TRANSCRIPT: White House Briefing On Terrorismgreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread |
TRANSCRIPT: White House Briefing On TerrorismWarning: Long Post.
This is an interesting transcript from Washington key players, on last weeks Clinton announcements reguarding U.S. counter-terrorism mobilizations. Although Y2K is not specifically mentioned, I guarantee you, it is a motivating factor, among others, behind their preparations. -- Diane
From the USIA Washington Files (great info source!):
http://www.usia.gov/products/washfile.htm22 January 1999
TRANSCRIPT: RENO, SHALALA, CLARKE BRIEFING ON TERRORISM JAN. 22
http://www.usia.gov/current/news/latest/99012207.tlt.html?/products/washfile/newsitem.shtml(Emerging threats of biological, chemical, cyber terrorism) (3290)
Washington -- President Clinton's National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure, and Counterterrorism, Dick Clarke, Attorney General Reno, and Secretary of Health and Human Services Shalala briefed the White House Press Corps January 22 on the emerging threats of biological, chemical and cyber terrorism.
"The message that we want to get across today is not that we know of an imminent attack -- we do not know of any imminent attack being planned on that United States using chemical or biological weapons, or using cyber attack techniques," Clarke told them. "But," he added, "we do want to raise consciousness, in the American people, in the scientific community, in the corporate community, and in the Congress, that such attacks are growing increasingly likely.
"And as the President said, we need to be ahead of the power curve; we need to be prepared to defend ourselves against those attacks, and in so doing, perhaps to prevent them; at least to be able to mitigate their effects," Clarke pointed out.
"The President's announcement today puts our money where our policy is," he said. "It's a proposal to spend next year $2.8 billion defending against these two types of threats. That's an increase of 40 percent in federal expenditures over two years ago for cyber defense, to defend America's cyberspace. It is a doubling of the funds over two years for chemical and biological weapons defense."
Attorney General Reno observed that "As the President said this morning, our nation has benefitted greatly from cyber technology. It makes America work better than ever before. Intricate networks, power grids and computer systems make up what we call our national infrastructure. If that infrastructure is attacked, we all suffer. That is why we must, and we are, doing everything we can to protect it."
The Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, noted that "We're all here talking about a kind of scenario that we hope that our citizens never have to confront. But the point is to be prepared. And my job -- and this is the first time in American history in which the public health system has been integrated directly into the national security system -- is to be able to provide tracking and treatment for victims."
Following is the White House transcript:
(begin transcript)
THE WHITE HOUSE Office of the Press Secretary
January 22, 1999
PRESS BRIEFING BY
ATTORNEY GENERAL JANET RENO, SECRETARY OF HHS DONNA SHALALA, AND RICHARD CLARKE, PRESIDENT'S NATIONAL COORDINATOR FOR SECURITY, INFRASTRUCTURE AND COUNTERTERRORISM
The Briefing Room
11:45 A.M. EST
DAVID LEAVY: As you know, the President announced an expansion of the administration's effort to combat the emerging threats of biological, chemical and cyber terrorism. Today, just to go over the details of that and to answer your questions are the President's National Coordinator for Security, Infrastructure, and Counterterrorism, Dick Clarke; Attorney General Reno; and Secretary of Health and Human Services Shalala.
Dick.
CLARKE: The message that we want to get across today is not that we know of an imminent attack -- we do not know of any imminent attack being planned on that United States using chemical or biological weapons, or using cyber attack techniques. But we do want to raise consciousness, in the American people, in the scientific community, in the corporate community, and in the Congress, that such attacks are growing increasingly likely.
And as the President said, we need to be ahead of the power curve; we need to be prepared to defend ourselves against those attacks, and in so doing, perhaps to prevent them; at least to be able to mitigate their effects.
The President's announcement today puts our money where our policy is. It's a proposal to spend next year $2.8 billion defending against these two types of threats. That's an increase of 40 percent in federal expenditures over two years ago for cyber defense, to defend America's cyberspace. It is a doubling of the funds over two years for chemical and biological weapons defense.
There are several initiatives within that program. There's $500 million on the critical infrastructure applied research initiative. There's $400 million to research defenses against chemical and biological weapons. There are plans for two networks to defend DOD and federal computer systems. There is a cyber core, a core of federal employees highly trained and skilled who would operate federal government computers, defend them against attack and be able to respond to an attack. There are funds to assist industry groups, which would come together to form their own computer defense facilities. And there is a reinvigoration of the public health surveillance system, to allow us to detect chemical and biological attacks when they occur.
Here to explain the background to all of this are two Cabinet members who have been personally vigorous in urging the President to increase funding, to increase attention on these programs. First, the Attorney General.
RENO: Thank you, Mr. Clarke.
As the President said this morning, our nation has benefitted greatly from cyber technology. It makes America work better than ever before. Intricate networks, power grids and computer systems make up what we call our national infrastructure. If that infrastructure is attacked, we all suffer. That is why we must, and we are, doing everything we can to protect it.
At the Department of Justice we have taken steps to protect it. At the Department of Justice, we have taken steps to protect our critical infrastructure. Since 1998 we have launched the National Infrastructure Protection Center. The Center's mission is to detect, prevent and respond to cyber attacks on our nation's critical infrastructure, and to oversee investigations in this field. It is a true interagency, public-private partnership. Our goal is to have federal agencies working together with state and local officials, working together with the private sector, to exchange information to provide for early detection, to understand the technical issues involved, and to be prepared to prevent it whenever possible.
To what the President has announced today builds on this effort and solidifies this administration's commitment to the protection of our infrastructure, which is so vital to this nation.
And now I'd like to recognize Donna Shalala.
SHALALA: Thank you, Janet. Thank you very much.
We're all here talking about a kind of scenario that we hope that our citizens never have to confront. But the point is to be prepared. And my job -- and this is the first time in American history in which the public health system has been integrated directly into the national security system -- is to be able to provide tracking and treatment for victims.
