Homeland Security Focus Areas

Homeland Security - General

Homeland Security Department Seeks Proposals to Create University Centers
By ANNE MARIE BORREGO mailto:annemarie.borrego@chronicle.com
Washington
The U.S. Department of Homeland Security issued guidelines Wednesday for university-based homeland-security centers that will receive millions of dollars in federal grants. The recipient of the first grant will be announced in November. The House of Representatives has proposed spending $35-million, and the Senate $55-million, on the centers and related fellowships during the 2004 fiscal year.
The centers had been a source of concern for many university officials, who had felt that guidelines suggested last year by Congress would have unfairly favored Texas A&M University at College Station. To many university advocates, it appeared at the time that only Texas A&M could satisfy Congress's criteria.
Now, however, "it will be a level playing field," said Michelle Petrovich, a department spokeswoman.
The department, in partnership with the Oak Ridge Associated Universities, will develop a team of external evaluators to conduct a merit-based review of proposals to create the centers. The team will make recommendations to the Homeland Security Department. The Oak Ridge group is a consortium of research universities that operate the Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education, a U.S. Department of Energy facility.
"I'm excited that it's finally out," said Jennifer Poulakidas, a legislative director for the University of California system. "It looks to me like it's a pretty wide open competition."
In its call for proposals, the department said likely areas of research could include economic modeling on the impact and consequences of terrorism, behavioral research on terrorism and countermeasures, public safety, technology transfer, agroterrorism countermeasures, and research and development on security technology.
In addition to the first center, the department plans to select nine more by the end of 2004. The first center will focus on economic aspects to help the government understand the consequences of terrorism.
More information on the call for proposals can be found at http://www.orau.gov/dhsuce
Also this week, the Homeland Security Department plans to announce the first 100 recipients of grants and scholarships through its new Homeland Security Scholars and Fellows Program. The department received nearly 2,500 applications for the program. More information on the program is available at http://www.orau.gov/dhsed

