**Summary of Meeting -- Public Session**

**U.S. Department of Homeland Security**

**Homeland Security Advisory Council**

**The Radisson Miami Hotel**

**Miami, Florida**

**December 9, 2003**

**Meeting Summary:**

This summary describes the discussions and actions of the third meeting
of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Advisory
Council (HSAC). The meeting was held from 9:30 AM -- 12:30 PM on
Tuesday, December 9, 2003 at the Radisson Miami Hotel, 1601 Biscayne
Boulevard, Miami, Florida.

The HSAC met in Miami for the purposes of: (1) Welcoming and swearing in
new members of the HSAC; (2) addressing current HSAC projects, including
continued discussions on the proposed Homeland Security award and the
HSAC Lexicon project; (3) touring DHS facilities; (4) receiving
briefings from DHS staff on Departmental initiatives; and (5) holding
roundtable discussions with and among HSAC members.

Members received briefings from the Award Working Group Chair Dr. Lydia
Thomas and Lexicon Working Group Chair Dr. Ruth David. Governor Jeb Bush
welcomed the Council to Florida and provided a state perspective on
homeland security efforts.

**Participants:**

*[Council Members in Attendance]{.underline}:*

Joseph J. Grano, Jr., Chair

Judge William H. Webster, Vice Chair

Richard Andrews

Kathleen M. Bader

Kenneth C. Canterbury

Frank J. Cilluffo

Dr. Jared Cohon

Dr. Ruth David

Herb Kelleher

Mayor Patrick McCrory

Dr. Lydia Thomas

**U.S. Department of Homeland Security Representatives:**

Al Martinez-Fonts, Special Assistant to the Secretary for the Private
Sector

Christopher J. Furlow, Homeland Security Advisory Council, Executive
Director

Jeff Gaynor, Homeland Security Advisory Council Staff

Mike Miron, Homeland Security Advisory Council Staff

Candace Stoltz, Homeland Security Advisory Council Staff

Katye Balls, Homeland Security Advisory Council Staff

Erica Bomsey, Office of General Counsel

Brian Cairns, Personal Assistant to the Secretary

Ed Cash, Secretary's Advance Representative

Admiral Harvey Johnson, United States Coast Guard

Captain Joseph Rosa, United States Coast Guard

Lt. Howard Wright, United States Coast Guard

**Public Attendance:**

Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida

Guy Tunnell, Director, Florida Department of Law Enforcement

Approximately 10 members of the public attended the meeting.

**HSAC Meeting Called to Order**

**CHAIRMAN GRANO:** I would like to call the meeting to order. We will
adjust the agenda because we have a prominent guest. And so if I may,
I\'m going to turn the meeting over to Secretary Ridge, who will
introduce Governor Bush.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** Thank you very much, Joe. It\'s a pleasure for me
to introduce a personal friend and one of America\'s great governors,
Jeb Bush.

Way back when, immediately after the post-9/11 challenge of this
country, certain governors stepped forward and saw immediately what they
needed to do, not only in terms of appointing people within their
administration to focus on Homeland Security issues, but who understood
almost intuitively the need for a statewide leadership, the development
of a regional plan, built from the bottom up, and who understood the
concept of mutual aid.

Every step along the way for the past two years, as either special
assistant to the President for Homeland Security in the White House, or
as Secretary for Homeland Security, if you\'re looking for a template to
get things done, consistent with how the Homeland Security Advisory
Council would like things to work in every state, you can look to
Florida.

I invited Governor Bush to share a few introductory comments with us.
But I must tell you that when I first visited Miami, saw the port and
talked to the federal officials, I noted the enthusiasm and the support
they expressed for the collaboration between their federal agencies and
the state and local agencies. So when it comes to collaboration,
communication and cooperation, this state and its Governor gets it.
Therefore I\'m pleased to introduce my friend, the Governor of this
beautiful state, Jeb Bush.

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** Let me tell you an interesting story. On September
10th, I was having dinner with my brother in Sarasota and we were
talking about brotherly things, and just, you know, if you know the
President, you know he\'s a fun-loving person. And prior to September
11th, we were talking about football and he told a group of about eight
of us that he \-- I\'ll never forget, had just finished reading "*[April
1865]{.underline}*," a book about the last month of the Civil War, which
I\'ve now finished reading and I recommend it. It was just like a
regular dinner with a guy who happens to be the President of the United
States who wasn\'t acting that way. I had to go back to Tallahassee for
a cabinet meeting but the President stayed in Sarasota to visit a school
-- and then the world changed.

Of the 19 terrorists, I believe, 16 had a nexus to Florida. I then
learned about flight schools. I never thought monitoring flight schools
was such a very interesting part of my job, but many of them were
trained to, not to master the aircraft but \-- basically, to simply take
planes off the ground, not to land them. In the wake of September 11, we
had to make \-- as did every other state \-- assessments about where we
were, and where we weren't good enough for the 16 million or17 million
people of the state.

From the perspective of our state, when people are fearful, they don\'t
fly. And when they don\'t fly, they don\'t come, and when they don\'t
come, it decimates our economy. We had people who had really good
livelihoods that in a two-week period of time were out of a job. I had
to put on Mickey Mouse ears and go to a Disney store in Chicago, fly to
Boston to go on a cruise ship to talk to tour operators about coming
back to Florida. We responded to the challenge just as Washington has in
a way that has upgraded our security.

Today in Florida, we are much better organized and we do have a model
that I think for a big, complex state is one that we\'re proud of.
We\'re not operating in disparate parts. We\'re operating as a team. We
have regional security task force \-- a structure of seven of them. They
are made up of the head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, a
regional director, and a local Sheriff, along with fire chiefs, public
health officials, hospital officials, police chiefs, local politicians.
And they meet regularly. They identify the priorities, they work
together and we\'re far better off as a result of their efforts.

I want to thank you all, you Tom, the Congress, and the President for
providing ample funding for us to be able to do this. This year, we will
spend \$92 million on Homeland Security issues, the great majority of
which comes from the federal government. Were it not for that, we would
not be prepared.

We thank you all for the seaport security money. I think Florida got the
first round \-- 25 percent \-- because we had security assessment plans
in place, and if you had a chance to visit our ports, this is the
after-picture in progress. You should have seen what it was there
before. We are the largest cruise ship capital, and the security before
September 11 was lax beyond belief. On the commercial side of the port,
there were no gates. I mean, I can\'t even imagine that this was how we
operated. You could just drive your container in, pick up your
merchandise, come, take it right out. That\'s all changed.