And one way of thinking about this is if there is an outbreak -- Peggy Hamburg's here, who used to run the New York City Health Department -- if there's an outbreak on the New York City subway system, our ability to deal with that depends on the strength of the health system in New York City --their ability to track and to manage whatever the outbreak is and individual patients as they go to different parts of the health care system.
The tracking system becomes very important, the surveillance system, because, frankly, if there is an outbreak in any major metropolitan area, people spread all over that metropolitan area. And it's our ability to manage the consequences of the outbreak through a health system -- not just the public health system, but also the private health system. That kind of surveillance system, that kind of tracking system at the national level, working with local officials is what we've been building here, starting, actually, when we started in the administration, but with a lot more energy over the last two years because of the President's keen interest and the investment of substantial resources.
This budget that the President is proposing is $230 million for fiscal year 2000. That's up from $158 million this year, and it has four components for us -- strengthening disease surveillance and the public health network. We're working with the states, of course, to improve their disease surveillance. The medical and the public health response: We're trying to merge the public health system and the medical systems here so that they work together. The surveillance systems are, in general, in this country run by the public health side; the delivery systems, treating the victims, run by the medical people. And we're merging the two of them for these purposes.
The pharmaceutical stockpiles -- we have to be assured that the volume and the range of needed pharmaceuticals can be made available quickly. These are not just vaccines we're talking about, we're also talking about antibiotics and about vaccinating large numbers of people within a relatively short period of time as part of the response; and about the research that's needed to do that as well as the stockpiling facilities.
And finally, the research components. We need to better understand the disease agents of bioterrorism. We also need not only vaccines, but the treatment protocols. We have a number of them; now we're upgrading them. This is a continuous improvement strategy.
What the President announced today is significant and the integration, I can't emphasize enough, of the health leaders in this country -- from me to the local leaders to the state leaders -- into this, which is essentially a systems approach, is very significant.
Q: What is this story that Saddam is trying to perfect some sort of agent that won't attack Arabs, but attacks Westerners?
SHALALA: That actually would make it pretty good for me and Helen. And, Sam, you're in big trouble.
I think the point that we're making is whatever it is, this country intends to be ready and to have a system in place to respond.
Q: Have you heard that? Is that just an old wives' tale or is there actually --
CLARKE: I think that's an old wives' tale.
SHALALA: I think it's actually an old Arab's tale.
Q: Madam Secretary, is there any city in America that can identify and cope with a biological weapons attack today?
SHALALA: There are cities who have been putting systems in place for some period of time, and that includes New York, where Peggy Hamburg, Dr. Hamburg, provided the leadership. She's now the Assistant Secretary of the Department in charge of the government's health pieces of this bioterrorism network. And that's a significance, I think, of her appointment, too, because she's put it together at the local level. So there are cities.
The point is we want every place in the United States to be prepared. Remember, we have disaster systems in this country. So it's not a new subject matter to us. It's the introduction of bioterrorism and the fact that if there is an outbreak some place, calling in the Marines is not the solution. It is making sure that you have a public health system, a surveillance and a treatment system, as well as whatever the judicial and the military responses are that are appropriate.
Q: Madam Secretary, how do you respond to critics who say that by its very nature you cannot predict a terrorist attack and that this is just sort of throwing money away, and it's a political -- to make people feel better?
SHALALA: You also can't predict natural disasters, as we have learned very well in this country in the last 48 hours, for example. So the point is to have a system in place for surveillance and treatment, so that what we're trying to do is to anticipate. And that's what good leadership is about.
Q: Madam Secretary, do we have any defense against ICBM missiles that would distribute this kind of --
SHALALA: I think you've got the wrong --
Q: Whoever it is, do we have any defense against ICBM missiles that might deliver this kind of thing?
CLARKE: Let me just say we have no intelligence that indicates there is an ICBM-based threat carrying chemical or biological weapons.
Q: What about the threat to rain missiles on Los Angeles?
CLARKE: I'll try again. We have no intelligence that indicates there is a current ICBM threat against the United States with chemical or biological warheads. One of the reasons that the President is looking at a limited ballistic missile defense system, and one of the reasons behind this chemical and biological defense preparation initiative, is our concern that that kind of threat could emerge in the future. That's one of the reasons we're doing all of this.
But as I said at the top, we don't know of any such threat today.
Q: Attorney General, is there a civil liberties issue here? The ACLU seems to think that in setting up a national program and coordination, there may be.
RENO: What I have instructed the Center to do -- the National Infrastructure Protection Center -- and the FBI, is to work with our lawyers. And we have recruited and trained lawyers who have the technical information and expertise together with the legal expertise to ensure that what we do complies with the Constitution, complies with privacy rights. And we believe firmly that we can continue to meet our obligations in law enforcement in this era of new technology while at the same time complying with the Constitution in every way.
Q: That hasn't been worked out yet -- in other words, they're looking at it?
RENO: No, they're working on it daily, as we address issues of search and seizure, as we address issues in computer crime. We are addressing those issues daily. And so far to my satisfaction at least, based on everything I know, we've have been addressing those in accordance with the Constitution.
Q: Attorney General Reno, the President today described the first wave of cyber terrorism from attacks by hackers at this point -- computer systems from universities to financial institutions. Can you tell us how big of a threat that is?
RENO: I'd like to address -- there are many young people who are far better skilled in cyber tools than I am. They know a lot more about computers than I do. And some of them just don't think it's wrong. They have become very able and adept on computers and they like to challenge themselves and see what they can do. One of the things -- one of the points that has been made to me is we've got to let everyone know that it is wrong to invade another person's computer. It is wrong to invade and upset and confuse the data base or disturb the data base. And I think this is one of the responsibilities that we all face and that our public schools face in terms of preparing ourselves for the cyber age.
Q: But aside from it being wrong, how much of a threat is it?