Transcript of Blair's speech to Congress

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair addressed a joint session of the U.S. Congress on Thursday, July 17, 2003. Here is a transcript of his speech.
Mr. Speaker and Mr. Vice President, honorable members of Congress, I'm deeply touched by that warm and generous welcome. That's more than I deserve and more than I'm used to, quite frankly.
And let me begin by thanking you most sincerely for voting to award me the Congressional Gold Medal. But you, like me, know who the real heroes are: those brave service men and women, yours and ours, who fought the war and risk their lives still.
And out tribute to them should be measured in this way, by showing them and their families that they did not strive or die in vain, but that through their sacrifice future generations can live in greater peace, prosperity and hope.
Let me also express my gratitude to President Bush. Through the troubled times since September the 11th changed our world, we have been allies and friends. Thank you, Mr. President, for your leadership.
Mr. Speaker, sir, my thrill on receiving this award was only a little diminished on being told that the first Congressional Gold Medal was awarded to George Washington for what Congress called his "wise and spirited conduct" in getting rid of the British out of Boston.
On our way down here, Senator Frist was kind enough to show me the fireplace where, in 1814, the British had burnt the Congress Library. I know this is, kind of, late, but sorry.
Actually, you know, my middle son was studying 18th century history and the American War of Independence, and he said to me the other day, "You know, Lord North, Dad, he was the British prime minister who lost us America. So just think, however many mistakes you'll make, you'll never make one that bad."
Members of Congress, I feel a most urgent sense of mission about today's world.
September 11 was not an isolated event, but a tragic prologue, Iraq another act, and many further struggles will be set upon this stage before it's over.
There never has been a time when the power of America was so necessary or so misunderstood, or when, except in the most general sense, a study of history provides so little instruction for our present day.
We were all reared on battles between great warriors, between great nations, between powerful forces and ideologies that dominated entire continents. And these were struggles for conquest, for land, or money, and the wars were fought by massed armies. And the leaders were openly acknowledged, the outcomes decisive.
Today, none of us expect our soldiers to fight a war on our own territory. The immediate threat is not conflict between the world's most powerful nations.
And why? Because we all have too much to lose. Because technology, communication, trade and travel are bringing us ever closer together. Because in the last 50 years, countries like yours and mine have tripled their growth and standard of living. Because even those powers like Russia or China or India can see the horizon, the future wealth, clearly and know they are on a steady road toward it. And because all nations that are free value that freedom, will defend it absolutely, but have no wish to trample on the freedom of others.
We are bound together as never before. And this coming together provides us with unprecedented opportunity but also makes us uniquely vulnerable.
And the threat comes because in another part of our globe there is shadow and darkness, where not all the world is free, where many millions suffer under brutal dictatorship, where a third of our planet lives in a poverty beyond anything even the poorest in our societies can imagine, and where a fanatical strain of religious extremism has arisen, that is a mutation of the true and peaceful faith of Islam.
And because in the combination of these afflictions a new and deadly virus has emerged. The virus is terrorism whose intent to inflict destruction is unconstrained by human feeling and whose capacity to inflict it is enlarged by technology.
This is a battle that can't be fought or won only by armies. We are so much more powerful in all conventional ways than the terrorists, yet even in all our might, we are taught humility.
In the end, it is not our power alone that will defeat this evil. Our ultimate weapon is not our guns, but our beliefs.
There is a myth that though we love freedom, others don't; that our attachment to freedom is a product of our culture; that freedom, democracy, human rights, the rule of law are American values, or Western values; that Afghan women were content under the lash of the Taliban; that Saddam was somehow beloved by his people; that Milosevic was Serbia's savior.
Members of Congress, ours are not Western values, they are the universal values of the human spirit. And anywhere...
Anywhere, anytime ordinary people are given the chance to choose, the choice is the same: freedom, not tyranny; democracy, not dictatorship; the rule of law, not the rule of the secret police.
The spread of freedom is the best security for the free. It is our last line of defense and our first line of attack. And just as the terrorist seeks to divide humanity in hate, so we have to unify it around an idea. And that idea is liberty.
We must find the strength to fight for this idea and the compassion to make it universal.
Abraham Lincoln said, "Those that deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves."
And it is this sense of justice that makes moral the love of liberty.
In some cases where our security is under direct threat, we will have recourse to arms. In others, it will be by force of reason. But in all cases, to the same end: that the liberty we seek is not for some but for all, for that is the only true path to victory in this struggle.
But first we must explain the danger.
Our new world rests on order. The danger is disorder. And in today's world, it can now spread like contagion.
The terrorists and the states that support them don't have large armies or precision weapons; they don't need them. Their weapon is chaos.
The purpose of terrorism is not the single act of wanton destruction. It is the reaction it seeks to provoke: economic collapse, the backlash, the hatred, the division, the elimination of tolerance, until societies cease to reconcile their differences and become defined by them. Kashmir, the Middle East, Chechnya, Indonesia, Africa--barely a continent or nation is unscathed.
The risk is that terrorism and states developing weapons of mass destruction come together. And when people say, "That risk is fanciful," I say we know the Taliban supported Al Qaida. We know Iraq under Saddam gave haven to and supported terrorists. We know there are states in the Middle East now actively funding and helping people, who regard it as God's will in the act of suicide to take as many innocent lives with them on their way to God's judgment.
Some of these states are desperately trying to acquire nuclear weapons. We know that companies and individuals with expertise sell it to the highest bidder, and we know that at least one state, North Korea, lets its people starve while spending billions of dollars on developing nuclear weapons and exporting the technology abroad.
This isn't fantasy, it is 21st-century reality, and it confronts us now.
Can we be sure that terrorism and weapons of mass destruction will join together? Let us say one thing: If we are wrong, we will have destroyed a threat that at its least is responsible for inhuman carnage and suffering. That is something I am confident history will forgive.
But if our critics are wrong, if we are right, as I believe with every fiber of instinct and conviction I have that we are, and we do not act, then we will have hesitated in the face of this menace when we should have given leadership. That is something history will not forgive.
But precisely because the threat is new, it isn't obvious. It turns upside-down our concepts of how we should act and when, and it crosses the frontiers of many nations. So just as it redefines our notions of security, so it must refine our notions of diplomacy.
There is no more dangerous theory in international politics than that we need to balance the power of America with other competitive powers; different poles around which nations gather.
Such a theory may have made sense in 19th-century Europe. It was perforce the position in the Cold War.
Today, it is an anachronism to be discarded like traditional theories of security. And it is dangerous because it is not rivalry but partnership we need; a common will and a shared purpose in the face of a common threat.
And I believe any alliance must start with America and Europe. If Europe and America are together, the others will work with us. If we split, the rest will play around, play us off and nothing but mischief will be the result of it.
You may think after recent disagreements it can't be done, but the debate in Europe is open. Iraq showed that when, never forget, many European nations supported our action.
And it shows it still when those that didn't agreed Resolution 1483 in the United Nations for Iraq's reconstruction.
Today, German soldiers lead in Afghanistan, French soldiers lead in the Congo where they stand between peace and a return to genocide.
So we should not minimize the differences, but we should not let them confound us either.
You know, people ask me after the past months when, let's say, things were a trifle strained in Europe, "Why do you persist in wanting Britain at the center of Europe?" And I say, "Well, maybe if the U.K. were a group of islands 20 miles off Manhattan, I might feel differently. But actually, we're 20 miles off Calais and joined by a tunnel."
We are part of Europe, and we want to be. But we also want to be part of changing Europe.
Europe has one potential for weakness. For reasons that are obvious, we spent roughly a thousand years killing each other in large numbers.
The political culture of Europe is inevitably rightly based on compromise. Compromise is a fine thing except when based on an illusion. And I don't believe you can compromise with this new form of terrorism.
But Europe has a strength. It is a formidable political achievement. Think of the past and think of the unity today. Think of it preparing to reach out even to Turkey--a nation of vastly different culture, tradition, religion--and welcome it in.
But my real point is this: Now Europe is at the point of transformation. Next year, 10 new countries will join. Romania and Bulgaria will follow.
Why will these new European members transform Europe? Because their scars are recent, their memories strong, their relationship with freedom still one of passion, not comfortable familiarity.
They believe in the trans-Atlantic alliance. They support economic reform. They want a Europe of nations, not a super state. They are our allies and they are yours. So don't give up on Europe. Work with it.
To be a serious partner, Europe must take on and defeat the anti-Americanism that sometimes passes for its political discourse. And what America must do is show that this is a partnership built on persuasion, not command.
Then the other great nations of our world and the small will gather around in one place, not many. And our understanding of this threat will become theirs. And the United Nations can then become what it should be: an instrument of action as well as debate.
The Security Council should be reformed. We need a new international regime on the nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
And we need to say clearly to United Nations members: "If you engage in the systematic the mission the coalition. But let us start preferring a coalition and acting alone if we have to, not the other way around.
True, winning wars is not easier that way, but winning the peace is.
And we have to win both. And you have an extraordinary record of doing so.
Who helped Japan renew, or Germany reconstruct, or Europe get back on its feet after World War II? America.
So when we invade Afghanistan or Iraq, our responsibility does not end with military victory.
Finishing the fighting is not finishing the job.
So if Afghanistan needs more troops from the international community to police outside Kabul, our duty is to get them.
Let us help them eradicate their dependency on the poppy, the crop whose wicked residue turns up on the streets of Britain as heroin to destroy young British lives, as much as their harvest warps the lives of Afghans.
We promised Iraq democratic government. We will deliver it.
We promised them the chance to use their oil wealth to build prosperity for all their citizens, not a corrupt elite, and we will do so. We will stay with these people so in need of our help until the job is done.
And then reflect on this: How hollow would the charges of American imperialism be when these failed countries are and are seen to be transformed from states of terror to nations of prosperity, from governments of dictatorship to examples of democracy, from sources of instability to beacons of calm.
And how risible would be the claims that these were wars on Muslims if the world could see these Muslim nations still Muslim, but with some hope for the future, not shackled by brutal regimes whose principal victims were the very Muslims they pretended to protect?
It would be the most richly observed advertisement for the values of freedom we can imagine. When we removed the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, this was not imperialism. For these oppressed people, it was their liberation.
And why can the terrorists even mount an argument in the Muslim world that it isn't?
Because there is one cause terrorism rides upon, a cause they have no belief in but can manipulate. I want to be very plain: This terrorism will not be defeated without peace in the Middle East between Israel and Palestine.
Here it is that the poison is incubated. Here it is that the extremist is able to confuse in the mind of a frighteningly large number of people the case for a Palestinian state and the destruction of Israel, and to translate this moreover into a battle between East and West, Muslim, Jew and Christian.
May this never compromise the security of the state of Israel.
The state of Israel should be recognized by the entire Arab world, and the vile propaganda used to indoctrinate children, not just against Israel but against Jews, must cease.
You cannot teach people hate and then ask them to practice peace. But neither can you teach people peace except by according them dignity and granting them hope.
Innocent Israelis suffer. So do innocent Palestinians.
The ending of Saddam's regime in Iraq must be the starting point of a new dispensation for the Middle East: Iraq, free and stable; Iran and Syria, who give succor to the rejectionist men of violence, made to realize that the world will no longer countenance it, that the hand of friendship can only be offered them if they resile completely from this malice, but that if they do, that hand will be there for them and their people; the whole of region helped toward democracy. And to symbolize it all, the creation of an independent, viable and democratic Palestinian state side by side with the state of Israel.
What the president is doing in the Middle East is tough but right.
And let me at this point thank the president for his support, and that of President Clinton before him, and the support of members of this Congress, for our attempts to bring peace to Northern Ireland.
You know, one thing I've learned about peace processes: They're always frustrating, they're often agonizing, and occasionally they seem hopeless. But for all that, having a peace process is better than not having one.
And why has a resolution of Palestine such a powerful appeal across the world? Because it embodies an even-handed approach to justice, just as when this president recommended and this Congress supported a $15 billion increase in spending on the world's poorest nations to combat HIV/AIDS. It was a statement of concern that echoed rightly around the world.
There can be no freedom for Africa without justice and no justice without declaring war on Africa's poverty, disease and famine with as much vehemence as we removed the tyrant and the terrorists.
In Mexico in September, the world should unite and give us a trade round that opens up our markets. I'm for free trade, and I'll tell you why: because we can't say to the poorest people in the world, "We want you to be free, but just don't try to sell your goods in our market."
And because ever since the world started to open up, it has prospered. And that prosperity has to be environmentally sustainable, too.
You know, I remember at one of our earliest international meetings, a European prime minister telling President Bush that the solution was quite simple: Just double the tax on American gasoline.
Your president gave him a most eloquent look.
It reminded me of the first leader of my party, Keir Hardy, in the early part of the 20th century.
He was a man who used to correspond with the Pankhursts, the great campaigners for women's votes.
And shortly before the election, June 1913, one of the Pankhursts sisters wrote to Hardy saying she had been studying Britain carefully and there was a worrying rise in sexual immorality linked to heavy drinking. So she suggested he fight the election on the platform of votes for women, chastity for men and prohibition for all.
He replied saying, "Thank you for your advice. The electoral benefits of which are not immediately discernible."
We all get that kind of advice, don't we?
But frankly, we need to go beyond even Kyoto, and science and technology is the way.
Climate change, deforestation, the voracious drain on natural resources cannot be ignored. Unchecked, these forces will hinder the economic development of the most vulnerable nations first and ultimately all nations.
So we must show the world that we are willing to step up to these challenges around the world and in our own backyards.
Members of Congress, if this seems a long way from the threat of terror and weapons of mass destruction, it is only to say again that the world security cannot be protected without the world's heart being one. So America must listen as well as lead. But, members of Congress, don't ever apologize for your values.
Tell the world why you're proud of America. Tell them when the Star-Spangled Banner starts, Americans get to their feet, Hispanics, Irish, Italians, Central Europeans, East Europeans, Jews, Muslims, white, Asian, black, those who go back to the early settlers and those whose English is the same as some New York cab driver's I've dealt with ... but whose sons and daughters could run for this Congress.
for this Congress.
Tell them why Americans, one and all, stand upright and respectful. Not because some state official told them to, but because whatever race, color, class or creed they are, being American means being free. That's why they're proud.
As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible, but, in fact, it is transient.
The question is: What do you leave behind?
And what you can bequeath to this anxious world is the light of liberty.
That is what this struggle against terrorist groups or states is about. We're not fighting for domination. We're not fighting for an American world, though we want a world in which America is at ease. We're not fighting for Christianity, but against religious fanaticism of all kinds.
And this is not a war of civilizations, because each civilization has a unique capacity to enrich the stock of human heritage.
We are fighting for the inalienable right of humankind--black or white, Christian or not, left, right or a million different--to be free, free to raise a family in love and hope, free to earn a living and be rewarded by your efforts, free not to bend your knee to any man in fear, free to be you so long as being you does not impair the freedom of others.
That's what we're fighting for. And it's a battle worth fighting.
And I know it's hard on America, and in some small corner of this vast country, out in Nevada or Idaho or these places I've never been to, but always wanted to go...
I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, "Why me? And why us? And why America?"
And the only answer is, "Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do."
And our job, my nation that watched you grow, that you fought alongside and now fights alongside you, that takes enormous pride in our alliance and great affection in our common bond, our job is to be there with you.
You are not going to be alone. We will be with you in this fight for liberty.
We will be with you in this fight for liberty. And if our spirit is right and our courage firm, the world will be with us.
Thank you.

China, U.S. unite over N. Korea

WASHINGTON (CNN) --Beijing and Washington have agreed to join forces to find a diplomatic solution to the nuclear stand-off with North Korea.
Chinese media reports say the accord was expressed in a phone call between the Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.
The joint approach comes on the heels of China sending a senior envoy to Pyongyang for a meeting with North Korea's reclusive leader, Kim Jong Il.
China urged North Korea to resume talks on resolving the nuclear crisis while leaving open the format and participants for such future talks, officials and Western diplomats said. (China ups the ante http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/asiapcf/east/07/15/nk.china/index.html)
The envoy delivered a letter from President Hu Jintao proposing that North Korea participate in a combination of bilateral and multilateral talks on its nuclear program, diplomatic sources told CNN.
Meanwhile, the Bush administration has been facing the heat from a number of national security experts who say its policy towards North Korea is a failure and could lead to war.
The criticism comes in the wake of Pyongyang's claim it has enough plutonium to make half a dozen nuclear bombs.
North Korean officials told the U.S. State Department last week they had completed reprocessing 8,000 spent fuel rods from a nuclear plant into plutonium.
U.S. officials have said such claims are "serious" as Pyongyang has already made it clear it intends to make nuclear weapons.
While the Bush administration says it is evaluating the claims, one U.S. official involved in North Korea policy said "we have hard scientific data and evidence" to support the assessment that the North has begun reprocessing.
North Korea and the United States have been in a tense standoff since October when Washington said Pyongyang admitted to having a covert nuclear weapons program -- in violation of a 1994 pact.