And we do background checks on port employees, and require seven years
of a clean record. Believe it or not, that requirement eliminates a lot
of people working in our seaports. There\'s been a lot of opposition to
this, but as a result the operations of our seaports are better and they
are more secure. Our public health team is as good as there is in the
country. Our local law enforcement and fire rescue personnel are better
trained. The governor is better trained.

One thing I learned from Mayor Rudy Giuliani when I went up to testify
to a Congressional subcommittee several weeks after the attacks were \--
do your tabletop exercises and do them regularly. I also learned the
Governor or the Mayor needs to lead from the top to get others involved.
And because we\'ve done just that, we\'re in better shape. We appreciate
your leadership Tom so much. Were it not for the Federal Government\'s
response to this, we would, I think, be a state and a country that is
not nearly as secure as we are today. Tom is the main reason that
that\'s taken place and

I just appreciate you all being down in Miami.

You are part of our largest industry when you come here. I hope you
spend a lot of your hard-earned money. Come often, not just in your
professional duties, but come back as a guest. We rebounded quickly
because we got the support we needed from Washington, D.C., and I
appreciate it.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** Any questions for the Governor? We\'ve got a great
template. We have mandated that Governors give us a statewide plan by
the end of this year, but it\'s something that Florida had already
reduced to writing over a year ago. The Governor and I had a very good
discussion about insisting, in spite of enormous political pressure to
the contrary, that the dollars continue to flow through the state
capital. They\'ll get it down to the locals, but we want the Governors
to oversee that it is going down and being distributed consistent with
the input of the local and the statewide plan and nothing else. And so
they\'re doing it right here.

**MS. BADER:** Could you tell us, please, what your biggest challenge is
with regard to private industry within your state? You obviously talk
about a number of the pieces of that industry, some of them
transportation, but there are myriad others that have been impacted.
Clearly, as you put together these plans for statewide initiatives,
there must be some challenges for the private industry. We\'d like to
know how we can help you there. What would be the biggest challenge that
you face?

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** Well, the biggest challenge is the travel industry.
It\'s the biggest fear we have because, any attack scenario \-- it
doesn\'t have to be in Florida \-- will create a temporary paralysis.
And given the fact that we are in paradise, which is really removed from
where most people in the country unfortunately have to live, they have
to fly. While our travel numbers have reached the pre-September 11th, a
lot more people are driving. That is the biggest vulnerability that we
face.

**MS. BADER:** Vulnerability, I understand. How about from a working
relationship perspective with the private industry? Do you see a way
that you can accelerate the implementation of your statewide initiative
by some way enhancing that?

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** You know, we\'ve gotten really good cooperation from
all of the private entities that are most directly involved in the
Homeland Security issues. The biggest one, probably would be the public
health issues and how to prepare for some kind of attack. The hospitals
and doctors, we\'ve worked with have embraced these proposals. I think
we\'re in pretty good shape there.

**MAYOR MCCRORY:** Governor, thank you for letting us be in your great
state. You\'ve helped me in the past and I appreciate it. Can you tell
us more about the process of how you prioritize things, as far as what
should be protected? And second, your process of decision-making, how
you distribute the money that\'s being funneled from the federal
government to the state and local governments?

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** Well, the money follows to the priorities and the
priorities are established through this regional security task force
structure. And it literally is developed in a process, a bottoms-up
process, where there\'s buy-in. We\'re not the most creative enterprises
in the world, but you wave money in front of a government entity, Mayor
you know that people get really entrepreneurial quick and so we take a
lot of time to get buy-in. I\'ll tell you where an interesting conflict
occurs. It\'s between the emergency management \-- traditional emergency
management people \-- and the police. There\'s friction and it really
requires efforts to mediate it and I think we\'ve overcome it.

Guy Tunnell is the head of the Florida Department of Law Enforcement.
When we created our structure, it was law enforcement driven. Guy\'s
predecessor, Tim Moore, was dynamic and hard-charging. That\'s what we
needed, but the emergency management people, the fire departments, and
the hurricane fighters really were kind of upset. But the priorities are
pretty clear. If you don\'t have enough equipment and if there was an
attack, a chemical attack, that\'s a high priority. Everybody understood
that. So we distribute the money based on the priorities. We have not
turned it into another turkey-pot, or earmarked thing. We really have
stayed true to our strategic plan.

**MAYOR MCCRORY:** You\'re not doing it, for example, on per capita, for
example.

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** No. We do it regionally but we do have a mutual aid
approach to this. Down here in South Florida, the biggest government is
Miami-Dade County \-- the city of Miami\'s is maybe a tenth of that. The
City of Miami could easily have a lobbyist, I\'m sure, right now as we
speak up in Washington someone is seeking money for a particular thing,
but at the end of the day, so far, at least, we have agreements where
the equipment is shared. You know, an attack isn\'t going to be by zip
code. It\'s not going to be by municipal line. Something that happens
will have a regional impact and so the approach is to have mutual aid
agreements to deal with that, just as I know that you have in North
Carolina.

**MR. ANDREWS:** Dick Andrews from California, Governor. Thank you for
lending your finance director to us. We appreciate it very much. I just
wanted to say that with our new administration in California, as we\'re
looking towards how to deal with some of the Homeland Security issues,
your staff, Craig Fugate, and before, Tim Moore, who was a member of
this council, have been very, very helpful. And while it\'s difficult
for somebody in emergency management from California to admit that we
look at other places for models, Florida is one that shines for us and
we hope that we can emulate the leadership that you\'ve shown and that
the state has shown because I think that\'s one of the things that
California very much needs. So, again, we appreciate the support that
we\'ve received from Craig and from Tim previously.

**DR. COHON:** Governor, I\'m Jerry Cohon from Pittsburgh, and I\'m
especially pleased to be in southern Florida right now. I just want to
give you a quick data point from the field. We had a wonderful tour
yesterday at the port, in addition to federal agency presence,
especially the Coast Guard, what we saw was very impressive. We also had
many local people there. My particular interest and perspective is
technology and how it gets deployed for Homeland Security. I had a
chance to meet with the local county fire department HAZMAT Team, and I
was very impressed by the people especially, as well as the technology.
These were obviously very well trained and committed to what they were
doing, excited about what they were doing, and proud. And I think you
should be proud, too.