RENO: I think it's a problem that we deal with and we trace and we, again, take appropriate action as based on prosecutions that have been successful to date.
Q: Attorney General, the President said in the New York Times interview that this is the kind of threat that keeps him awake at night. You, too? Or do you -- I mean, do you worry about this?
RENO: After six years in this job, I get a good night's sleep.
CLARKE: Let me expand a moment on the previous question about the hackers being a threat. We're not talking about a few teenagers violating the law and getting into a computer system and having some fun -- even though it's illegal and it's serious and we have to deal with it. That's not the threat the President's talking about.
The President's talking about something called information warfare, where a nation or a terrorist group or a criminal cartel could do a systematic national intrusion into the computer systems that control the electric power grids, the telephone networks, the banking and finance system, the transportation nodes, and effectively shut the nation off. In other words, just as in World War II, nations flew bombers over each other's countries to try to destroy infrastructure by dropping bombs. What we're concerned about is in the future nations will have that same capability to destroy each other's infrastructure, not by bombs, but by cyber attack. Now, we can prevent that if we have cyber defenses.
Q: Mr. Clarke and Ms. Reno, Los Angeles is one of the cities that have received both chemical and biological training. And yet in the anthrax hoaxes that we've seen, citizens of Los Angeles have been held for four hours and even longer while people look for anthrax, which is not contagious. What's going on here? Are people -- are the trainees, the people who have been trained, not getting the message, or -- and are civil liberties being violated by these unnecessary detentions?
RENO: What we are trying to do in the effort that is now underway, which Congress has approved and the administration is pursuing, is we have proposed the development of a national domestic preparedness office. We are working, if that is accepted, we are working with the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Defense, FEMA, the specialists, the experts to number one, identify the best means of detection; number two, to work in conjunction with the public health and the medical community in determining what is the appropriate response; and working with lawyers at the Department of Justice to determine what are the implications with respect to privacy and to civil rights.
Q: Attorney General Reno, Mr. Clarke, whenever the government starts sharing information about threats with big companies and not with the general public, that raises certain concerns. Are those fair concerns, and how do you plan to address them?
RENO: This is one of the issues that we are working with state and local authorities, as well as with the private sector, with emergency managers at the state and local level, to make sure that we get out the information that is appropriate and relevant in the best way possible. There are a number of issues involved -- how do we disseminate classified information -- and we're working through those issues; how do we disseminate information so that it does not unduly alarm people. I think in whatever role you're in, whether it's in forecasting tornadoes or in these circumstances, you've got to balance fully informing the public with not frightening them into inappropriate action.
Q: Mr. Clarke, you had said that there is no apparent threat of ICBM. Was there any apparent threat before the Iraqis starting showering missiles on Tel Aviv?
CLARKE: What I said was we have no indication that there are chemical or biological weapons on warheads that can reach the United States today. In the case of Iraq in 1991, where I happen to have some background, we had a very good idea that they had Scud missiles and that they might attack Israel. That was part of the assumption that went into the planning of the war. We thought we knew how many they were; we thought we knew where they were. Similarly, today, we have a very good idea we knew where they were. Similarly, today, we have a very good idea about where ICBMs are and how many ICBMs there are that can reach the United States.
Q: But what defense do we have against these?
CLARKE: As I said, we do not now have a defense against ICBMs. The President has proposed that we look at a limited ABM defense system. That's one of the things that the Secretary of State, who leaves tomorrow for Moscow, will be discussing with the Russians next week.
Q: Thank you.
(end transcript)
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999
All those ads, real low unemployment, "reallocation of resources and personnel," ... ... watching to see which govt entity snatches you up, Diane!"Da*n, she knows too much, her mouse scurries all thru underground cyber info tunnels, nab her, we could use those skills. Besides she knows what's going on and we don't have a clue."
Odds are the CIA/FEMA laison office will scoop Diane. *sob*
Diane, ya gonna make it to a "safe house" before TSHTF? We gotta mark your door for PassOver ...
Ashton & Leska in Cascadia
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 24, 1999.
Thanks Diane. I liked the remark about anticipation being what leadership is all about. We can't stop doing this for a minute.Leska: Oh, no, they aren't after her again are they? Perhaps we need to set up a DPT (Diane Protection Team) division of the FRL.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 24, 1999.
Chuckles, Leska.I "feel" safe and that's what counts. What I'm trying to do is get a handle on what it is we are Y2K preparing "for" in this country. When you add up all the puzzle pieces, it's not just about Y2K. It's both bigger and smaller (hard to imagine). Then toss in natural disasters on top of the manmade ones and well, there's an even bigger reason to get personally and community "prepared" for all the amazing and upcoming uncertainties.
Remember, Y2K does not have a face that the military can fight. There is a definite link between Y2K and terrorism. From my post on another thread ...
... Having spent a lot of time surfing the .gov and .mil sites and some of the related info, I strongly suspect that is all has to do with predisposed mindset. Perhaps Hardliner and others would care to comment, but the military, IMHO, is set up for the express purpose of engaging an enemy. With Y2K, there is no identifiable enemy. Its way too amorphous and disorienting for them.
When you add terrorism, in either cyber form or biological warfare or as weapons of mass destruction on the home soil, THAT is something the Total Force can get into and mobilize to DO something about. They understand how to respond to it. Well, sort of.
They may well be some hidden agendas, or not. The threat IS real. And we do need a mobilized response to it for Y2K both pre and post.
I suspect well see more media coverage on the link. (Assuming, the country and Congress can get beyond snickering at Y2K). The mindless-set of many Washington representatives, amazes, but does not surprise me.
Diane
See also ...
Anti-Ballistic Missile
http:/ /www.mercurycenter.com/breaking/docs/083897.htmPosted at 6:40 p.m. PST Saturday, January 23, 1999
U.S. rethinking anti-missile treaty
WASHINGTON -- Ever since Richard Nixon and Leonid Brezhnev signed the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 1972, it has been a cornerstone of arms control. Its fundamental premise, which held throughout the Cold War, was that limiting missile defenses limited offensive missiles.