Questions over policy

The U.S. has so far sought a diplomatic solution, which some national security experts are now calling a failure.
The most prominent among them is former defense secretary William Perry, who told The Washington Post he thinks North Korea and the United States may be heading towards war.
Perry told the Post in an interview published Tuesday that after speaking to several senior administration officials he was baffled by Bush's policy on North Korea.
"I'm damned if I can figure out what the policy is," he said. "My theory is the reason we don't have a policy on this, and we aren't negotiating, is the president himself."
"I think he has come to the conclusion that Kim Jong Il is evil and loathsome and it is immoral to negotiate with him," Perry told the Post.
North Korea's claim about the fuel rods is particularly troublesome, said Perry, who as former President Clinton's defense secretary directed preparations for possible airstrikes against North Korean nuclear plants in 1994.
"I have thought for some months that if the North Koreans moved toward processing [spent fuel rods], then we are on a path toward war," Perry told the Post.
But there is a clear view among some in Washington that North Korea is upping the ante to gain bargaining power to get what it wants: a non-aggression pact with the United States, as well as more oil and food aid.
"We seek a diplomatic solution, but as we move forward we will remain in close contact with South Korea, Japan, China and others to address this and find a solution," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters Tuesday.
Since the standoff began, the administration has refused to offer North Korean leader Kim any concessions to give up his weapons because it believes that doing so would be nuclear blackmail.
Pyongyang is seeking one-on-one talks with Washington, but Bush has so far refused.
-- CNN White House Correspondent Dana Bash and State Department Producer Elise Labott contributed to this report.

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - LOCAL RESPONSE
July 14, 2003 - 8:17 p.m.
Counties Draw Lines on Homeland Issues at Annual Meeting
By Martin Edwin Andersen, CQ Staff Writer

MILWAUKEE - Billions of dollars in federal homeland security funding - and ideas for getting and spending them - topped the agenda at the National Association of Counties' 68th annual conference, ending today Tuesday at the downtown Midwest Airlines Center.
The association's homeland security task force also received an updated mission, and a new head when NACO President-elect Karen Miller, a Boone County, Mo., commissioner becomes the leader of that group.
The task force will explore the next steps for the association's homeland security efforts, as immediate post-9/11 issues and concerns recede in the face of a growing body of national, state and local legislation and new sources of funding become available.
NACO officials point out that the group worked closely with former Senate Government Affairs Committee Chairman Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., in crafting the language that established the Homeland Security Department's (DHS) state and local liaison offices.
"We've spent a lot of time calling on Congress to fully support and fund local [homeland security] needs," NACO Legislative Director Edwin Rosado said. "This year, the funds have become available and the money has begun to flow."
NACO represents about 2,050 of the country's 3,066 counties and is one of the so-called "Big Seven" associations that also include the National Governors' Association, the National League of Cities, the National Conference of State Legislatures, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors.
On Saturday, Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson called on delegates to the NACO conference to help better ensure that bioterrorism and public health aid reach their jurisdictions.
"I know full well that if we're going to have an incident in America, it's going to be you at the local level that's going to make sure that we're able to counteract it, to be able to contain it and be able to respond," Thompson said.
On Monday, the NACO task force studied some of the best homeland security programs in place in the country and discussed how to best access some $6 billion in federal grants available this fiscal year for security improvements.
According to Dalen Harris, NACO's staff liaison for homeland security, the largest portion of those funds came from two programs funded by the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness and another available to firefighters.
Aced Out
Harris pointed out that of about $800 million earmarked for high threat urban areas, $100 million already has been spent. Counties, he said, have received none of that money.
He reported interest on how to tap into those funds was high among representatives of the counties adjacent to the 15 cities slated to receive the money.
Also attending the Monday session was David Hagy, the DHS liaison with local governments. Hagy gave a powerpoint presentation to the homeland security task force about the department's decision- and grants-making processes.
"All these local grants are a big thing" for the NACO delegates, Hagy told CQ Homeland Security in an interview before the meeting.
Hagy, who came to DHS two months ago after serving as chief of staff for Houston's Harris County judge, or county executive, said his presentation before the task force, like one he made Friday to NACO's justice and public safety committee, was meant to continue the process of making the grants process more "user friendly" through consultations with the convention delegates.
NACO officials had high praise for DHS' outreach efforts to date.
"The department has been great," said Harris.
Added Rosales: "They've opened doors and in general have been very helpful. They've been very good at taking our calls."
Homeland security themes were much in evidence at an exhibitors' pavilion set up on the second floor of the conference center.
Government agencies and private vendors plying their homeland security trade at the event included the International Association of Emergency Managers, Siemens, Autodesk Envision, the Center for Domestic Preparedness, the FBI and the State Department.
Mark Toney, president of the Dallas-based Digital Information Network (DIN) showed off his company's InterLinc Desktop Alert, allowing internet users quick notification of natural disasters, public heath emergencies, hazardous chemical spills, or other critical situations.
One of DIN's newest clients is the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and its head, former four-term Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson.
According to Toney, among the items on Thompson's office desktop alert is an updated weather report for Elroy, Wis., his hometown.

July 14, 2003
Bush Aides Now Say Claim on Uranium Was Accurate
By JAMES RISEN

WASHINGTON, July 13 - Senior Bush administration officials today adjusted their defense of President Bush's claim in his State of the Union Address that Iraq tried to buy uranium from Africa, insisting that the phrasing was accurate even if some of the underlying evidence was unsubstantiated.
Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said in separate appearances on Sunday television talk programs that the disputed sentence in Mr. Bush's January speech was carefully hedged, enough that it could still be considered accurate today.
While continuing to acknowledge, as the White House and the Central Intelligence Agency did last week, that the phrase should not have been uttered, they emphasized today that the British had indeed, as Mr. Bush said, reported Iraq's interest in acquiring African uranium.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush contended that Saddam Hussein was trying to develop a nuclear bomb. Among elements he cited to make his case was a statement that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Ms. Rice, in an appearance on "Fox News Sunday," said that "the statement that he made was indeed accurate. The British government did say that."
And Mr. Rumsfeld said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press" that "it turns out that it's technically correct what the president said, that the U.K. does - did say that - and still says that. They haven't changed their mind, the United Kingdom intelligence people."
On the ABC News program "This Week," Mr. Rumsfeld added that "it didn't rise to the standard of a presidential speech, but it's not known, for example, that it was inaccurate. In fact, people think it was technically accurate."
The legalistic defense of the phrasing seemed to signal a shift in the White House's strategy in dealing with the political fallout over Mr. Bush's public use of evidence that was based in part on fabricated documents and in part on uncorroborated reports from abroad.
It came after a week in which the White House first repudiated the statement and then blamed the Central Intelligence Agency for allowing Mr. Bush to make it. On Friday, George J. Tenet, director of central intelligence, accepted responsibility, saying "these 16 words should never have been included in the text written for the president."
But the bout of finger-pointing between the White House and the agency concerning the African uranium only served to intensify the criticism of the administration for its handling of prewar intelligence on Iraq. Rather than quelling the controversy, the White House stoked it through official statements, providing an opening for Democratic leaders to attack the administration's handling of the intelligence. So Sunday's effort by Ms. Rice and Mr. Rumsfeld appeared to be a response by the White House to turn down the flame on a hot story that the White House itself had helped ignite just days earlier.
Some White House officials suggested that the public was less interested in the story's ins and outs than the news media and the political opposition, and that this was why the administration chose this approach.
In the months before the invasion of Iraq, President Bush and his advisers frequently cited classified intelligence reports that they said provided proof that Iraq was developing nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and had links to Osama bin Laden and other terrorists. Mr. Bush and his advisers said the threat posed by Iraq's development of those weapons and the possibility that Mr. Hussein might share them with terrorists made it necessary to overthrow the Iraqi government.
Since American forces occupied the country, however, they have not discovered conclusive evidence of the existence of such weapons in Iraq's possession, and have also failed to discover conclusive proof that Iraq had forged a terrorist alliance with Al Qaeda.
The failure to find unconventional weapons has led to intense scrutiny of the administration's approach before the war. A group of retired C.I.A. officers has conducted an internal review at the agency of the prewar intelligence reports on Iraq, and Congress has also begun to investigate the handling of the evidence.
In his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, Mr. Bush cited several reports in arguing that Mr. Hussein was trying to develop a nuclear bomb.
"The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990's that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon, and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb," Mr. Bush stated. "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide."
Since the speech, the evidence concerning both the uranium purchases and the aluminum tubes has come into question. In March, the I.A.E.A. reported that documents that formed the basis for reports that Iraq had sought uranium from Niger were forgeries, though the C.I.A. had doubts about the claims of the African uranium shipments long before that. Intelligence officials say the C.I.A. told British officials last fall that they doubted the evidence on the matter, which London was including in a publicly released white paper.
And in the days before Mr. Bush's address, government officials say, a proliferation expert from the C.I.A. discussed the evidence on Niger with a proliferation expert from the National Security Council at the White House. The two men now have different recollections of their conversations on the matter, government officials say. Still, the result was that the phrase in the speech did not refer specifically to Niger, but rather more generally to African uranium. Now, Ms. Rice and other American officials contend that other information about Iraq's efforts to buy uranium from African countries has not been discredited, so that Mr. Bush's statement should be considered accurate.
On Sunday, Ms. Rice sought to play down the significance of the reference in the speech and at the same time defend its use.
"It is ludicrous to suggest that the president of the United States went to war on the question of whether Saddam Hussein sought uranium from Africa," Ms. Rice said on Fox. "This was part of a very broad case that the president laid out in the State of the Union and other places."
But she added that "not only was the statement accurate, there were statements of this kind in the National Intelligence Estimate. And the British themselves stand by that statement to this very day."

