Gilmore Commission - Minutes
Panel to Assess the Capabilities for Domestic Response
to Terrorist Acts Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction
Arlington, VA
Monday, June 18, 2001
Present:
The Honorable James Gilmore, Chairman
William Garrison
Bill Jenaway
James Greenleaf
Jack Marsh
Kenneth Shine
George Foresman
Kathleen O'Brien
William Reno
Patrick Ralston
L. Paul Bremer
Patricia Quinlisk
Ellen Gordan
Also present:
Ellen Embrey
Mike Wermuth
Members Absent:
James Clapper, Vice-Chairman
Dallas Jones
Paul Maniscalco
Raymond Downey
Joseph Samuels
Hubert Williams
I. Opening Remarks by Governor James Gilmore (Chairman):
Chairman. Opening Remarks. I am looking forward to working with you today and tomorrow. The benefits of this Panel are that it lasts for three years and it includes local responders. A few weeks ago I had the opportunity to meet with Vice President Cheney on this issue. One thing was clear; the Vice President has a grasp on the complexity of this issue. Clearly the Administration and the Congress are interested in implementing some reforms. This debate is ongoing and gaining momentum. The goal for the next two days is to frame the critical observations from our last report. We may be called on to inform the debate before we actually complete the writing. Thank you very much for your participation.
II. Overview of Activities
Bremer. Four points that came out of the (House) Speaker's Working Group meeting on combating terrorism: 1. Agreement exists that there is an increased threat; 2. Intelligence is an issue; 3. Government is not organized to meet the threat; and 4. Congress is less organized that the Administration. I think there is a willingness to work with the Administration on this issue.
Chairman. This topic is so bi-partisan; it is going to be addressed. I think we will emphasis the fact that I was Chairman two full years before becoming the National Republican Committee chairman.
Shine. I understand, Jerry, that people are aware of the increase in the threat. But are they aware of the subtle differences between the threats?
Bremer. I think they all believe that biological threats are the most troublesome.
Wermuth. I think the policymakers understand that the most likely threat is in conventional terrorism. I also think that there is a new focus, on the biological element.
Chairman. I think we all agree that the high-probability/consequence threat assessment from two years ago. But we also decided that the biological threat was too serious to ignore.
Greenleaf. If we look back over the past 2.5 years, we have not heard one agency indicate that they are disorganized. Quite frankly, within their own stovepipes they are doing the right thing, but they do not see the disorganization. We also get the state and local input and can see the full picture. The secret is to pull it together.
III. Questions on the National Survey - Ron Fricker, RAND Corporation
Shine. Would it be useful to get someone from AHA to send a letter to get better follow-up?
Fricker. Yes.
Chairman. I think we ought to get onto the substantive results. I would be happy to write letters to my colleagues to get the governors to get their people involved.
Foresman. As part of State requirements, states are going through a similar progress. Now the difficulty is if there is such a difference between this study and those state data.
Fricker. We will do some follow-on analysis.
Foresman. Are we doing a comparison between what they think is more likely and then what they are planning and exercising?
Fricker. Yes, we included this in the survey.
Chairman. Certainly I think the members would like to give you some feedback. Maybe tomorrow we could take some time and I'd like to give you some thoughts back.
Wermuth. Anyone who has comments can email them to me or Ron.
Chairman. Could we set a time? Say 10 days, does that seem reasonable?
Quinlisk. In our final report, there is a lot of other information out there. How much of the other information are we also incorporating into the final report?
Wermuth. We certainly intend to do some cross-comparison with DoJ assessments. We have not found anything come close to the DOJ assessment program, but if there are other studies, we'd like to know about them.
Chairman. Anything else?
O'Brien. This survey is really about trends and to verify our recommendations and ideas; I think we should use it as such.
Adjourn