Now, the cornerstone has crumbled a bit.
The Pentagon announced last week that the threat of a missile strike from a rogue state like North Korea, Iraq or Iran justified building a limited national missile defense system -- something explicitly prohibited by the treaty.
While insisting the United States was not abandoning the treaty's basic aims, the Clinton administration said it wanted to start negotiations with the Russians to amend the treaty in ways that would reflect the emergence of troubling new threats in a troubling new world.
Defense Secretary William Cohen even suggested the new threats had become so great that the United States would reserve its right to withdraw from the treaty unilaterally if the Russians refused to consider amendments. While the White House later insisted his remarks were interpreted too harshly, it was clear that the rules that have governed arms control for a quarter century had changed.
``Some of the orthodoxy that has driven our policy in the Cold War needs to be rethought in a world that is much more complex, that has many and varied threats and that in many ways is much less stable than the cold war standoff that created the orthodoxy,'' said James Rubin, the State Department's spokesman, who has an extensive background in arms control.
``Whether it's Iraq or North Korea or the reality of nuclear explosions in India and Pakistan, we need to hone our nonproliferation tools to reflect the world we live in,'' he said.
The Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty strictly limited the number, type and placement of missiles that the United States or the Soviet Union could deploy to shoot down incoming nuclear missiles. In the strange logic of nuclear warfare, officials believed that creating national missile defenses would upset the strategic balance by encouraging the other side to build more offensive weapons to overwhelm the defenses.
Cohen, who announced that the Pentagon now plans to spend $10.5 billion over the next six years developing a missile defense, said that logic still held today.
``To the extent that there is no ABM treaty, then certainly Russia or other countries would feel free to develop as many offensive weapons as they wanted, which would then set in motion a comparable dynamic to offset that with more missiles here,'' Cohen said.
But he and others said they believed the treaty had enough flexibility to allow for the sort of limited national missile defense now being contemplated.
A limited defense, they said, need not upset the strategic balance of power with the Russians since the threats it aims to counter lie elsewhere -- a notion very close to heresy for arms controllers of the Cold War era.
Unlike President Ronald Reagan's vision of a ``Star Wars'' program to build a shield to protect the entire country from thousands of incoming nuclear missiles, the Pentagon's newest plan calls for a more modest endeavor. The new defense would use space-based sensors, early- warning radars and missiles based in North Dakota or Alaska to shoot down no more than a handful of missiles from rogue states or terrorists.
Far from being reassured, the Russians reacted sharply to the administration's announcement.
``We proceed from the assumption that it must not happen,'' Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Friday.
China, too, joined in criticizing the United States, declaring that a missile defense ``would only undermine security and stimulate the proliferation of missiles.''
There are still enormous fiscal and technological obstacles to a national missile defense. Foremost among them: the Pentagon still has not proved it can construct a system that will work. And Clinton has not yet decided to deploy a system.
But clearly the thinking about arms control has evolved as the world has changed.
Michael Krepon, president of the Henry L. Stimson Center, an independent research center, said the administration was justified in considering a limited national missile defense, though deeper cuts in U.S. and Russian nuclear arsenals were also needed. ``Common sense suggests we need limited defenses,'' he said.
Joseph Cirincione, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, an advocacy group in Washington, said he had profound doubts about the Pentagon's plans, but believed that arms control treaties should not be impervious to change.
``I think we are in a period where we should be willing to rethink our treaties,'' he said. ``I don't think there is anything wrong with the United States saying, if the conditions warrant it, we should consider changing it. It should be a living document.''
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999.
Thanks too Rob.Another level to place into the Y2K mix-up, takes us back to FEMA and the link with the National Guard. Ask yourself ... Why is a Presidential appointee placed at FEMA who is in charge of Y2K AND Terrorism? (National Guard also works heavily with FEMA and the American Red Cross)
FEMA Profile:
Mike Walker, ex-DoD and Pentagon guy now working at FEMA, responsibilities include overseeing FEMAs terrorism activities and the agencys FY2000 appropriations process. He will coordinate FEMAs Y2K activities...
http:// www.fema.gov/About/HQNLTR/hq1298g.jpgRobert M. "Mike" Walker: Deputy Director
http:// www.fema.gov/about/walker1028.htm
See also the Threads:
LINKS: Know Your FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000NRVCIOs Call For Secret Clearance
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000NSpNational Guard Y2K Report To The U.S. Senate (Nov. 1998) -- Preparing for Y2K-Related Problems in the U.S.
http://www.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id= 000NsF
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999.
From the transcript at the start of this thread:"And now I'd like to recognize Donna Shalala.
SHALALA: Thank you, Janet. Thank you very much."
Anyone ever watch Evening at the Improv or one of the HBO comedy specials or go to a comedy club?
How utterly appropriate (the format), but I'm gagging, not laughing.
-- Hardliner (searcher@internet.com), January 24, 1999.
From the above Transcript ...The point is we want every place in the United States to be prepared. Remember, we have disaster systems in this country. So it's not a new subject matter to us. It's the introduction of bioterrorism and the fact that if there is an outbreak some place, calling in the Marines is not the solution. It is making sure that you have a public health system, a surveillance and a treatment system, as well as whatever the judicial and the military responses are that are appropriate.
Links, links, links ...
Diane
FEMAs Emergency Services Sector Working Group
http://www.fema.gov/y2k/ y2k-em.htmFEMA's CIO Clay Hollister chairs and coordinates efforts of the Emergency Services Sector working group of the President's Council on Year 2000 (Y2K) Conversion.
FEMA and the other Emergency Services Sector members are responsible for increasing awareness of emergency services providers and for encouraging them to assess their readiness to operate normally leading up to, during, and after the clock rolls over to the year 2000.