July 11, 2003
Justice Department Seeking to Disallow Terrorist Interview
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, July 10 - The Justice Department called on a federal appeals court today to reconsider an earlier ruling that would allow Zacarias Moussaoui to interview a captured member of Al Qaeda who had acknowledged that he was a crucial organizer of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks.
In a series of filings, the department urged the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in Richmond, Va., to rehearse arguments in the case and to block preparations for Mr. Moussaoui's interview of the accused terrorist, Ramzi bin al-Shibh, who is being held at a secret place outside the United States.
Mr. Moussaoui, a French citizen, is the only person now facing trial in the United States for conspiring in the terror attacks.
A lower-court judge in Alexandria, Va., ruled in January that Mr. Moussaoui and his court-appointed lawyers were entitled to question Mr. bin al-Shibh by video conference because it could produce information to bolster Mr. Moussaoui's defense.
Last month, a three-judge panel of the appeals court refused to block the lower-court order, saying the appeals court lacked the jurisdiction to intervene.
In its papers today, the Justice Department called on the appeals court to reconsider the department's arguments at a new hearing, either before the three-judge panel or before all 12 members of the court.
If the earlier ruling is not overturned, the department said, the government will be left with the "choice of disclosing highly classified information to an avowed Qaeda terrorist or having charges dismissed, evidence precluded or a damaging instruction given to the jury in the prosecution of that terrorist for his participation" in conspiracies that resulted in the attacks.

Fact Sheet: Operation Predator
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary, Department of Homeland Security
July 9, 2003

Operation Predator is a new initiative developed by the Department of Homeland Security's Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to protect children world-wide. As the President has made clear anyone who harms a child will be a priority target of law enforcement in this Administration. This comprehensive DHS program will identify child predators and remove them from the United States (if subject to deportation). Operation Predator will also work to identify children depicted in child pornography to help rescue them, and to assist in prosecuting the people responsible for making and distributing the pornographic material.
This Homeland Security initiative is being driven by ICE's Cyber Smuggling Center in conjunction with every facet of the ICE organization. In addition, ICE will partner with other important law enforcement entities such as DHS's own Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the FBI, and other state and local law enforcement agencies. This initiative is also being conducted in partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC).
Identifying Child Predators:
Creating a National Child Victim Identification System - In an unprecedented partnership with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, ICE, the FBI, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, the U.S. Secret Service and the Department of Justice are developing the National Child Victim Identification Card Program. Together with its partners in this important effort, ICE's CyberSmuggling Center is hosting the nation's only comprehensive, searchable system for identifying digital child pornography images. With its capacity to search and identify known images, the system is designed to help law enforcement agencies throughout the world identify and rescue children featured in the images. The system is also designed to facilitate prosecution of those who possess or distribute digital child pornography images in the wake of a 2002 Supreme Court decision (Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition) requiring proof that such images depict an actual child. Because the effort leverages a comprehensive partnership with federal, state and local law enforcement agencies, this system will eventually contain all known child pornography images on the Internet. With partnership from other law enforcement agencies, this system will eventually contain all known child pornography images. Already, the ICE CyberSmuggling Center has been able to positively identify children featured in roughly 300 images and has provided this information to six different law enforcement agencies nationwide for prosecutorial purposes.
Enhancing Partnerships - ICE, the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and the FBI have a long-standing partnership with National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), particularly with its efforts to identify victims of child pornography. ICE is expanding this partnership by assigning a full-time ICE criminal investigator to work at NCMEC, and by using the new capabilities of Operation Predator to help NCMEC rescue missing and exploited children worldwide. ICE agents will also work closely with other programs in the Department of Justice and other federal agencies, in particular the FBI's “Innocent Images” program, to bring to bear the full force of the federal government against child predators.
Using a Single Web Portal to Access All Publicly Available State Megan's Law Databases- In an effort to make state sex offender registry information more widely available to the public, ICE has joined the ranks of other federal agencies in making links to all state sex offender registries available on our website.
Coordination with the NCIC Registered Sex Offender Database - ICE has obtained from the FBI the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) registry of sex offenders from all 50 states (approximately 300,000 names) and is querying this list against all indices available to ICE. The objective of this process is to identify those subjects who are linked to investigations of interest to Operation Predator, ICE and its partnership agencies, or who are subject to deportation proceedings. Operation protocol for updated NCIC information and queries will be established on a monthly basis.
Creation of an ICE Toll Free Reporting Number: ICE has created a toll free telephone number for the public to report information about child sex offenders and others who put children at risk. The toll free number, 1-866-DHS-BICE, will be monitored 24 hours a day by the Law Enforcement Support Center (LESC), which will funnel leads to the appropriate ICE component(s) in a timely manner.
Enhancing Investigative Capabilities
Forming a New, Multi-Agency Unit at the ICE Cyber Smuggling Center - To oversee and coordinate Operation Predator at the national level, ICE has formed a new unit at its Cyber Smuggling Center. This unit is comprised of various ICE representatives, as well as investigators from the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, and other federal agencies.
Appointment of Operation Predator Coordinator - ICE will be appointing an operational coordinator who will report to the Deputy Executive Director of Investigative Services. This new position will be responsible for coordinating Operation Predator activity among ICE law enforcement components and other federal, state, and local agencies.
Harnessing New Intelligence Capabilities to Target Sexual Predators - The ICE Intelligence Division, as a result of the merger of the former INS and Customs Intelligence units and their respective databases, utilizes the combined information available from these systems to identify and locate major sex violators, criminal fugitives and alien absconders with child sex histories. At the same time, the ICE Cyber Smuggling Center is gathering information from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), state Megan's law lists, and other sources. All these leads are being fed to ICE field agents and fugitive operations teams for action.
Prioritizing Investigations Involving Child Exploitation - ICE's Investigations Division has begun prioritizing its ongoing investigations involving child sex crimes, as well as alien and human smuggling cases in which children are placed at risk. ICE agents have also prioritized efforts to locate those who have been charged with sexual offenses, but remain at large.
Prioritizing Removal Actions:
Targeting Fugitive Criminal Aliens with Sex Offense Histories for Removal - In addition to their homeland security responsibilities, ICE's Detention and Removal Division has been prioritizing for removal those criminal aliens with a history of sex offenses. These are foreign nationals who have been convicted of sex offenses, served their sentences, but have subsequently evaded law enforcement efforts to remove them from the country. Upon apprehension, these individuals will be held without bond. To help track down these criminal aliens, ICE has posted a "Most Wanted" Criminal Aliens List on its website at http://www.bice.immigration.gov, enabling the public to see photographs of wanted individuals and to call in tips. ICE has created a toll free tip line, 1-866-DHS-BICE, that is staffed seven days a week, 24 hours per day, to receive information from the public.
Identifying Alien Sex Offender Inmates Before Release from Prison -- ICE's Institutional Removal Program, which identifies alien inmates at prisons who are subject to removal from the country upon completion of their sentences, will ensure that alien sex offender inmates are identified prior to release from prison and removed from the country upon their release. ICE will be partnering with governors around the country to help state and local prisons identify and place detainers on alien sex offender inmates before their release from prison. ICE's Law Enforcement Support Center in Burlington, Vermont, will play a vital role in this effort.
Working With Foreign Governments:
Deportation Notifications - ICE will notify foreign governments of any aliens with a history of sexual offense being deported to their countries. ICE will also seek information from foreign governments on anyone with a history of sexual offenses seeking entry into the United States.
Partnering in Investigations - ICE will work closely with foreign law enforcement partners in conducting both covert and overt child pornography and child sex tourism investigations in the United States and around the globe.

July 9, 2003
9/11 Commission Says U.S. Agencies Slow Its Inquiry
By PHILIP SHENON