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** One thing about the Coast Guard that went unnoticed,
I think, not by Secretary Ridge but just by the population at large, is
how difficult their job is. It\'s a difficult job to begin with and when
you add a new component, the Homeland Security component, and you still
have the immigration issues here which are very sensitive and the drug
interdiction issues and the boating safety issues. They were working
24-7. They are protecting the ports and continuing with their regular
missions. I just appreciate how hard they work. I hope they\'re getting
some time off now, a little bit more than they were in the last couple
of years. Everybody was working hard in law enforcement, but I don\'t
think that the Coast Guard got the attention that they deserved in terms
of their heroic efforts.

**MR. GRANO:** Governor, just one point. Tim Moore did serve on this
committee with absolute distinction, and we miss him. We\'ve experienced
the same energy that you described.

**GOVERNOR BUSH:** He was remarkable. He really was in that regard, and
he is continuing on with the tradition of keeping this a high priority.
And one of the things that we have done a pretty good job of, I think,
from a statewide perspective, is embracing technology as it relates to,
not just crime fighting, but the Homeland Security issues. There\'s a
Florida-based company that has this computer technology called the
Matrix \-- it sounds like a movie \-- that is incredible. It has great
potential, I think, for fighting sophisticated crimes as well as
profiling terrorists, which I think we should profile.

**Break: Governor Bush departs**

**HSAC Meeting Resumes:**

**MR. GRANO:** As is our practice, this is an open session with the
public, and I\'d like to welcome, our guests who are members of the
public. I am Joe Grano, Chairman of the Homeland Security Advisory
Council, most commonly referred to as the HSAC. To my left and standing
over there is our Vice Chair, Judge William Webster. For members of the
public who aren\'t familiar with the HSAC, this council serves to
provide advice, council, and recommendations to the Secretary for
Homeland Security who is on my right, Secretary Tom Ridge.

In keeping with the Secretary\'s request to meet outside of Washington,
we\'re delighted to be here in Miami. This is the second time we\'ve
actually met outside of Washington, D.C. As you recall, in October, we
were in Detroit, and I think everybody would agree that that meeting
served us very well in seeing the issues connecting with Canada. Like
our trip to Detroit, we are going to be taking a tour. Unfortunately,
because of logistics and security, the public will not be invited to
that session. However, I\'d like to remind the public, at the end we
will give you instructions as to how you can contact HSAC and Department
of Homeland Security through varying means of communication and we\'d be
delighted with any questions or observations that you may give us.

Today on our agenda, we\'re going to be continuing our discussions of
two projects that the Secretary had asked HSAC to undertake earlier this
summer. First, the development of recommendations for a Department of
Homeland Security Award that is to foster the sharing of best practices
by recognizing state, local governments, private sector entities, and
perhaps even individuals, for integration of effort, ingenuity and
excellence in Homeland Security related endeavors. This is consistent
with the President\'s call for a national \-- not just a federal \--
approach to Homeland Security.

Secondly, we\'ll continue the discussion of a Homeland Security Lexicon
Project. The goal is to make recommendations to ensure that key Homeland
Security terms and concepts are clearly understood across all
disciplines, among appropriate stakeholders, and the general public.

I would like to mention again to the public, at the end of today\'s
session, we will provide you the information in terms of communication
with us.

At this time, I\'d like to recognize our two new members who will be
sworn in today. On behalf of your fellow members, welcome to the HSAC.
If you would, please, a little brief discussion of yourselves. We\'ll
start with Mr. Herb Kelleher, Executive Chairman of Southwest Airlines.
Herb.

**MR. KELLEHER:** Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I went into the airline
business, hoping I would improve my social stature from being a lawyer,
but then found out that airline CEOs were regarded as less worthy than
lawyers. Anyhow, after that mistake, I served as the Chairman and Chief
Executive Officer and President of Southwest Airlines for 28 years and
I\'m now the Executive Chairman. In that capacity, I was on the front
lines of security on behalf of the airline industry.

Secretary Mineta, Department of Transportation, appointed me to the
Quick Response Team, and I, and two others, represented the entire
commercial aviation industry thereafter with respect to security issues,
and I\'d like to make this statement if I could, and that is, our
government faced an absolutely unprecedented event; and the magnitude of
the task of Homeland Security is just mind-boggling.

Ours was a quick response. It was an effective response. It was an
enormously rewarding response, and Mr. Secretary, I want to congratulate
you and the Homeland Security Department on how much you have
accomplished within a relatively short period of time. I analogize it to
the Manhattan Project during World War II, because, as you know, they
said, \"Go out, and make the Homeland secure. Now.\" And by and large,
we have been. So I\'m very grateful to be a member of this group. I
thank you for lowering your standards so that I could be. And I\'ll do
anything and everything that I can to assist you, sir, and the work of
the group, because I think it\'s absolutely essential to our country,
and I\'m very proud of what you have accomplished and what Homeland
Security has accomplished under very difficult and trying conditions,
indeed.

**MR. GRANO:** Well, thank you, Herb, and above and beyond serving on
the committee, Herb will be serving as Vice Chairman of the newly
created Private Sector Senior Advisory Committee, and will be working
alongside Kathleen Bader, who chairs that committee.

**MR. GRANO:** Also joining the HSAC is a returning veteran, Mr. Frank
Cilluffo. Frank was the former Executive Director for the Council, and
we\'re delighted to have you back, Frank. For the new members, could you
give us a brief introduction, sir?

**MR. CILLUFFO:** Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I\'ve rarely had an unspoken
thought, but I\'ll be exceedingly brief. The first issue is, once
you\'ve served for Secretary, Governor, Sergeant Tom Ridge, you always
serve for Secretary, Governor, Sergeant, Congressman Tom Ridge, and
it\'s a privilege and an opportunity to continue to provide some ideas
and to be able to continue to serve such a distinguished individual, who
really has moved the ball exponentially, and I appreciate the
opportunity to do so and to work with such a terrific group.

I\'m currently now at George Washington University where we\'re trying
to marshal and mobilize some of the resources the university has, to
bring to bear on Homeland Security issues. And I think that universities
play a significant \-- and have a responsibility to bring Homeland
Security into the fore. And I think we, and many others, are playing
important roles in contributing, and it\'s a privilege to be here.

**MR. GRANO:** Congratulations, and the Secretary will now administer an
oath to both of you. Thank you.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** All right. Raise your right hand and repeat after
me. I, and you can state your full name, do solemnly swear, that I will
support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all
enemies, foreign and domestic, that I take this obligation freely and
without any mental reservation, that I will well and faithfully
discharge the duties of my office on which I am about to embark. So help
me, God.

**MR. KELLEHER AND MR. CILLUFFO:** (Repeating oath.)

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** Thank you very much. Congratulations.