The Working Group has eight members:
1) Federal Emergency Management Agency -- Fire Services (USFA) (Fire Services, state and local emergency management)
http://www.usfa.fema.gov/USFA & Y2K
http:// www.usfa.fema.gov/y2k/y2kcom.htm2) Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) (National Disaster Medical System and Disaster Medical Assistance Teams)
http://www.os.dhhs.gov/3) Department of Defense (DoD) (Army Corps of Engineers, National Guard)
http://www.defenselink.mil/Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
http://www.usace.army.mil/
The Official National Guard web-site (technically the National Guard Bureau, NGB):
http://www.ngb.dtic.mil/National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), The Voice of Americas 500,000 citizen soldiers web-site:
http://www.ngaus.org/4) Department of Commerce (DOC)/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) (National Weather Service, state and local government, private sector)
Department of Commerce (DOC)
http://www.doc.gov/National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
http://www.noaa.gov/National Weather Service (NWS)
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/5) Department of the Interior (DOI) (Wildland Fire Protection for National Parks)
http://www.doi.gov/6) Department of Agriculture (USDA) (Wildland Fire Protection for National Forests)
http://www.usda.gov/USDA Agencies & Staff Offices
http:// www.usda.gov/agencies/agencies.htm7) Department of Transportation (DOT) (Federal Aviation Adminstration, US Coast Guard, Emergency Medical Service Transportation)
http://www.dot.gov/8) American Red Cross (Mass Care)
http://www.redcross.org/ index.shtmlOther federal agencies participating in Work Group activities include the Other federal agencies participating in Work Group activities include the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Small Business Administration, Federal Communications Commission, National Communications System.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
http://www.nrc.gov/Small Business Administration (SBA)
http://www.sbaonline.sba.gov/< /a>Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
http://www.fcc.gov/By the middle of 1999, assessments and contingency plans will be reviewed by the President's Council in relation to possible system failures. Although the Council is discussing the conversion of both federal government and industry systems, it does not assume responsibility for the conversion of systems outside the government. Responsibility for the smooth conversion of any system belongs to the system's owner and its affinity groups.
See also ...
Useful government overview links for bigger pictures:
The Presidents Cabinet (Graphic icons linking to each one -- Really Cool!!!)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/Cabinet/html/ cabinet_links.htmlFederal Agencies and Commissions (Graphic icons linking to each one - - Super cool too!!!)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/WH/ Independent_Agencies/html/independent_links.html
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999.
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON KEEPING AMERICA SECURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURYTHE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 22, 1999REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT ON KEEPING AMERICA SECURE FOR THE 21ST CENTURY
National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C., 10:30 A.M. EST
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. Jamie, Dr. Lederberg, I'd like to thank you for your service in this and so many other ways. I would like to thank Sandy Berger for many things, including indulging my nagging on this subject for the better part of six years now.
I was so relieved that Dr. Lederberg not very long ago -- well, last year -- brought a distinguished panel of experts together to discuss this bioterrorism threat, because I then had experts to cite on my concern and nobody thought I was just reading too many novels late at night. (Laughter.)
Madame Attorney General, Secretary Shalala, Secretary Richardson, Director Witt, Deputy Secretary Hamre, Commandant of the Coast Guard and our other military leaders who are here, Mr. Clarke, ladies and gentlemen. I'm delighted to be here to discuss this subject. With some trepidation, Sandy Berger noted that Dr. Lederberg won a Nobel Prize at 33, and I was governor you can infer from that that I was not very good at chemistry and biology. (Laughter.)
But any democracy is imbued with the responsibility of ordinary citizens who do not have extraordinary expertise to meet the challenges of each new age. And that is what we are all trying to do.
Our country has always met the challenges of those who would do us harm. At the heart of our national defense I have always believed is our attempt to live by our values -- democracy, freedom, equal opportunity. We are working hard to fulfill these values at home. And we are working with nations around the world to advance them, to build a new era of interdependence where nations work together -- not simply for peace and security, but also for better schools and health care, broader prosperity, a cleaner environment and a greater involvement by citizens everywhere in shaping their own future.
In the struggle to defend our people and values and to advance them wherever possible, we confront threats both old and new -- open borders and revolutions in technology have spread the message and the gifts of freedom but have also given new opportunities to freedom's enemies. Scientific advances have opened the possibility of longer, better lives. They have also given the enemies of freedom new opportunities.
Last August, at Andrews Air Force Base, I grieved with the families of the brave Americans who lost their lives at our embassy in Kenya. They were in Africa to promote the values America shares with friends of freedom everywhere -- and for that they were murdered by terrorists. So, too, were men and women in Oklahoma City, at the World Trade Center, Khobar Towers, on Pan Am 103.
The United States has mounted an aggressive response to terrorism -- tightening security for our diplomats, our troops, our air travelers, improving our ability to track terrorist activity, enhancing cooperation with other countries, strengthening sanctions on nations that support terrorists.
Since 1993, we have tripled funding for FBI anti-terrorist efforts. Our agents and prosecutors, with excellent support from our intelligence agencies, have done extraordinary work in tracking down perpetrators of terrorist acts and bringing them to justice. And as our air strikes against Afghanistan -- or against the terrorist camps in Afghanistan -- last summer showed, we are prepared to use military force against terrorists who harm our citizens. But all of you know the fight against terrorism is far from over. And now, terrorists seek new tools of destruction.
Last May, at the Naval Academy commencement, I said terrorist and outlaw states are extending the world's fields of battle, from physical space to cyberspace, from our earth's vast bodies of water to the complex workings of our own human bodies. The enemies of peace realize they cannot defeat us with traditional military means. So they are working on two new forms of assault, which you've heard about today: cyber attacks on our critical computer systems, and attacks with weapons of mass destruction -- chemical, biological, potentially even nuclear weapons. We must be ready -- ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services -- or military assets.