WASHINGTON, July 8 - The federal commission investigating the Sept. 11 terror attacks said today that its work was being hampered by the failure of executive branch agencies, especially the Pentagon and the Justice Department, to respond quickly to requests for documents and testimony.
The panel also said the failure of the Bush administration to allow officials to be interviewed without the presence of government colleagues could impede its investigation, with the commission's chairman suggesting today that the situation amounted to "intimidation" of the witnesses.
In what they acknowledged was an effort to bring public pressure on the White House to meet the panel's demands for classified information, the commission's Republican chairman and Democratic vice chairman released a statement, declaring that they had received only a small part of the millions of sensitive government documents they have requested from the executive branch.
While praising President Bush and top aides for their personal commitment to the panel's work, the commission's leaders - the chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, and Lee H. Hamilton, the former Democratic member of the House from Indiana - said that federal agencies under Mr. Bush's control were not cooperating quickly or fully.
"The administration underestimated the scale of the commission's work and the full breadth of support required," they said. "The coming weeks will determine whether we will be able to do our job within the time allotted. The task in front of us is monumental."
Claire Buchan, a White House spokeswoman, said today in response to the statement from the panel, known formally as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States: "The president is committed to ensuring that the commission has all the information it needs. The president has directed federal agencies to cooperate and to do so quickly."
Under the law creating the bipartisan, 10-member panel last year, the commission, which met for the first time in January, is required to complete its investigation by next May. "While thousands of documents are flowing in - some in boxes and some digitized - most of the documents we need are still to come," the statement said. "Time is slipping by."
The criticism today from Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton clearly took senior administration officials by surprise and brought a fresh round of attacks on the White House from Congressional Democrats who have said that the administration is trying to stonewall a politically damaging inquiry.
Although the White House had initially opposed the creation of an independent commission to investigate intelligence and law-enforcement failures before the 2001 terrorist strikes, the administration eventually came around to support the move, and it has repeatedly pledged full cooperation.
The White House chose Mr. Kean to lead the investigation after its first choice, Henry A. Kissinger, the former secretary of state, resigned from the post rather than release a list of clients of his consulting firm. Mr. Hamilton was named vice chairman by Congressional Democrats after their first choice, George J. Mitchell, the former Senate Democratic majority leader, resigned when questions were raised about similar conflicts of interest.
In their statement, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said that the "problems that have arisen so far with the Department of Defense are becoming particularly serious." They noted that the Pentagon had not responded to a series of requests for evidence from several Defense Department agencies, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the North American Aerospace Defense Command, which is responsible for guarding American airspace from terrorist attack.
"Delays are lengthening and agency points of contact have so far been unable to resolve them," the statement said. "In the last few days, we have been assured that the department's leaders will address these concerns. We look forward to seeing the results."
Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton suggested that the Justice Department was behind a directive barring intelligence officials from being interviewed by the panel without the presence of agency colleagues.
At a news conference, Mr. Kean described the presence of "minders" at the interviews as a form of intimidation. "I think the commission feels unanimously that it's some intimidation to have somebody sitting behind you all the time who you either work for or works for your agency," he said. "You might get less testimony than you would."
"We would rather interview these people without minders or without agency people there," he said.
In their written statement, the panel's leaders said that the Justice Department had been "unable to resolve important issues related" to the commission's access to evidence and testimony from the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the only person facing trial in an American court for conspiring in the Sept. 11 attacks.
A Defense Department spokeswoman said tonight that the department would have no immediate response to the criticism.
A Justice Department spokesman, Mark Corallo, said that his department remained "committed to assisting the commission's important work on behalf of the United States." Mr. Corallo added, however, that "assembling the enormous amount of information requested takes significant manpower and time to accomplish."
He defended the administration's requirement that witnesses be present when some executive branch officials are interviewed by the panel. "In any investigation in which federal employees are interviewed, it is standard practice to have another agency representative present for the benefit of the witnesses and to help facilitate the investigation," he said.
Although their intent today was clearly to create discomfort at the White House, Mr. Kean and Mr. Hamilton said repeatedly that they were optimistic that the panel could complete its work on time and that it would offer the most complete account available of the events that led to the terrorist attacks.

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - BORDER SECURITY
July 3, 2003 - 6:48 p.m.
Coast Guard Left at Sea As Congress Sinks New Security Rules
By Martin Edwin Andersen, CQ Staff Writer

The maritime industry says it has been thrown into confusion by conflicting marching orders from Congress and the Homeland Security Department (DHS) over new counterterrorism mandates.
The Maritime Transportation Security Act, or MTSA, passed by Congress in 2002, ordered the Coast Guard to screen the security plans of thousands of U.S. and foreign-flagged vessels.
In concordance with that, DHS rules issued Tuesday call for the plans to be submitted by the end of this year and completed by next July.
That's where the confusion begins.
The Coast Guard has for months favored a plan that would allow foreign countries themselves to conduct advance screening of non-U.S. flagged vessels headed for U.S. waters. The Department of Homeland Security included this approach, backed by an international protocol, as part of regulations it issued Tuesday.
But the powerful House Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Subcommittee, headed by Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, R-N.J., decided it didn't like the plan, saying it was unwilling to entrust foreign governments with the responsibility of certifying the security worthiness of vessels doing business in the United States.
Thus the Coast Guard plan, backed by DHS, arrived stillborn, industry observers said.
"The Coast Guard is caught between a rock and a hard place," noted Dennis Bryant, a senior maritime specialist with the Washington law firm of Haight, Gardiner, Holland and Knight.
"And that rock and hard place were created by Congress."
With the committee demanding full compliance with the U.S. law that keeps security controls in U.S. hands, industry insiders are now betting that when DHS publishes its final regulations in November, the stricter standard will prevail.
And that leaves the Coast Guard with sailing orders it can't afford.
Rough Seas
On Wednesday, TradeWinds, a shipping industry daily publication, echoed the apparent sense of policy disconnect in an article titled "Security at What Cost?"
It reported that DHS had already sent the regulations to the printer in June when Congress issued its objections to accepting security certifications from other countries.
The regulation, also adopted by the United Nations International Maritime Organization (IMO) in December as part of the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, impacts nearly 43,000 ships and mobile offshore drilling rigs.
The Coast Guard's lack of money and manpower make reviewing the security plans for thousands of foreign-flagged ships a herculean task.
For its part, the Coast Guard has estimated that it will cost $70 million for 150 full-time personnel to assess security plans of vessels and facilities as part of its fiscal 2004 budget.
Remote Control
Meanwhile, one potential source of relief - delegation of the authority to approve the plans of foreign shipping companies to a U.S. shipping classification society that already conducts quasi-official safety and environmental audits for the Coast Guard - was deemed as "remote at best" by an official from that organization.
"The Coast Guard tried to convince Congress that international enforcement of the International Ship and Port Security Code (ISPS) will provide good protection for U.S. security," Bryant said.
"But despite its best efforts, Congress has insisted on requiring that the letter of the law be enforced and that all MTSA provisions be applied."
Supporters of the international standards point out that they contain a series of innovative features that can significantly enhance shipping security, and add that they are currently being implemented with the Coast Guard's enthusiastic support.
Among their requirements are rules stipulating that vessels be fitted with such big-ticket items as automatic identification systems which continually transmit their names and positions, as well as security alarm systems, or "panic buttons," that sound an alert from secret, secure locations onboard in the event of a terrorist attack.
The code also requires vessel and company security officers to undergo extensive training.
Dressed Down
Not good enough, members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee told the Coast Guard in a June 3 hearing, in which Coast Guard Commandant Thomas H. Collins was treated to a full review of alleged shortcomings in the international standards.
Rep. Peter A. DeFazio, D-Ore., speculated about what he called the "availability" of phony United Nations IMO security certificates.
"The IMO does not actually go out and inspect to see if a [security training] school really exists," he charged. "All you have to do is file the paperwork and the rumor is that in the Philippines and elsewhere, certificates are readily available for purchase."
Bryant also noted that among the provisions contained in the current U.S. law and not found in the international protocol the Coast Guard and DHS want are requirements for contacting U.S. federal, state and local officials (FEMA is specifically mentioned), as well as for evacuating shipboard occupants, during emergencies.
Also included in U.S. standards are provisions for the identification of shipping company personnel, either headquarters or port-based or shipboard, who can be reached around the clock for consultations, and more vague provisions about methods of deterring terrorist attacks (including the possible deployment of security guards at gangways and the employment of escort vessels to assist ships under threat).
Some of what Congress is insisting on, Bryant added, will need to be "fleshed out" by the office of the Coast Guard's assistant commandant for marine safety, security and environmental protection.
Semper Paratus
Meanwhile, there already exists an organization that is ready and willing to shoulder some of the Coast Guard's security responsibilities.
The American Bureau of Shipping, one of the world's most important shipping classification societies, plays a key role worldwide in determining the structural and mechanical fitness of ships and other marine structures.
The ABS has a longtime working relationship with the Coast Guard, including having been delegated by it to conduct official vessel inspections, examinations and tonnage measurements.
In addition, the Houston-based nonprofit is recognized by 16 flag administrations as a standard-setting security organization and, as such, is authorized by those countries to approve ship security plans, perform ship security audits and issue international certifications of security worthiness.
Last year, ABS/America's president and chief executive officer, Robert Kramek, a former Coast Guard commandant, was part of a delegation that met with President Bush and Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge to advise them on a "comprehensive national security strategy," according to ABS communications manager Susan Gonzalez.
Asked if ABS was capable of assisting the Coast Guard in screening the thousands of ship security plans, Gonzalez said that the organization was "set up to do this ... We're recognized by the U.S. government."
But Maurice Kelleher, the head of ABS/America's safety, environmental and security certification program, admitted that the "likelihood is remote" ABS would get the call.
Bryant agreed.
"There is nothing in the MTSA that allows the Coast Guard to delegate this function," he said.
"It's going to be tough for them to find the bodies to do this - they just don't have them."