**MR. GRANO:** At this time we\'re going to turn the meeting over to the
Secretary, who will give us an update on where we stand.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** Well, first of all, just a couple of quick
observations. I think most of you were present yesterday. Matter of
fact, as I take a look around, all of you were present yesterday as we
met with the Homeland Security Advisory Committees, so I\'m going to
keep these remarks very short. I just want to say how grateful I am that
we\'ve made so much progress on the Lexicon Project and the Award
Project. I mean, I think they\'re very, very important for the
Department and for the country.

But as I detected yesterday in our broader discussion with the advisory
committees, I\'m excited about that award. I really think it will help
elevate in a very visible and positive way the kinds of leadership that
we see from somebody like Jeb Bush. This is a Governor that gets it.
It\'s a state that gets it. But frankly, the states don\'t all get it.
We can\'t lead this thing from the federal level exclusively. There are
leadership responsibilities and they\'re shared. It has to be a shared
vision; shared responsibilities; shared accountability. The state of
Florida gets it because you\'ve got a leader here.

We have got some other governors, well intentioned, but they wanted us
to distribute the money per capita. Others have variations on a theme,
so I\'m really excited about that particular project.

And then we\'re working on the Lexicon Project. You know, I know people
probably thought \-- weren\'t quite sure what to make of it when I
raised the issue that we develop a common vocabulary for everybody
involved in Homeland Security so that we all understand that certain
words have certain meanings and certain consequences.

I think this Advisory Council, with some support from the Senior
Advisory Committees in \'04 have an opportunity to make a significant
impact on the organization of the Department and its development in
future years. I\'m very excited about that and what I\'d like to propose
\-- and I mentioned to the Chairman \-- is we take some of the ideas
that percolated through the discussion yesterday -- undoubtedly, a few
more of them today -- and get back to the Chairmen and the Vice Chairmen
of the Advisory Committees. Following their review, all of us as a
Council can begin work by mid to late January \-- even before our March
meeting.

There\'s so much work. When you finally get your forces arrayed and you
get ready to go out on that mission, there\'s a line of departure and
you want to make sure you\'ve got everything about ready to go before
you move out. We\'re going to move out internally within the Department.
We\'re starting to integrate our information technology systems, our
procurement systems, our personnel system, and the budget and finance
systems. We\'re talking in terms of this regional structure. We\'re
still doing a lot of analysis about that particular piece of it, but so
your input there will be critical. Take a look at what Kathleen and Herb
can do with Al Martinez-Fonts and with Bob Liscouski on the private
sector. We\'ve got very robust communication with the ISACs, but can we
improve that?

We know we\'re going to be working on vulnerability assessment tools.
Fine. We could get your input there. We also need to take a look at,
science and technology. I think in terms of Jerry Cohon's Academe and
Policy Research Committee. You\'ve said SEVIS, the Student and Exchange
Visitor Information System, was a success because the academic community
and the Department of Homeland Security made it a priority. We had a
shared responsibility and accountability to make it work \-- and we made
it work.

You raised other issues where, unless we are really joined at the hip
and say, \"This is a priority, this is where we want to get to." Now,
how do we get there? All along the line is the first responder
community. We\'re going to get those 55, 56 plans this year from the
states and the territories. Frankly, we\'re going to scrub \'em up, and
we want to use these to find and review some best practices, and if we
don\'t like how they\'re arranged, we\'re going to send them back. But
in any case we need to glean from them the priorities. We also need to
start setting with S & T standards within the private sector.

So there\'s just a ton of work. And state and locals \-- you know,
there\'s always work to do there. We\'ve got to, push the Governors and
the Mayors to actually think about the model they use here in Florida. I
think they have a similar model in California, but we\'ve really got to
make sure everybody understands the \"Same team, same fight,\" concept.

Governor\'s Bush's Homeland Security Advisor said, \"You know, we are
required under law, under regulation, to get the money distributed to
the locals within X number of days, or else there\'s a penalty.\" He
said, \". . . but Tom, as we\'ve done our regional work and set
priorities, we now buy things in bulk. We want to have the ability to
buy things in bulk and sometimes if we\'re buying it in bulk, we can\'t
meet that.\" And I said: \"Well then we\'d better exempt the state from
any kind of punitive action if the reason for the delay is you\'re out
making a bulk purchase.\" So there are very mundane but very practical
suggestions to work.

Accordingly, I am excited about the Lexicon Project. We\'ve got a way to
go on that. Lydia, I think you\'re geared to having an awards ceremony
some time this year \-- that\'s pretty exciting. But I think there are
other policy and organizational challenges that we have. We\'ve got the
infrastructure to help us, and you\'re at the top of the flowchart in
that regard. I would like to leverage yesterday's and today's
discussions and have some individual discussions with you by phone \--
do a conference call sometime in January \-- and actually get folks
working on some issues before we have the March meeting, which I think
we\'re going to have in Washington?

**MR. GRANO:** Thank you, Mr. Secretary. As the Secretary mentioned, we
have established two new SACs or Senior Advisory Committees. For new
members, the protocol is that a SAC must be chaired by a member of HSAC;
and the recommendations and the direction of a SAC gets opined upon by
the HSAC. Once we deliberate and approve, we go with our recommendations
to the Secretary.

The Academe and Policy Research Senior Advisory Committee, or APRSAC,
and the Private Sector Senior Advisory Committee, PVTSAC are our newest
SACs. The APRSAC has been established to bring to bear the knowledge and
expertise of individuals from academia, technology and policy
development. The Secretary has appointed Dr. Jared Cohon the Chairman
and Dr. Ruth David, Vice Chair. Jared, I would like you to give us an
update on your meetings yesterday and any issues that we can help you
with.

**DR. COHON:** Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It would be my
pleasure to do so. I will speak on behalf of our committee and invite
Ruth to add anything that she thinks is necessary. We did have our first
meeting yesterday. Six of the nine appointed members were able to
attend, and there are other members still in process, so our committee
is still developing and growing.

It was a good first meeting, but it\'s clear that we have more meetings
to come before we have a clear plan to put before the Council in terms
of what we see and our focus. We spent most of our time talking about
the range of issues that committee members would like to pursue. As
background, though \-- and I want to emphasize that we see science and
technology as sort of the substrata for much of what we do \-- not
necessarily always focusing on that, but always looking through the lens
of science and technology at various issues. We\'re not the Science and
Technology Committee \-- I\'ll come back to that \-- but nevertheless,
we have that scientific and technical bent to what we do.

