.
The League is sponsoring a roundtable discussion Tuesday on cities' budget worries at the National Press Club in Washington.

Amendment to Be Recommended on Continuity of Congress
Panel to Report on Keeping Legislative Branch Functioning If Terrorism Were to Incapacitate Capital

By Christopher Lee
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, May 25, 2003; Page A11

Congress should pass a constitutional amendment directing lawmakers to ensure that the legislative branch can survive a catastrophic terrorist attack or natural disaster, a special panel will recommend next month.

The Continuity of Government Commission, a joint project of the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution, spent nine months studying how Congress might carry on if many of its members were killed or incapacitated in an attack on Washington.

The bipartisan panel of former government officials and scholars wrestled with such sensitive questions as: How do you quickly replace deceased House members whose seats constitutionally must be filled through time-consuming special elections? What do you do about incapacitated senators, who can be replaced by gubernatorial appointment if they are killed but not if they are merely injured? And where would Congress convene if Washington were uninhabitable? Could lawmakers conduct business by teleconference?

The constitutional amendment would authorize Congress to enact legislation to address such questions. Three-fourths of the states would have to ratify the amendment.

"The consensus now is that we need a constitutional amendment and that it should be a simple one, not one that tries to spell out in detail all the circumstances and problems," said former House speaker Thomas S. Foley (D-Wash.). He talked about the proposal Friday with reporters and editors from The Washington Post.

The panel's co-chairmen are Lloyd Cutler, former White House counsel to President Bill Clinton, and former senator Alan K. Simpson (R-Wyo.). It also includes former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and former Cabinet members Lynn Martin, a Republican, and Donna E. Shalala, a Democrat, among others.

While many lawmakers are loath to change the Constitution, the panelists are unanimous in the belief that it is necessary. Foley and other commission officials say the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks showed that the government, and especially Congress, is unprepared to cope with any surprise attack that wiped out significant portions of official Washington.

If many lawmakers were killed or incapacitated, for example, it could leave the House or Senate without a quorum and unable to conduct important business such as authorizing military force and approving spending -- all of which might be needed in a time of crisis.

If only a few lawmakers survived, the legitimacy of their actions could be questioned. In theory, a surviving few House members could elect a new speaker, who would then be in line to become president.

"We have a hole in the Constitution that the framers never could have anticipated," said Norman J. Ornstein, an AEI congressional scholar who served as a counselor to the commission.

So far, Congress has done little to address such continuity-of-government issues, Ornstein said. Despite the introduction of several bills and the formation of a House task force, there has been little action except passage of a nonbinding House resolution urging states to speed up special elections for open House seats, he said.

While states have generally been given seven years to ratify amendments, another commission adviser, Thomas E. Mann, said panelists believe a constitutional amendment could be ratified by the states within a year of passage by Congress.

According to Mann, a congressional scholar at Brookings, a proposed amendment might read as follows: "Congress shall have the power to regulate by law the filling of vacancies that may occur in the House of Representatives and Senate in the event a substantial number of members are killed or incapacitated."

It would be up to lawmakers to fill in the details in new legislation while the proposed amendment was being ratified by the states, he said.

The first hurdle, however, is getting Congress to act, commission officials said.

"It's something about human nature," Ornstein said. "We don't want to focus on our own demise."

The commission's report is expected June 4.

May 23, 2003
Both Houses Back More Military Spending
By CARL HULSE

WASHINGTON, May 22 - The House and Senate tonight endorsed the Bush administration's continued military buildup, approving similar $400.5 billion spending measures that add to the United States arsenal and improve pay and housing conditions for the armed forces.
Approved overwhelmingly, the measures go beyond the administration's spending requests in many areas. Lawmakers said the advanced hardware and military staffing that the bills will provide were justified as the nation prepared for an extended campaign against terrorists. The vote in the Senate was 98 to 1, and the House vote was 361 to 68.
"This sends a strong signal throughout the world that we are unified in the war against terrorists," said Senator John W. Warner, Republican of Virginia, the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. "There are many provisions in this bill that go directly to our ability to fight terrorism whether it is abroad or here at home."
The bills authorize more than $70 billion to upgrade and buy weapons. They increase military pay an average of 4.1 percent, raise hardship bonuses, improve access to military health care and provide millions for new housing for troops and their families.
Though most Democrats backed the overall framework of the bills, party leaders on military issues raised serious objections to provisions in the measures that would lift a decade-old ban on research into new nuclear weapons, ease the Pentagon's ability to exempt itself from environmental laws and, in the House version, overhaul civil service rules for 700,000 employees. Democrats criticized the House Republican leadership for refusing to let them challenge the workplace changes on the House floor.
"They have put a couple of olive pits in this jelly doughnut," said Representative Ellen O. Tauscher, a California Democrat who is a member of the Armed Services Committee. Ms. Tauscher's effort to prevent the Pentagon from spending $21 million to study the development of a nuclear weapon capable of penetrating underground bunkers was blocked.
Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, said that Pentagon spending had risen 24 percent over two years, not counting appropriations for the war in Iraq, and that the increase ran counter to pledges by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to transform and streamline the military.
Mr. Byrd, the only senator to oppose the measure, called the effort to contain spending while modernizing the military a "distant memory" and added: "Our defense budget seems more the same as ever. Not more bang for the buck, just more bucks."
The House and Senate bills will have to be reconciled before a measure is sent to President Bush. Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, predicted a difficult conference because the House incorporated many of the contentious civil service changes sought by Mr. Rumsfeld while the Senate did not.
"What we left out of the bill was really significant," Mr. Levin said. But Mr. Warner, who represents large numbers of civilian defense workers, predicted the issue would be worked out.
As the two chambers wound down hours of debate that extended over the past few days, Democrats in the House and the Senate failed on efforts to allow women stationed overseas and military dependents to get abortions at military health facilities. Advocates of allowing abortions have been trying since 1996 to win the change but said it was especially appropriate now given the role of women in the conflict in Iraq.
"No woman should be forced to surrender her constitutional rights as they risk their lives to protect our freedom," said Senator Patty Murray, Democrat of Washington. But Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas, said the provision would amount to taxpayer-financed abortion on demand at federal medical facilities and could jeopardize the entire bill. Ms. Murray's amendment was defeated by a 51-to-48 vote while the same effort lost in the House on a vote of 227 to 201.
Under a compromise negotiated on the Senate floor, the Senate included in its bill a provision sought by Democrats aimed at forcing the Pentagon to allow more competition among companies for work on rebuilding Iraq's oil industry.
The administration issued a statement in general support of the measures, though it criticized the House for not going far e