July 4, 2003
U.S. Penalizes 6 Asian Firms for Helping Iran Arm Itself
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, July 3 - The Bush administration imposed economic sanctions today on five Chinese firms and a North Korean company that it said had assisted Iran's weapons programs. It did so even as American officials were meeting with a senior Chinese diplomat, trying to coax Beijing into forcing North Korea to dismantle its nuclear program.
The administration's mixed signals underscored the difficulties it faces in aggressively countering the proliferation of arms. It is publicly praising China in an effort to persuade it to put pressure on North Korea and Iran to dismantle their nuclear programs, while quietly protesting that Chinese companies are a major source of arms technology. Four of the Chinese firms cited today are already being penalized for their role in the arms trade.
"It shows you how far we have to go to get the basic technology cut off," one senior administration official said. "In China, in Pakistan, in Russia, you get government cooperation, and then you discover all the side deals that companies have made with rogue states."
At the State Department today, Richard A. Boucher, the spokesman, told reporters that the sanctions, which were quietly announced in the Federal Register this morning, were "not done in any manner to coincide with a visit" by China's deputy foreign minister, Wang Yi.
American and Asian officials said the Chinese intended to use today's visit to urge the United States to meet again with North Korea, with only China as an additional participant and intermediary in the talks. So far, North Korea has refused to allow South Korea and Japan to join the talks, as President Bush has insisted. The first meeting, in April, ended badly, with North Korea declaring that it had nuclear weapons and might sell them.
It is unclear whether the economic sanctions imposed today will affect Beijing's cooperation with Washington. But the practical effects of the penalties will be minimal. Most of the companies cited by the State Department do no business with the United States government because of existing sanctions against them.
Still, Mr. Bush and his aides are clearly signaling an intent to move forward aggressively with a broad new strategy to cut off aid to the North Korean and Iranian weapons programs. They have described a new approach that calls for the use of domestic law-enforcement agencies in ports in Japan, Singapore and Europe to stop and search ships suspected of carrying missiles or nuclear technology.
The State Department offered no details of the shipments that prompted the sanctions. The announcement simply said the shipments had "the potential to make a material contribution to weapons of mass destruction or missiles."
The sanctions were imposed against five Chinese firms: the Taian Foreign Trade General Corporation, the Zibo Chemical Equipment Plant, the Liyang Yunlong Chemical Equipment Group Company of China, the China Precision Machinery Import/Export Corporation and one of the largest companies in the Chinese military complex, the China North Industries Corporation, better known as Norinco.
Norinco, a major supplier to the Chinese military that does billions of dollars of business in China and overseas, has previously been charged in smuggling cases in the United States, and has been accused of selling banned military hardware.
The North Korean firm, the Changgwang Sinyong Corporation, has long been linked to North Korean missile sales and was identified earlier this year as the company involved in a barter arrangement between Pakistan and North Korea. Pakistan is believed to have helped North Korea develop techniques for enriching uranium, in return for North Korean missiles.
Two years ago, Changgwang Sinyong was also penalized for missile technology transfers to Iran.

July 2, 2003
Homeland Security reassigns hundreds of agents to northern border
By Kellie Lunney

mailto:klunney@govexec.com

More than 375 Border Patrol agents will be reassigned to the country’s northern border as part of the Homeland Security Department’s ongoing effort to increase security on the 4,000-mile boundary between the United States and Canada.
The voluntary reassignments, which include veteran agents who have worked on the U.S.-Mexico border, are in addition to the 245 agents transferred to the northern border in May 2002.
The bureau hopes to have 1,000 agents stationed on the northern border by the end of 2003. Approximately 9,500 agents patrol the southern border.
The timing of the move is part of the department’s periodic “enhancements to the northern border,” and not in response to any particular incident or piece of information, said Mario Villarreal, a spokesman for the Homeland Security Department’s Bureau of Customs and Border Protection. Villarreal said he did not know how many agents the department eventually would assign to the U.S.-Canada border.
Villarreal said the quality, not just the quantity, of agents assigned to the northern border was significant. “It is important to emphasize that the benefits of redeploying veteran agents compared to new recruits and trainees out of the academy provide an immediate impact in protecting the homeland,” he said. “The agents reassigned from along the southwest border, which has historically been an outstanding proving ground, will definitely have the skills needed to do their job.”
Villarreal said the new assignments were “one of the many opportunities for agents within the ranks to move laterally or get promoted in the agency,” but T.J. Bonner, president of the National Border Patrol Council, said morale among agents is very low.
“There is an uncertainty about what is going to happen to [agents’] rights and protections when the personnel system is implemented next year,” said Bonner. The 2002 Homeland Security Act granted the new department power to redesign rules in six personnel areas: hiring, pay and classification, labor relations, employee discipline, employee appeal rights and performance evaluation systems. In April, Homeland Security and the Office of Personnel Management set up a design team of 45 management officials and employees-including union representatives-to develop a list of options by September for personnel reform at the department.
Bonner said the administration’s effort to work with unions on crafting the new personnel system was “clever,” but expressed skepticism about the administration’s intentions. “I don’t see unions having any meaningful input in that process. You can be as gracious as you want to be . . . but at the end of the day, [Bush officials] can do whatever they want to do,” Bonner said. “If they get their way with this new personnel system, the attrition rate [among agents] will undoubtedly soar.”
Villarreal acknowledged that the attrition rate at the Border Patrol has been “historically high” for several reasons, including the fact that the agency recruits nationally, as opposed to locally, but said morale within the ranks is “as high as I have ever seen it.”
“This redeployment of agents to the northern border is an example of support to the agency and to the ultimate mission of protecting the homeland,” Villarreal said.

July 1, 2003

Homeland department unveils new port security regulations

By Ted Leventhal, National Journal's Technology Daily

The Homeland Security Department on Tuesday announced new regulations for port and vessel security, requiring security plans for commercial vessels ranging from cruise liners to cargo ships and approximately 5,000 ports and other facilities. The rules are part of the department's implementation of a 2002 maritime transportation security law.

Asa Hutchinson, Homeland Security Department undersecretary for transportation, and Vice Admiral Thad Allen of the U.S. Coast Guard announced the publication of the new rules, which were written after the department held seven public meetings nationwide, and they are intended as flexible guidelines for ports of different sizes and functions to meet the same security requirements.

"The rules are performance-based," Allen said. "It will be up to individual ports to determine the best way to control access," he said. "This is truly another layer that we are adding to the security of our country," said Hutchinson. "These regulations are taking very important steps to securing our nation's seaports, waterways and vessels."

However, the rules will require more ships to carry Automatic Identification System (AIS) technology. These "black box" devices transmit ship speed, destination and identification to other ships and to shoreside monitoring stations. Additionally, the new order is intended to provide instantaneous identification of all large ships in U.S. waters.

These rules are effective immediately on an interim basis, with public comments accepted for the next 30 days. Final regulations will be published in October, and ships and ports must implement their security plans by July 2004.

Hutchinson and Allen also announced an additional $105 million in port security grants that will be made available later this year to ports and facilities. The Transportation Security Administration also is developing a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, with pilot programs underway at three ports, Hutchinson said. When completed, the credential will be issued as a universal identification for all transportation facility workers.

More maritime safety and security teams will be deployed to two additional ports by the end of the year. The teams, a "rapid response" security force, are now in place in four regional ports, and the department has budgeted six additional teams in 2004.

CQ HOMELAND SECURITY - REORGANIZATION
June 30, 2003 - 7:55 p.m.
Ridge May be the Face of Homeland Security, But a General has White House Juice
By David Clarke, CQ Staff Writer

On Sept. 20, 2001, with smoke still billowing out of what remained of the Twin Towers, President Bush stood before a joint session of Congress and an anxious nation.
"Tonight," he said, "I announce the creation of a cabinet-level position reporting directly to me, the Office of Homeland Security."
The man Bush picked for the job, Tom Ridge, the former Republican congressman and governor of Pennsylvania, "a distinguished American ... a true patriot, a trusted friend," would be heading up a new White House office on homeland security all right, but it was not a new cabinet department, as Bush's phrase suggested.
Still, Ridge became the public face of homeland security, even more so when he skippered the new, $38 billion cabinet agency into being last winter.
One day three months later, however, a White House news release came out saying a retired U.S. Air Force general, John A. Gordon, would succeed Ridge in his old job. The White House Office of Homeland Security was staying in business, no matter that a new Homeland agency with 170,000 employees had just been created.
Nobody took much notice.
Today, Gordon's name is still unlikely to ring a bell beyond the Beltway, and for all the public knows, Tom Ridge is running homeland security.
But according to current and former government officials, it's Gordon and the White House Homeland Security Council, as it's now called, who are set up to be the policy insiders and agency referees while Tom Ridge's department runs the operations from checking bags at airports to patrolling borders to handing out grants to fire departments - and far more.
"The Homeland Security Council continues with the same function before [the Homeland Security Department] was created, in the sense that it coordinates policy across the government," said Adm. Steve Abbott, Ridge's deputy at the White House and then acting presidential advisor between the time Ridge became a cabinet secretary in January and Gen. John Gordon officially took over the reins on June 2.