We identified five categories of issues that we think we\'d like to
pursue further. And again, I want to emphasize these are just
possibilities at this stage. We may do one or two of them, or all of
them, or none of them. That remains to be seen.

First of all, the Policy Research part of our committee\'s title, we
think actually is the highest priority set of issues for us to deal with
because they go directly to everything the Department does and
everything the nation should be doing in Homeland Security. When I say
that, I mean we see the policy research, including things \-- embracing
things like risk assessment, threat assessment, looking at
infrastructure systems and particularly their complicated,
interconnected nature, all of the things that we understand the DHS
ARPA, is \-- I\'m sorry, not the ARPA, the HSARPA (Homeland Security
Advanced Research Projects Activity) is focused upon. From the very
beginning of the Department, even before the Department was created, it
was understood that it was really crucial to get that going because
these issues related to risk-assessment, etc, have so much to do with
how priorities are set within the Department, within the federal
government, and within local governments, as we discussed earlier with
Governor Bush. So we see that as our highest priority. Just what we
might do with that, we\'ll see, but with all of these issues, I think
we\'ll approach them by trying to understand the state of knowledge in
that area, the degree to which these things are actually being deployed
within DHS, and gaps, and therefore, the need for research in related
activities and issues.

Number two, there are a set of bigger policy issues that we want to at
least get on the table. Whether our committee takes them up or not, only
time will tell. And let me just give you a couple of examples of that.
One would be border security, obviously a key and central issue for DHS.
The kind of policy issue the committee seemed interested in is the
policy conflicts inherent in this, security on the one hand, but making
sure we allow for the free flow of commerce and civil liberties on the
other. It is something that we know the Secretary and the other
leadership of DHS worries about all the time, but we think our committee
and somewhere in the council, should be taking that on. Another related
issue is another kind of policy conflict, is in the privacy area. We
just heard about Matrix, for example. We cannot avoid the kinds of
policy conflicts inherent in individual privacy on the one hand and the
ability to get the data that we need to protect the country and its
citizens on the other. Again, this belongs somewhere in HSAC, so a
second category are these broader policy issues.

A third area we identified as a possible area for focus is the
deployment of existing technology and the extent to which that is
happening. But here, again, we think we could provide most value by
focusing on policies related to that. So, for example, procurement
policy \-- does that support the deployment of the technology or does it
hinder it? Are there issues there? The issue of matching customers to
the sources of technology is a big issue, we know, for DHS.

A fourth area is collaboration. Now, this comes in many forms. We see
inter-sector collaboration, so here we\'re thinking particularly about
public-private collaboration in science and technology. Then,
inter-sector, for us means federal-state-local collaboration in science
and technology. We see interagency collaboration as an issue within the
federal government, and we\'ve uncovered one possible particular issue
where we have well-intentioned legislation that might impede DHS\'s
ability to collaborate with other federal agencies.

A fifth area is international collaboration, which we understand to be
very important. I don\'t think it\'s well-known, but both in Detroit and
here in Miami, we\'ve gotten exposure to the great progress DHS has made
in forging collaborative programs with other nations to protect this
country \-- something else we want to look at.

And finally there is the Homeland Security Research and Training Agenda.
Now, here, is a good spot to acknowledge the Science and Technology
Committee that is being formed now. Ron Taylor is the director of that
committee. It is the committee that reports to Chuck McQueary or in
another sense is Chuck McQueary\'s Advisory Council, and is mandated in
the congressional legislation that created DHS.

We want to be both cooperative and coordinated with Ron's committee and
supportive of their efforts without intruding on their efforts. So in
this area of research, specifically the research and training agenda,
which we expect is going to be the S & T Committee\'s focus, we want to
stay informed of what they\'re doing and supportive of what they\'re
doing, and contribute to the extent that we can. That won\'t be the only
place where we see overlap with the mission of that committee, but
that\'s the primary area.

So Mr. Chairman and Mr. Secretary, that\'s where we are. We look forward
to more meetings in the future where we can firm this up and get more
focused. I\'d be happy to respond to questions

**MR. GRANO:** Moving to the Private Sector Senior Advisory Committee;
this has been launched to help the HSAC provide advice from business and
other private sector leaders. The goal is to help integrate the private
sector with Homeland Security. And as we\'ve heard often, 70 to 80
percent of all critical infrastructure within the United States is owned
and operated by the private sector. The committee will work closely with
the Secretary\'s Special Assistant, Mr. Al Martinez-Fonts. The Secretary
has appointed our colleague Kathleen Bader as the Chair, and Herb
Kelleher to as its Vice- Chair.

Kathleen, I know you\'re excited. Could you give us an update, please?

**MS. BADER:** Thank you, Joe. I appreciate that. We met yesterday for
the first time, and various members hadn\'t been publicly announced
until then, so we didn\'t do any pre-work in anticipation of the
meeting. But fundamentally, we started where, Mr. Secretary, you
commented a few minutes ago \-- that money shouldn\'t be spent on a per
capita basis; it has to be done strategically. We believe that any
precious resource should be spent strategically, and so we are going to
be a committee that\'s going to go slow to go fast.

We\'re going to start by grounding ourselves in what are the strategic
objectives of the National Strategy for Homeland Security and the
Strategy for the Protection of Critical Physical Infrastructure. These
are the two key documents that this committee has, as you know, already
evaluated, and which through Chairman Grano, we have already submitted a
distillation of what the key objectives are discerned to be.

Our committee will start by looking at those key objectives, and
agreeing that these are the foundation of the Department's strategy, we
will then begin a prioritization process, on how private industry should
relate to them. Now, as you\'ll recall, the strategy, in essence,
indicated that there were six critical elements for success:
intelligence and warning; border and transportation; domestic
counterterrorism; protecting critical infrastructure; defending against
catastrophic terrorism; and emergency preparedness and response \-- six
columns, if you will, of critical items that have to be dealt with.

Simultaneously with that effort, we will have a parallel process that
will look at the Statewide Template Initiative, because this is where,
you have the reality of that document that\'s dealing with the real
world today. And as you know, we\'ve already done work to compare that
document with the first two documents and see where they connect and
where they don\'t connect. Now we\'re going to bring private industry
into that and say, \"All right, and where does it connect,\" and add
that into the prioritization piece of the process.

The third piece of this parallel pathing with the team is between
meetings. We\'re going to identify what private industry, as represented
by the people that you\'ve named to this team, believe to be the issues
that should be dealt with. We\'ll put those up on the board as potential
priorities to be evaluated against these other priorities.