More and more, these critical systems are driven by, and linked together with, computers, making them more vulnerable to disruption. Last spring, we saw the enormous impact of a single failed electronic link, when a satellite malfunctioned -- disabled pagers, ATMs, credit card systems and television networks all around the world. And we already are seeing the first wave of deliberate cyber attacks -- hackers break into government and business computers, stealing and destroying information, raiding bank accounts, running up credit card charges, extorting money by threats to unleash computer viruses.
The potential for harm is clear. Earlier this month, an ice storm in this area crippled power systems, plunging whole communities into darkness and disrupting daily lives. We have to be ready for adversaries to launch attacks that could paralyze utilities and services across entire regions. We must be ready if adversaries seek to attack with weapons of mass destruction, as well. Armed with these weapons, which can be compact and inexpensive, a small band of terrorists could inflict tremendous harm.
Four years ago, though, the world received a wake-up call when a group unleashed a deadly chemical weapon, nerve gas, in the Tokyo subway. We have to be ready for the possibility that such a group will obtain biological weapons. We have to be ready to detect and address a biological attack promptly, before the disease spreads. If we prepare to defend against these emerging threats we will show terrorists that assaults on America will accomplish nothing but their own downfall.
Let me say first what we have done so far to meet this challenge. We've been working to create and strengthen the agreement to keep nations from acquiring weapons of mass destruction, because this can help keep these weapons away from terrorists, as well. We're working to ensure the effective implementation of the Chemical Weapons Convention; to obtain an accord that will strengthen compliance with the biological weapons convention; to end production of nuclear weapons material. We must ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to end nuclear tests once and for all.
As I proposed Tuesday in the State of the Union Address, we should substantially increase our efforts to help Russia and other former Soviet nations prevent weapons material and knowledge from falling into the hands of terrorists and outlaw states. In no small measure we should do this by continuing to expand our cooperative work with the thousands of Russian scientists who can be used to advance the causes of world peace and health and well-being, but who if they are not paid, remain a fertile field for the designs of terrorists.
But we cannot rely solely on our efforts to keep weapons from spreading. We have to be ready to act if they do spread. Last year, I obtained from Congress a 39 percent budget increase for chemical and biological weapons preparedness. This is helping to accelerate our ongoing effort to train and equip fire, police and public health personnel all across our country to deal with chemical and biological emergencies. It is helping us to ready armed forces and National Guard units in every region to meet this challenge; and to improve our capacity to detect an outbreak of disease and save lives; to create the first ever civilian stockpile of medicines to treat people exposed to biological and chemical hazards; to increase research and development on new medicines and vaccines to deal with new threats.
Our commitment to give local communities the necessary tools already goes beyond paper and plans. For example, parked just outside this building is a newly designed truck we have provided to the Arlington, Virginia, Fire Department. It can rapidly assist and prevent harm to people exposed to chemical and biological dangers.
But our commitment on the cyber front has been strong, as well. We've created special offices within the FBI and the Commerce Department to protect critical systems against cyber attack. We're building partnerships with the private sector to find and reduce vulnerabilities; to improve warning systems; to rapidly recover if attacks occur. We have an outstanding public servant in Richard Clarke, who is coordinating all these efforts across our government.
Today, I want to announce the new initiatives we will take, to take us to the next level in preparing for these emerging threats. In my budget, I will ask Congress for $10 billion to address terrorism and terrorist-emerging tools. This will include nearly $1.4 billion to protect citizens against chemical and biological terror -- more than double what we spent on such programs only two years ago.
We will speed and broaden our efforts, creating new local emergency medical teams, employing in the field portable detection units the size of a shoe box to rapidly identify hazards; tying regional laboratories together for prompt analysis of biological threats. We will greatly accelerate research and development, centered in the Department of Health and Human Services, for new vaccines, medicines and diagnostic tools.
I should say here that I know everybody in this crowd understands this, but everyone in America must understand this: the government has got to fund this. There is no market for the kinds of things we need to develop; and if we are successful, there never will be a market for them. But we have got to do our best to develop them. These cutting-edge efforts will address not only the threat of weapons of mass destruction, but also the equally serious danger of emerging infectious diseases. So we will benefit even if we are successful in avoiding these attacks.
The budget proposal will also include $1.46 billion to protect critical systems from cyber and other attacks. That's 40 percent more than we were spending two years ago. Among other things, it will help to fund four new initiatives. First, an intensive research effort to detect intruders trying to break into critical computer systems. Second, crime -- excuse me detection networks, first for our Defense Department, and later for other key agencies so when one critical computer system is invaded, others will be alerted instantly. And we will urge the private sector to create similar structures.
Third, the creation of information centers in the private sector so that our industries can work together and with government to address cyber threats. Finally, we'll ask for funding to bolster the government's ranks of highly skilled computer experts -- people capable of preventing and responding to computer crises.
To implement this proposal, the Cyber Corps program, we will encourage federal agencies to train and retrain computer specialists, as well as recruiting gifted young people out of college. In all our battles, we will be aggressive. At the same time I want you to know that we will remain committed to uphold privacy rights and other constitutional protections, as well as the proprietary rights of American businesses. It is essential that we do not undermine liberty in the name of liberty. We can prevail over terrorism by drawing on the very best in our free society -- the skill and courage of our troops, the genius of our scientists and engineers, the strength of our factory workers, the determination and talents of our public servants, the vision of leaders in every vital sector.
I have tried as hard as I can to create the right frame of mind in America for dealing with this. For too long the problem has been that not enough has been done to recognize the threat and deal with it. And we in government, frankly, weren't as well organized as we should have been for too long. I do not want the pendulum to swing the other way now, and for people to believe that every incident they read about in a novel or every incident they see in a thrilling movie is about to happen to them within the next 24 hours.
What we are seeing here, as any military person in the audience can tell you, is nothing more than a repetition of weapons systems that goes back to the beginning of time. An offensive weapons system is developed, and it takes time to develop the defense. And then another offensive weapon is developed that overcomes that defense, and then another defense is built up -- as surely as castles and moats held off people with spears and bows and arrows and riding horses, and the catapult was developed to overcome the castle and the moat.