Not a Copy
But while it retains the policy and interagency coordinating role it had from its creation, the council Gordon takes over is inching out of the limelight.
"The office will now be more behind the scenes," a White House official said.
Its staff has shrunk by about 100 from its peak, down to 60, and its job of being the liaison between Washington and state and local governments as well as the business community have gone with Ridge to the new department headquarters on Nebraska Avenue.
It was a nifty way of getting a lot of administrative baggage off the White House back.
"While it's still significant, I think the Homeland Security Council mission is much narrower than it was," said Frank J. Cilluffo, who handled external affairs for Ridge at the White House.
The office was originally created in the image of the National Security Council (NSC), but over the year its duties grew to include not only its outreach efforts but putting together plans for a new cabinet agency and creating the president's July 2002 "National Strategy for Homeland Security."
All that's done.
"Now it's going to take on the traditional policy coordination role of the NSC," said Roger W. Cressey, who worked on the President's Critical Infrastructure Protection Board until September.
This leaves Gordon in a position far different than the one Ridge vacated.
"He really has an opportunity to define the council and the advisor," said David Heyman, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, who worked with Gordon when both were at the Energy Department at the end of the Clinton administration.
What remains to be settled is whether the council's influence will continue to match its perceived importance as the place where big decisions get made.
Like all the White House advisors before him, much will depend on how Gordon impresses the president with the job he's doing, and how Bush reacts.
"Bush has to make clear 'he's my man,'" said James B. Steinberg, deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, who worked with Gordon when the general was the CIA's deputy director in the late 1990s.
Nobody Home?
But Steinberg questioned what kind of message the president sent when it took three months to name Gordon Ridge's successor.
"I think we are very much up in the air about whether this office will have clout," Steinberg said, who is now a scholar at the Brookings Institution.
Abbott said he had no "insight" into why a permanent replacement wasn't named sooner, beyond noting that the new cabinet was being established while a war in Iraq was looming. But "anyone who works in the White House works with the backing of the president," he added.
The White House official said that even when the department came into being "the president was very clear that he wanted a Homeland Security Council and a staff."
Gordon, who entered the Air Force as a reserve after graduating from the University of Missouri in 1968 and got his general's star in 1997, has served in a variety of high level national security positions, from the CIA to the Energy Department, where he won an important following.
"I'm a big fan," Steinberg said.
Back to the White House
Gordon is no stranger to the White House, having served on the NSC as deputy national security advisor for combating terrorism from June 2002 until his appointment, a position in which he reported to both National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice and Ridge and then, briefly, Abbott.
During the first Bush administration he worked on arms control issues for the NSC and then moved over to a Pentagon policy position at the beginning of the Clinton presidency before joining the CIA for four years starting in 1996.
From there he became the first administrator of the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which was created by Congress in 1999 to oversee the government's atomic weapons programs following the Wen Ho Lee scandal.
"One of the things he brings that he brought here is that he's a walking interagency meeting," said Linton Brooks, who worked with Gordon at the NNSA and now runs the agency.
An avid fly fisherman, Gordon, a bespectacled 56-year-old with carefully parted brown hair, is described by almost all those interviewed as knowledgeable, a good listener and not a big talker.
"An agreeable gent to work with," Abbott said.
When asked whether that was a good attribute for a referee of agency Sumo matches, Abbott said, "he's not bashful about speaking out."
Interestingly, none of those interviewed who praised Gordon had a story exemplifying his leadership style that they said really stood out.
"Maybe that is the strength," Brooks said. "There is not one super spectacular event, it is a whole series of strong decisions."
Gordon will face the challenge of juggling the need to support the maturation of Ridge's Department of Homeland Security (DHS) while juggling the concerns of other agencies.
And, since the beginning of the year, the council has already played a role in decisions that have raised questions about DHS's clout.
During his 2003 State of the Union address in February, President Bush announced the creation of a Terrorist Threat Integration Center (TTIC) that would "merge and analyze all threat information in a single location." But it would be housed at the CIA.
To some on Capitol Hill, this sounded like precisely the job they gave Homeland's Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate.
Not so, said the White House official.
"We know the statute and exactly what the department is supposed to do," he said.
In the weeks leading up to the president's address, the decision to create TTIC was facilitated by both the homeland and national security councils and was signed off on by all the relevant agency heads, the official said.
"The insight was that we would be better off institutionalizing it" at CIA.
The White House view of the infrastructure directorate, he said, is that it will create a system for collecting information from the department's agencies and sharing it with TTIC, defining DHS' intelligence needs, doing analysis for the secretary and prioritizing which potential targets need to be secured.
Abbott said he and the council also had a role in brokering the decision over who should be the lead agency for financial investigations related to terrorism.
The FBI got the nod.
News reports described how neither the Secret Service nor Customs officials were happy with the agreement, but Abbott said that over a series of meetings at all levels that began around the time the department officially came into being in January the issue was debated and eventually resolved amicably between Ridge and Attorney General John Ashcroft in mid-May.
Not a Talking Head
Gordon's counterpart, Condoleezza Rice, is a frequent guest on the television interview circuit, but don't expect to see Gordon sitting across from Tim Russert on "Meet the Press" very often.
"He's not going to be a large public presence," the White House official said.
"Which is fine with him," said Jeffrey H. Smith, who was deputy counsel at CIA and worked with Gordon there during the mid-1990s and still keeps in touch.
"He's not one to seek the limelight."

June 25, 2003

House OKs fiscal 2004 Homeland Security bill

From CongressDaily

The House gave overwhelming approval Tuesday of the first bill to finance the new Homeland Security Department and shower $29.4 billion on local emergency workers, airport screeners and a new drive against bioterrorism.

The fiscal 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill was approved, 425-2, following debates over several contentious amendments. Voting against the bill were Reps. Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., and Ron Paul, R-Texas.

Democrats supported it even though they said the measure would fall short of meeting the nation's needs for protecting ports, borders and airports. For this they blamed the tax reductions President Bush and the GOP have shepherded through Congress over the past three years, absorbing money that could have gone to other needs.

Republicans said the bill would continue the upgrades in domestic safety that began after the Sept. 11 attacks, and said Democrats are never satisfied when it comes to spending.

The Senate has yet to produce its version of the legislation.

June 24, 2003
White House endorses Homeland Security spending bill
By Keith Koffler and Lisa Caruso, CongressDaily

The White House Tuesday released a Statement of Administration Policy supporting passage of the fiscal 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill as reported out by House committee.
The SAP lists several concerns, however, noting that the bill costs $1 billion more than proposed by the Bush administration. But it does not specifically demand that the legislation be trimmed, pointing instead to the need to maintain overall fiscal discipline.
"The administration applauds the committee for reporting this important bill in a timely manner and looks forward to working with Congress to ensure that the fiscal 2004 appropriations bills ultimately fit within the top line funding level agreed to by both the administration and the Congress," the SAP stated.
It also said that first responder programs should be better coordinated and consolidated; that the U.S. VISIT border security system should be funded at President Bush's requested level and placed within the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection; and that the headquarters facility project should be fully funded. The SAP objected to provisions that "would purport to require committee approval before executive branch execution," saying only notification of administration action is required.
But Appropriations ranking member David Obey, D-Wis., and Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee ranking member Martin Olav Sabo, D-Minn., Tuesday charged in their dissenting views on the bill that, without adequate information from the Homeland Security Department, "many of the windows of opportunity for terrorist organizations such as al Qaeda are as nearly as widely open today as they were a year and a half ago, and we seem to be stalled in terms of putting in place a program that will close those windows."
Although rejected by the Rules Committee, Obey will try to offer his amendment during today's debate to redirect $1 billion from the recently passed tax cut-taking the money only from the cut that taxpayers making more than $1 million would receive-to beef up homeland security spending.
Obey's amendment, which was defeated in subcommittee and full committee, would provide additional funds for port security, border security, airport security, maritime security and infrastructure security. But Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Harold Rogers, R-Ky., defended the bill by saying: "I'm simply not interested in throwing money at a problem ... We need to spend our money smartly. Let there be no mistake, we are adequately funding homeland security and any comments to the contrary are just political opportunism."
At presstime, House Democrats failed to get included in the debate two amendments by Texas Democratic Reps. Chet Edwards and Sheila Jackson Lee, to block the department from using its resources for activities unrelated to homeland security. The amendments stem from a redistricting fight in which Texas Democratic state legislators blocked action on a new congressional redistricting plan by fleeing to Oklahoma to deny the state House a quorum. During that incident, the Homeland Security Department was asked to find a plane being flown by one of those Democratic legislators.
Brought to you by GovExec.com

Airport Security Remains Porous
Screeners Depart, Officials Alarmed

By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, June 22, 2003; Page A01

As the summer travel season moves into high gear, members of Congress, airport security officials and advocacy groups warn that behind-the-scenes lapses have weakened security in ways that may not be apparent to travelers.

They are pressing the federal Transportation Security Administration to move more quickly to inspect air cargo adequately, thoroughly research the backgrounds of airport workers and finally begin screening all checked luggage for explosives.

Airport officials around the country recently expressed their anxieties in e-mails after the federal government issued details of further cuts to the airport-security workforce.

Dulles International Airport already was losing passenger screeners at a rate of at least one a day, Scott McHugh, the airport's federal security director, wrote in an e-mail to colleagues at other East Coast airports. He said that with fewer workers, the airport was able to screen only 57 percent of checked luggage for explosives.

"Up to now we have been able to hide this fact from the public (and any terrorist surveillance teams)," McHugh wrote in a June 6 e-mail obtained by The Washington Post.

McHugh further worried that when Congress recesses for the July 4 holiday, 50 to 60 members will fly out of Dulles. "They will all see the machines sitting idle," he wrote, referring to screening equipment. "We cannot wait any longer, we need to hire or transfer people here NOW!"

Since the hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, millions of commercial flights have crisscrossed the nation without incident. In a fairly short time, the TSA -- the federal agency entrusted with protecting airports and airliners -- has undertaken many aggressive measures to improve security.

Protecting flights, however, amounts to a balancing act between security and passenger convenience. Too much security can mean airport congestion that can upset travelers and airlines. Too much convenience can mean that security is compromised.

"We have made incredible progress on a number of fronts since 9/11," said Robert Johnson, spokesman for the TSA. "We'll likely never be done with construction of this. The threat always changes."

The TSA has been praised even by its critics for its accomplishments. The agency, which was created two months after the 2001 attacks, has spent $9.2 billion. Much of the money went to hire more than 55,000 airport screeners in one of the largest and fastest employment mobilizations ever undertaken.