The fourth piece of the puzzle, then, is a dialogue that has to take
place with DHS and its groups like Bob Liscouski\'s Infrastructure
Protection, Pat Hughes' Information Analysis, and Frank Libutti\'s
Information Analysis/Infrastructure Protection in terms of confirming
that we have all of their priorities well understood relative to private
industry, and those go up on the board. At the end of that, you have
what everybody thinks should be the priorities that should impact
private industry. And as a team, we will then prioritize among those,
submit that list back to the HSAC, confirm that that\'s where our focus
should be, and then break into subgroups and start to put together
action plans.

So we\'ll be a little slower out of the gates, but we will have a
foundation that I don\'t think anyone will be able to argue is based in
strategy, that we\'ll use the resources that you\'ve put in our hands in
the correct way, and that, ultimately, we\'ll accelerate the National
Strategy for Homeland Security; and that\'s our intent.

**MR. GRANO:** That\'s very good. I\'m going to make an assumption,
Kathleen and Jared, that as you vet these priorities, that you\'ll keep
a jaundiced eye on the issues of barriers, whether they be legal,
legislative, whatever, that would preclude execution of any
recommendation you might have. I think that it\'s very important that
early on we understand natural or self-imposed barriers in terms of
execution, particularly in your SACs.

**MS. BADER:** Mr. Chairman, I think that\'s an excellent thought, and
we will do that. One of the things that we began our work with was an
analysis of the roles and responsibilities of the chair, so we have a
clear understanding of what we\'re doing.

**DR. COHON:** Could I second that approach? And the President, in
laying out the National Strategy and the role of the Homeland Security
Advisor \-- it was intended to be a living strategy. It\'s not something
that\'s set in stone. We\'re dealing with a threat that\'s dynamic, and
a moving target. We don\'t want to march into the future backwards. We
can\'t look at yesterday\'s plans alone, yesterday\'s strategies alone.
So I think it\'s incumbent upon this group to be able to identify some
of the potential gaps and shortfalls that we\'re finding on a
case-by-case basis. I think that that\'s where this group can really add
some value.

**MR. GRANO:** And one other question. Have you ascertained whether you
have any resource restraints in terms of people, staff or whatever, in
terms of the conduct of what you want to get done?

**MS. BADER:** We do know that we will need resources to help put this
parallel pathing, strategic process together. There are experts in how
to do this. I\'m not an expert, and I will have to utilize a talent, an
individual, to help do that. We will come back through the appropriate
channel, which is Candy Stoltz, to ask for that resource. So we do have
a need for a resource.

**DR. COHON:** We don\'t feel staff-constrained at this stage. Jeff
Gaynor is providing good support. Our concern is the ability to meet in
extended session, not connected to an HSAC meeting, and it\'s not yet
clear yet that the resources exist for that. We think it\'s crucial and
that it should happen relatively soon. Our committee needs to get
together for a day or two just to focus on what it\'s doing, and I know
Chris is going to try to follow up on this.

**MR. MCCRORY:** I agree 100 percent that priorities are in place. I\'d
almost make a recommendation instead, that it not be too detailed, but
the term \"private,\" I think, limits you. I\'d almost go public-private
or private-public. There\'s so many things you have that overlap into
shared responsibilities and I just tend to think there's a way would use
our resources more effectively. I just hope the title of your committee
doesn\'t give the perception that we have to segregate public from
private.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** We have a state and local advisory committee as
well and, it\'s a very appropriate comment that you\'re making. We\'ve
done a lot of things well. One of them was the Statewide Template
Initiative where we put together the first responders and the state and
local committees who, working together, developed the product.

I think it\'s very appropriate at some point in time we take the Private
Sector Committee put it with the State and Local Officials Committee,
and deliver an appropriate product.

I think we need to integrate not only within the new Department but
integrate the resources and the talent we have here. Pat has a very
sound and very important observation, but I just wanted to tell you that
the process means at some point in time, you\'ll be integrating and
talking about issues as partners.

**MS. BADER:** I agree with what the Secretary just said, Mr. Mayor, and
fundamentally, once we get all these objectives and goals of this \--
the living objectives and goals up on the table, and we get them
prioritized, right then and there is where you will see which goals
cross sectors which go from public to private; which cross intelligence
and warning and border; and where, in effect, you have to align
everybody to them. That is where this process will fundamentally force
an alignment and recognize that if we say, \"This is the priority,\" but
it requires the public sector, and they say, \"This is not a priority,\"
that\'s when we have to go back to the HSAC and say, \"Which is it,
guys?\"

**HSAC Award Project:**

**MR. GRANO:** We\'re going to move now to the working groups. I had the
pleasure of getting two volunteers to serve as the Working Group Chairs.
One of the most important ones is the deliberations that we had at our
last meeting, relative to the homeland security award. The Chair of the
Award Working Group is Dr. Lydia Thomas, and her group includes HSAC
members Judge Webster, Sidney Taurel, Vance Coffman and several other
members from the Senior Advisory Committees.

I understand, Lydia, you\'ve had several conference calls and there may,
in fact, be a series of recommendations to the HSAC. Could you give us a
summary of where you are and then we\'ll open it up for discussion.

**DR. THOMAS:** Mr. Secretary, good morning. The Award Working Group has
met three times to date, and let me put this in context by giving you a
scenario that most people probably aren\'t familiar with. In our field -
biologists of the world and the scientists of the world say that if you
put five pathologists in a room, you get at least six opinions; and
whenever you have something as important to do as developing a new
award, you get N+1, with regard to the opinions as to how it should be
done.

But as opposed to that being a barrier to our future success, I prefer
to view that as the enthusiasm that everyone has to make this the
important award that you, sir, have desired.

And so we continue to work with all of the groups and so we hope that
you will view this as a work in progress, but we really do believe that
we are making progress.

The Chairman has introduced our working group. Everyone has been
attentive to each of our meetings that we\'ve held, and yesterday we
opened our doors, we hope, to the two new SACs, and we are looking
forward to increased participation from some of the members of those two
groups. And we\'re looking forward to hearing from them through Chris
and offices.

The primary purpose of the working group is to help accelerate the work
on the project, and today, to have a fuller discussion of some of the
suggestions that have come about through the presentation that we gave
yesterday to the SAC and start to have this whole thing gel so that we
can indeed have an award program for you next fall that does indeed
produce the type of results that you, sir, are looking for.