But because of the speed with which change is occurring in our society -- in computing technology, and particularly in the biological sciences -- we have got to do everything we can to make sure that we close the gap between offense and defense to nothing, if possible. That is the challenge here.
We are doing everything we can, in ways that I can and in ways that cannot discuss, to try to stop people who would misuse chemical and biological capacity from getting that capacity. This is not a cause for panic -- it is a cause for serious, deliberate, disciplined, long-term concern. And I am absolutely convinced that if we maintain our clear purpose and our strength of will, we will prevail here. And thanks to so many of you in this audience, and your colleagues throughout the United States, and like-minded people throughout the world, we have better than a good chance of success. But we must be deliberate, and we must be aggressive.
=================================================================
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 24, 1999.
Good one Leska.Do you notice how there's not one mention of Y2K? But off in the shadows ... there it lurks.
On the evening news last night they did a spot on San Francisco getting ready for terrorist attacks and showed footage on drills, of fire fighters in full biological weapons garb, that took place last fall. *Sigh*
Sometimes Y2K seems simple, at other times...
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 24, 1999.
"including indulging my nagging on this subject for the better part of six years now." [6 years! since 1992? Clinton's known the fragility of cyber infrastructure & Y2K for a while.]"because I then had experts to cite on my concern and nobody thought I was just reading too many novels late at night." [Echoes of the nervous ridicule reaction.]
"cyber attacks on our critical computer systems" ... "ready if our adversaries try to use computers to disable power grids, banking, communications and transportation networks, police, fire and health services -- or military assets."
[He 'Gets It' in a nutshell there.]
"More and more, these critical systems are driven by, and linked together with, computers, making them more vulnerable to disruption. Last spring, we saw the enormous impact of a single failed electronic link, when a satellite malfunctioned -- disabled pagers, ATMs, credit card systems and television networks all around the world. And we already are seeing the first wave of deliberate cyber attacks -- hackers break into government and business computers, stealing and destroying information, raiding bank accounts, running up credit card charges, extorting money by threats to unleash computer viruses. The potential for harm is clear. Earlier this month, an ice storm in this area crippled power systems, plunging whole communities into darkness and disrupting daily lives. We have to be ready for adversaries to launch attacks that could paralyze utilities and services across entire regions. ... "
"Third, the creation of information centers in the private sector so that our industries can work together and with government to address cyber threats. Finally, we'll ask for funding to bolster the government's ranks of highly skilled computer experts -- people capable of preventing and responding to computer crises.
To implement this proposal, the Cyber Corps program, we will encourage federal agencies to train and retrain computer specialists, as well as recruiting gifted young people out of college. In all our battles, we will be aggressive. At the same time I want you to know that we will remain committed to uphold privacy rights and other constitutional protections, as well as the proprietary rights of American businesses. It is essential that we do not undermine liberty in the name of liberty. We can prevail over terrorism by drawing on the very best in our free society -- the skill and courage of our troops, the genius of our scientists and engineers, the strength of our factory workers, the determination and talents of our public servants, the vision of leaders in every vital sector.
I have tried as hard as I can to create the right frame of mind in America for dealing with this. For too long the problem has been that not enough has been done to recognize the threat and deal with it. And we in government, frankly, weren't as well organized as we should have been for too long. I do not want the pendulum to swing the other way now, and for people to believe that every incident they read about in a novel or every incident they see in a thrilling movie is about to happen to them within the next 24 hours."
[Well, that certainly affirms in my mind that Clinton 'Gets It,' at least somewhat -- or his speechwriter does. Maybe he lurks here? Still don't think the govt's going to be much help. Depend on yourself. ]
Well, folks, now that we've got it in writing from the horse's mouth, after weeks of speculating, what do you all think ??????
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 24, 1999.
I think we continue to watch what they actually do, while ignoring, or at least questioning fully, anything that they say. One thing that is amazing to me is their perception that people can deal with the concept of terrorism more readily than Y2K - and the military/guards ability to deal with terrorism but not Y2K that was mentioned above.Diane and Leska: You are both incredible.
-- Rob Michaels (sonofdust@net.com), January 24, 1999.
Rob, a thought I had after I read this and pondered, was:
the lawyers are salivating for the Y2K carcasses --
lawyers are licking their chops to hang Clinton after he gets outta office (the way out is up to the oralcles ;) --
how many lawyers will read this and print & save for future proof that the Prez *knew* and did not alert the public in time?But don't think the lawyers Get It either; if it goes Infomagic there will be no meat left on the carcass.
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 25, 1999.
READ BETWEEN THE LINES FOLKS..........We're being set up for a government inflicted terrorist strike to cover up the lack of a Y2K solution........They CAN'T FIX IT......so now they're going to make it look like they did, but some terrorist group destroyed it all......Again......READ BETWEEN THE LINES.......then tell me I'm on the wrong train of thought here........This is why they keep telling people not to worry about stocking food, water, etc to prepare for Y2K........If people are PREPARED, it will mean a much tougher 'FIGHT'........
Sandy
Sandy
-- Paul & Sandy Stambaugh (patches96@worldnet.att.net), January 25, 1999.
Right On Sandy!There is, and has always been, more to the y2k story all along. I have been saying that for over a year now, I was an early GI. People have been dumbed down to the point of no return, and "They" know it. As long as the sports and markets are functioning, life is good. Nothing else matters. When this imagenary world collapses, look out.
Some people are waking up to what is really going on. I just hope and pray that our numbers will be sufficient.
-- Patriot (wakeup@america.com), January 25, 1999.
Whoa! Our thoughts are not so radical. We do not believe that most ppl in govt desire to snuff the lives of 2/3 of the citizens. We think subbing the terrorists for Y2K is 10% concern for terrorist opportunism, 40% govt alphabet/funding opportunism, and 50% concrete public relations fudging to overcome the Y2K snicker-doodle dawdle riciduling.Ashton & Leska in Cascadia
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 25, 1999.