The agency also bought thousands of devices to scan checked luggage for explosives. The machines are installed in 429 airports across the country, although all of them are not being used. Cockpit doors have been reinforced with bulletproof materials. The federal air marshal program, which puts armed undercover agents on some flights, has been significantly expanded. And the TSA has begun a program that allows a small number of commercial pilots to carry firearms in their cockpits.

"Overall, there have been major improvements compared to what it was in the time of 9/11," said Paul Hudson, executive director of Aviation Consumer Action Project. "On a scale of one to 10, we were about a three. We're now at least double that."

Many passengers applaud the tighter security and the better-trained screeners. One, Herndon resident Susan Fisher, said at Dulles last week that she was pleased with the courteous uniformed screeners, who helped her fold her daughter's stroller and place it on the X-ray belt.

Security is "very thorough and very kind to a lady traveling with a baby," said Fisher, who was going to Chicago on vacation. "Definitely, there's an increased presence. You feel it."

But others, peering beyond appearances, see troubling weaknesses in need of swift correction.

To some critics, the most glaring hole in aviation security is the lack of screening for explosives. Airliners carry not only passenger luggage in the belly of the plane but also cargo, which is not screened.

"It's inexcusable that passengers are screened but cargo is not screened," said Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.). He has proposed legislation to require the TSA to screen cargo with explosive-detecting machines.

The TSA has improved a plan to track air cargo by identifying the companies that ship it. The agency plans to spend $5 million on research this year to explore whether the technology used to screen luggage can also be used to check cargo, Johnson said.

The government has considered various proposals to scan cargo and luggage since 1988, when Pan Am Flight 103 went down over Lockerbie, Scotland, killing 259 on board and 11 people on the ground. A terrorist blew up the plane by packing a bomb in a suitcase that was placed in the plane's cargo hold.

After the 2001 attacks, Congress imposed a deadline for screening all checked luggage with devices that detect explosives. The TSA announced that it met the deadline last December, but it had broadened the definition of screening. In practice not all luggage is screened by machine. At about a dozen airports, including some of the nation's largest hubs, the TSA "screens" luggage by ensuring that every bag loaded onto a plane is matched to a passenger on board, a precaution that would not prevent a suicidal terrorist from blowing up an aircraft.

"It's not clear to me that anything rigorous has been done to meet the intent of the law," said Robert W. Poole Jr., director of the Reason Foundation, a public-policy think tank based in Los Angeles. "If that's all they're doing is matching passengers and bags, it's pretty pathetic."

Congress gave the TSA an extension until the end of this year to use machines to scan all luggage, but it appears that the agency is falling behind in achieving that goal. Integrating a luggage-scanning system into the baggage-sorting areas at airports has been complicated and expensive, according to Airports Council International-North America, an organization of airport owners.

Airports "are starting to focus on this newest deadline because they know they have to get started on their work to have any chance of getting close," said Stephen D. Van Beek, senior vice president of policy and strategic development of the airport group. He said it will be "very difficult" for the TSA to meet the deadline.

Johnson, the TSA spokesman, said meeting the deadline is "in our sights."

Security breaches by airport and airline workers make some members of Congress uneasy. At Dulles, the TSA discovered several months ago that off-duty airport and airline workers were using airport identification badges to get through secure doors while they were traveling as passengers and carrying luggage that had not been screened.

Johnson declined to say how many employees were caught. He said no one was punished. The practice apparently continues. Last week at Dulles, an observer noticed a man with a security badge swiping his card through a reader and punching in a code. The man then passed through the secure door with a large piece of luggage on rollers and a garment bag on his shoulder.

"We needed to remind airport and airline employees that this door is only for use at work, not travel," Johnson said. "We'll continue to monitor the situation to make sure. If there is a violation, we will follow up on it."

Some airport workers in the past have abused their security privileges. In 1986, dozens of Eastern Air Lines baggage handlers and mechanics were indicted in a drug-smuggling ring at Miami International Airport where workers were using their access to smuggle cocaine into the country from Colombia. In an extreme case, in 1987, a disgruntled former airport employee used his security badge to bypass security. He boarded a Pacific Southwest Airlines plane and shot the two pilots during the flight. The plane went down and 44 people died.

Rep. Peter A. DeFazio (D-Ore.) said airport workers should not be allowed to use badges to enter secure doors, especially if they are carrying unscreened bags or packages. DeFazio said he saw airport employees using such doors on a recent visit to Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport, and he has filed a bill to stop the practice.

"I thought it was a problem at one airport. I didn't realize this was routine," DeFazio said. Security screening "needs to be uniform. Everyone needs to be screened. If you're not going to do that you might as well do away with the whole system."

Security at Pittsburgh International Airport was compromised last month when a man sneaked through an airline door, drove a United Airlines truck around the airfield and walked onto a US Airways plane. He was not found until the next morning, asleep.

The federal government disclosed this month that it fired 85 felons it had hired to work as security screeners and that it has yet to finish 22,000 background checks. Private airport security firms, which hired screeners before the federal takeover, had similar problems.

Charles G. Slepian, a former security consultant for TWA, is dismayed by the lapses. "Nothing has really changed that much in terms of substantive security," he said.

He noted that reinforced cockpit doors and more explosive-detecting machines have helped. But Slepian said Congress and the rest of the federal government are focusing too much on preventing another Sept. 11 attack instead of concentrating on other tactics that terrorists have used, such as planting bombs on aircraft.

"When a terrorist sees that the front of the airport has some semblance of security, he's just going to go through the back of [the] airport," Slepian said.

June 19, 2003 - 7:21 p.m.
As DHS Takes Off, the Pentagon Tiptoes Into its New Homeland Role
By Caitlin Harrington, CQ Staff Writer

When American Airlines flight 77 hit the Pentagon on Sept. 11, Defense Department officials were so unprepared for a threat from within that it was the Secret Service that scrambled the first two fighter jets to arrive in U.S. capital airspace to intercept the hijacked airliners.
And those jets weren't even armed, according to the congressional investigation into Sept. 11.
Traditionally focused on threats overseas, the Defense Department was not ready to take down a hijacked commercial plane in U.S. airspace. But in the 12 months since President Bush announced that he wanted to create a Homeland Security Department, the Pentagon has undertaken a sustained effort to prepare for domestic terrorist attacks while still searching for its eventual role in the constellation of homeland agencies.
The Defense Department's recent struggle to look inward has been marked by advancements, obstacles and competing pressures within its own organization.
First, there were the legal issues. The century-old law known as posse commitatus bars the military from leading domestic law enforcement activities.
So when the Pentagon last fall lent a plane to the Justice Department to track down a pair of snipers terrorizing the Washington, D.C., area, the move provoked brief but intense controversy that highlighted the legal tightrope the Pentagon walks when it operates on domestic soil.
But those concerns seem to have subsided somewhat, as the Pentagon has made some concrete - albeit cautious - moves to develop a relationship with the new Homeland Security Department and define its proper domestic role in the war on terrorism.
In October 2002, the Defense Department opened a unified, secretive command with jurisdiction over Pentagon activities in the United States. The Northern Command's mission is to provide emergency backup to first responders when they ask for it and to defend the United States from external threats. Its commander, Gen. Ralph E. Eberhart, now has the authority under certain circumstances to order the shoot-down of a commercial airliner in U.S. airspace.
New Box on the Chart
The Pentagon has also added a formal new office to its massive organizational chart to ramp up its role in homeland security. The Senate confirmed retired Democratic Pennsylvania Rep. Paul McHale (1993-99) as the first assistant secretary of Defense for homeland security in February.
The department also has developed a list of technology and equipment that the Homeland Security Department and state and local governments could use, such as vaccines and chemical and biological detectors, a senior Pentagon source said.
"The bottom line is the Defense Department has bent over backwards to help the Department of Homeland Security," the source said.
Nevertheless, some experts say the department should be doing more. Northern Command is staffed with fewer than 1,000 military and civilian personnel, and its annual budget hovers at about $70 million. But the command has few assigned forces, which means most military units would not take orders from it unless the president asked the Defense Department for help during a civilian emergency.
Who's On First?
Some experts say that without assigned units, it is difficult for Northern Command to make sure troops have the equipment, training and standardized procedures in place to respond to a catastrophic domestic attack.
"We're fine for the pre-season games, but we've never taken a serious, hard look at the requirements for the World Series," said James Carafano, a homeland defense expert at the Heritage Foundation.
If the Pentagon is serious about homeland security, Carafano said, it should establish units that train full-time to respond to domestic terrorist incidents.
"We may only use them once in 100 years," he said, but "when we need them, they'd be there."
It seems unlikely, though, that Defense officials will rush to form new homeland security commandos. They have already missed a March 1 deadline for reports to Congress on the military's role in homeland security and Northcom's function, required by the fiscal 2003 defense authorization law.
The Pentagon already has a full plate. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld has made total force transformation a top priority, and the department has its hands full overseas, with troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, the ongoing war on terrorism and various peacekeeping missions.
"We can't be looked on as the be-all and end-all panacea for homeland security," the Pentagon source said.
Inside Job?
But the Defense Department cannot ignore security inside U.S. borders, either.
For help coping with a significant domestic terrorist attack, "the only place we'd really have to look would be to our National Guard and to our active military forces," said Rep. Jim Turner, D-Texas, who serves on both the Select Homeland Security and Armed Services committees.
Turner said he is optimistic about the "growing and evolving relationship" between th