With regard to the objectives of the award itself, we believe that the
award should enhance the nation\'s level of preparedness at the
state-local level, within the private sector, amongst individuals in
terms of highlighting good examples and fostering and sharing the
implementation of best practices. In other words, sir, we want to make
sure that the scope of the award is such that every sector is covered,
from the state through to Mr. and Mrs. Homeowner, and that it becomes,
if you will, a household word that people everywhere, not just the
giants of industry, will recognize that this is an award that is being
given by the United States Government that is the capstone, if you will,
of those things that we are trying to accomplish here, and clearly, an
award that will reflect the President\'s Strategy for Homeland Security.

In looking at awards that have been given about town, not in terms,
necessarily, of the specific categories \-- and we don\'t want to
mislead you by looking at some of these, since most of them, that is,
all of them, actually, with the exception of the last one, focus on an
individual \-- but we were looking here at the process to get a better
handle on the prestige, the way people go about doing things, the
staffing, the funding and that sort of thing.

And so we did take a look at the National Medal of Science, Medal of
Technology, on and on and on, and your staff members, particularly Mike,
were off talking to your colleagues in your sister agencies to determine
just how they have gone about putting together some of their programs
and processes. And we\'re trying to incorporate there the best practices
that they have, but to enhance even there, because we believe that what
we\'re dealing with here is a notch up even from these very prestigious
awards that we see here.

And that led us to the budget that we\'re starting to feel a little bit
more comfortable with. At the meeting in Detroit, there was some concern
that perhaps there was not sufficient funding or staffing. But when we
looked at these other programs in the other agencies that are issuing
some of these very prestigious awards, we\'re sort of in the ballpark.
They were averaging about \$300,000 with a range with anywhere from 2 to
6 FTEs \[Full Time Employees\].

And so we believe that the Department might be on the right track. And
since this is our first year, we think we could go with that budget
scheme and the staffing that\'s been proposed, and then adjust as we see
fit going forward.

There was also, in Detroit, a lot of discussion about categories and
what the titles should be. I ask you not to concentrate on the examples
that are given there, but to concentrate on the characteristics that
we\'re looking for.

As I mentioned in the Senior Advisory Committee (SAC) meetings
yesterday, we very quickly decided that it was a very good thing that
we\'re all involved in the professions that we\'re currently involved
in, because if we had to earn a living on Madison Avenue, we would
surely, surely fail.

But we believe, sir, that the title of the award is very, very
important. And this is indeed a work in progress and we are inviting and
requesting the input of all of the SACs as well as the input of this
group, as well as members of the Department, in helping us suggest a
better title that really encompasses the feeling that we are all looking
for.

We were getting very concerned about the use of certain words, certain
types \-- securing freedom, supporting national security. So as I was
saying, what we were trying to get to is the heart, and we did, I
believe only average, maybe C-minus job of capturing it in some of those
titles, but we\'re going to keep working it, sir.\
\
With regard to the process itself, there were some things that I think
everyone agreed on. It\'s just that the implementation leaves something
to be desired at this point, but we\'re going to continue to work those,
too.

Number one, I think something that was very clear in the Working Group,
and certainly was reflected yesterday from all of the SACs, is that the
selectors, if you will, the rewarders, regardless of what the process
is, should be a consistent set. That is, we should not have Group A,
Group B and Group C making the determinations because we don\'t want the
variation of perceptions. We\'d like to have a panel, if you will,
perhaps even a blue-ribbon panel, such as that utilized by the National
Science Foundation \-- someone that may be, indeed, independent from the
agency, people that you would select from throughout the country who
could make up your selection panel. But we would have that very
consistent element there.

We believe, obviously, that the winners, if you will, of the award,
should be, ultimately, selected by you as the recommendations come
forward to you from this group. We also believe that given the fact that
this award is unprecedented in terms of the scope of the award, just as
the Department is unprecedented in the scope of its effort, that it
should receive the prominence of the President of the United States.
That is, when we make the selection, that the award be given at the
White House by the President, because it is indeed the capstone, and
hopefully will, indeed, reflect the President\'s strategy and will
reflect those things that the Department is trying to influence.

We are very interested in looking at all of the cross-cutting issues,
such that we have gotten rid of, if you will, the categories that were
set up initially, because we believe that it has a tendency to
stovepipe. And you\'re looking for just the opposite. You\'re looking
for how the nation is working together. You\'re looking for how regions
are working together. And we believe that the award should be very
inclusive, not exclusive.

And that is not to diminish it in any way, because there was some
concern about that, too. We believe that you, sir, should have the
flexibility to make one award that may be given to a series of
individuals or a series of awards, as we see fit, since this is a new
process and a new program, rather than to prescribe that there will be a
state award, or that there will be a local award, or that there will be
an award to the private sector.

Initially, let us see what kind of information we get back. Let\'s see
what the application pool looks like. Let\'s see what your Department
discovers as it goes forward over the next few years. Just as an
example, looking at your clipping service every day, we are convinced
that there are all sorts of wonderful things that are going on out there
and that you can be made aware of those.

I think what we\'re trying to say here is that there should not be
barriers to entry. I know that there was a great deal of discussion in
Detroit about the Baldrige Award as an example. While it is an excellent
example of awards, and there are many organizations that strive to
achieve it, it is also an extremely expensive process to be involved in
if you happen to be an industry partner pursuing it. And we believe that
in order to accomplish the objectives of the President\'s plan, in order
to accomplish what the Department is trying to do, that we have to be
much more inclusive of that and that we not put financial barriers
there, and that we also, in all honesty, not relegate this award to
organizations that are actually just very good at preparing
applications.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** Will you have guidelines for the award?

**DR. THOMAS:** Well, what we believe some of the initial guidelines
should be, in terms of criteria \--

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** You framed those already?

**DR. THOMAS:** Not in text that we could hand to you, but I can tell
you from whence they derive. We believe that we have two great sources
of criteria: one would be the Statewide Template Initiative, in that all
of the elements that we are looking for from the state and local
governments, as well as a big chunk of the private sector, are there;
and then certainly from the six elements of the President's National
Strategy, that when we combine those two documents \-- that when you
combine the elements from those two documents that we should have the
basis for very sound criteria for this award.

The other thing, in looking around the federal government at the award
process that we came up with, is that we would really like for the
entities that are being recognized \-- and here, I\'m trying to be
careful from the standpoint that if I say organizations and individuals
are concerned, that individuals are being left out, and if you say
organizations we\'re afraid that governments are being left out, and
I\'m saying entities in that we are including individuals, state, local
governments, unincorporated municipalities \-- in other words, this, we
believe, should be an award that recognizes excellence, that recognizes
best practices from wherever it may come, and that you should have the
flexibility and the option to recognize those best practices and
examples from wherever they may come.