Sandy,Please get counseling for your paranoia.
>a government inflicted terrorist strike to cover up the lack of a Y2K solution
That idea is not connected to reality.
>so now they're going to make it look like they did, but some terrorist group destroyed it all
That is nonsensical.
>READ BETWEEN THE LINES.......then tell me I'm on the wrong train of thought here
Yes, you are on the wrong train of thought there. Get counseling.
-- No Spam Please (anon@ymous.com), January 25, 1999.
Sandy,I also don't think your conclusion is an accurate "read-between-most- the-lines."
Believe it or not, I think Clinton, et. al. WANTS most people to make it through Y2K and all the rest. "They" just don't quite have it figured out. Remember his statement ...
"For too long the problem has been that not enough has been done to recognize the threat and deal with it. And we in government, frankly, weren't as well organized as we should have been for too long. I do not want the pendulum to swing the other way now ..."
What would you do to keep a pendulum from swinging too far?
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 25, 1999.
Diane, excellent work as usual."Then toss in natural disasters on top of the manmade ones and well, there's an even bigger reason to get personally and community "prepared" for all the amazing and upcoming uncertainties."--Diane
This brings us back to what Bruce Beach is saying in his essay "The Smoking Guns of Y2K".
"10.And lastly, but not leastly, I am astonished how so many of the Y2K doomsayers and the Y2K believers are focused so narrowly on this subject of Y2K when there are so many other equally serious survival threats facing humanity. At this time there is an increasing proliferation of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. There is underway an intense (although unnoted in the popular press) highly technological arms race involving astronomical levels of expenditure such as have not been seen since the end of the cold war. In December 1998, Russia (a supposedly economically deprived country) deployed 30 of a new advanced design missile and in January 1999 started production delivery of a new highly advanced military aircraft. The U.S. in January 1999 greatly increased its military expenditures, as has China. The U.S. announced in the same month that it will probably abandon parts of its nuclear defense treaty and Russia responded that it will not take this lightly. The North Koreans announced at the same time that they will directly attack the U.S. in case of a nuclear confrontation, that they feel is forthcoming. And China, which in 1998 was for the first time identified by President Clinton as having 13 International Nuclear Missiles aimed directly at the U.S., became very upset with the U.S. intervention in its Taiwan exercises. Even these military threats are but one among a plethora of economic, monetary, social and other crises facing humanity. It seems to me that those concerned about Y2K survival should really put things into perspective."
My views lately are less paranoid at the gov. in general. I don't believe that the collective "they" are against us, and want to see us anihilated, starving or otherwise suffer unduly.
Reno said: "There are a number of issues involved -- how do we disseminate classified information -- and we're working through those issues; how do we disseminate information so that it does not unduly alarm people. I think in whatever role you're in, whether it's in forecasting tornadoes or in these circumstances, you've got to balance fully informing the public with not frightening them into inappropriate action."
This statement to me is reasonable, when you take into account everything that is threatening us now, aside from Y2K itself. My view of the masses, and that includes me on this one, is that were we to know everything the gov. knows, we'd all go bunkers.
With this newly found awareness of mine, I now consider my preparations not for Y2K persay, but for any eventual calamity. I haven't started too soon either. It is clear that with all the threats we're facing we should all be prepared to 1. have at the minimum one months food/water/heat 2. or be prepared to die and accept it or both. Y2K or not. 1950's all over again? cyberspace coldwar?
-- Chris (catsy@pond.com), January 25, 1999.
Chris,With a sense of the "bigger picture" on global scales, I think preparing for all the potentialities should just be a new way of life now. In other words, Get Ready for anything.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 25, 1999.
Virus Terrorists Plot To Upstage Millennium BugWARNINGS about a sharp growth in computer viruses have been issued by experts in the run-up to the millennium.
They fear virus writers are gearing up for an assault on databases worldwide and over recent weeks new, surprisingly sophisticated viruses have emerged. Some kill a machine's start-up system while others allow a person on the other side of the world to control someone else's PC.
It is believed that some of these new viruses, which are spread via the Internet, are test-runs for even more destructive and subversive ones.
Chris Hilder, a security expert at the National Computing Centre, Manchester, said: "We know about the potential problems of the millennium bug. You can imagine what the people who write these viruses are thinking - let's make an even bigger wow."
Computer security experts are urging householders and small businesses with PCs to be extra-vigilant and to ensure that software designed to detect an incoming virus is constantly updated.
Anti-virus software routinely fitted to PCs can quickly go out of date, says Hilder, who added that shops should do more to make PC owners aware of the threats. "Security is not a one-off event," he said.
A variant of a computer virus called CIH is one which is causing alarm. It "kills" a machine's start-up system and wrecks vital electronic files and, helped by the boom in the Internet, it is spreading as people download games or buy infected CDs.
The exact number of computers at risk is unknown. But the toll could be as high as a million in Britain, with many more worldwide.
Experts warn that the virus, designed to trigger in April, will leave home and office owners facing frustration, potentially huge repair bills and untold damage in lost data.
Older viruses would often trigger bouncing balls or silly messages on the screen. But the new one is far more secretive. "It is very silent. It does not seem to do anything you will notice until the trigger date," said Nick Fitzgerald, the editor of Virus Bulletin.
---------------------------------------------------------------
xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 28, 1999.
Indeed suspicious that it's going to trigger in April. We won't know exactly who the fool is on April Fool's Day.xxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 28, 1999.
Here's a site to keep Diane & Kevin happy for many snoopy hours ;-D
Year 2000 Links: National Governmentsxxxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxx
-- Leska (allaha@earthlink.net), January 31, 1999.
Thanks Leska,Looks interesting -- will explore later.
Diane
-- Diane J. Squire (sacredspaces@yahoo.com), January 31, 1999.