If you find that there is a project or a program that\'s going on in the
private sector that just exemplifies how the private sector has stepped
up to the bar, is working with state and local governments, working with
the federal governments, that\'s just a superior activity, you should
have the flexibility to recognize and acknowledge that.

On the same hand, if it is Mr. and Mrs. Harry Homeowner, who are working
through their homeowner\'s association with the local volunteer fire
department, with the local public health community to make their
community safer, you should have the opportunity to recognize them, even
though they\'re not representative of a traditional unit. You know, in
other words, it\'s not the mayor or the governor, *per se*. Nor is it
the head of Dow or the head of Southwest Airlines; it is a collection of
individuals who have taken this charge very seriously and are working to
do everything that they can on a local level to be prepared, to be
ready, to be responsive to this charge and to this challenge.

And so that\'s what we\'re trying to deal with at this point. So we see
it now as a \-- both an application process but as also an outreach
process, and that is that the Department would also be responsible for
taking a hand in trying to identify, at least in the out years at the
beginning of this program, to identify these exemplars.

Everyone may not be as aware right away, which brings us to one of the
other points, and that is that we believe that very, very shortly, the
Department needs to come up with not only the simple process, which is
something else I think we all agree on \-- I haven\'t figured out
exactly what the process is, because simple is always the hardest thing
to do \-- but there should be a very simple process that allows everyone
to play and to bring this information to you.

We don\'t want it to be bureaucratic.

We think the Award should be a medal. And the reason that we think it
should be a medal is that we would like to be able to have a copy of the
medal, and obviously, the certificate that gets to hang wherever it is,
such that the recipients of the award can have a lapel pin \-- something
that they can be very proud of and demonstrate that they, indeed, have
been recognized with this very prestigious award.

So we need your guys to get on the ball. We need a staff in the
Department, we believe, of between two and three, and we\'d like to see
you establish an office. But we\'ll get that information back to you
after we\'ve vetted it all through the HSAC and put together a letter of
recommendations, which are essentially the next step in the process for
us.

I think we have a lot of good ideas.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** I think we are going to hire new people to do this,
but we\'ve got to probably assign a couple people from Public Affairs to
work with you and to work with Chris.

**MR. KELLEHER:** With respect to the simplicity of the application, I
agree, and I think you do as well, that whether you\'re an individual or
a large company, whether you\'re talking about coordination, alertness,
innovation, valor, whatever it might be, that you have an opportunity in
this fluid situation to qualify for an award.

I think what Lydia is saying is very important in that respect, and the
simplicity to the application. I haven\'t discussed this with Lydia, but
I thought if it could be something like, \"Tell us in two pages or less
why you think you deserve an award, and send us two pages, whatever it
might be.\" And that\'s simple. It\'s not expensive. You don\'t get into
a big PR competition with other concerns. You don\'t go out spending,
you know, a ton of money to try to qualify facially \-- something very
simple like that, you know? Just send us two pages telling us why.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** I like the approach, the application process is an
outreach process. We are going to obviously see, internally, some folks
that we think are really doing a job above and beyond. But it shouldn\'t
be limited to us. There will be others and we may miss them, so the
notion of a two-pronged effort, I appreciate.

And also, even though it\'s cosmetic, you may give an organization the
medal, with every member of the organization, and they should be
recognized permanently with some public recognition that would depend.
Obviously you\'ve done a tremendous amount of work here.

**DR. THOMAS:** Yes, I think that all of us who come from large
organizations, I know I\'m always thrilled whenever my company receives
an award and I\'m the recipient of the award. But there are \-- the
people in the company accomplished it, and I want them to have the
recognition. I don\'t want them to have to bring their families to my
office to see this piece of paper. And that\'s one of the reasons that
we felt so strongly about making sure that there was visual recognition
for the individuals who really did the work.

One other point, and that is that we felt fairly strongly about the
possibility of your making the award on the 12th of September. We will
always view the 11th of September as a day that reminds us of the
vulnerability of our loss and our pain, but we believe that September
the 12th is the day of a new awakening for America. It\'s a day that we
said, \"We\'re going to rid our country of terrorism and, oh, by the
way, while we\'re doing it, we\'re going to make ourselves much stronger
to deal with natural hazards and all of these other kinds of things.\"
It was a day that showed the determination of this country. And we
believe that that would be an ideal day for you, sir, to make this
award.

**MR. GRANO:** You could consider the 10th. We\'re not going to let
another 11th happen, because of this effort.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** With that, you know, that sensitivity to the kind
of award, the date we hold the ceremony on, getting the President
involved \-- I mean those are very material, very salient features of
this, to really give it the kind of prestige and distinction you\'ll
have to earn. It would have to be earned.

**DR. THOMAS:** We\'re planning to have as many more meetings as it
takes to be of assistance to your staff, to get this going so that in
the fall of next year, you can make the first award and you can be proud
of it, the nation can be proud of it, and it will be the beginning of
the recognition that we think it deserves.

**JUDGE WEBSTER:** Mr. Chairman, Governor, I think Lydia has done a
great job in pulling these things together and she\'s been very open and
people have made considerable suggestions on how to do it.

There\'s one area that I feel we have an opportunity not only to
recognize people, but \-- and I hate these bureaucratic terms like
\"incentivize\", but to put forward the security initiative, to make
people security-conscious, and the best example in my life time that I
can remember \-- I didn\'t really, as a kid, my family were opposed to
it \-- but it was the National Recovery Act, which was declared
unconstitutional. But at the time it came out with President Roosevelt,
they had a blue eagle and a slogan that people could put up on their
windows because they signed up. \"We do our part.\"

Now, I\'m not suggesting that for here, but I\'m suggesting something
like that, that companies sign into the concept of, \"We\'re doing our
part on security,\" whatever the words are.

And then there\'s a symbol that\'s going to be recognizable, and you can
put it on windows and other things, but the winners get to wear it. That
would be my idea of helping to make the award not just be a reward, but
help on the awareness program.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** We can\'t do enough promoting that notion and
advertising the success around the individual or corporate efforts that
are taken. I mean, we all agree, you can\'t secure it from the nation\'s
capital.

**DR. THOMAS:** Yes, but we believe that, you know, the Department has a
real job coming up in a very short period of time, to put together
their, the PR approach, if you will, to make sure we get the word out,
and to utilize many of the existing organizations around, so all of the
associations that revolve around homeland security, could be enlisted,
if you will, in the army of \"Get the word out to people.\" And many of
the individuals who are working on the working group are representatives
of an assortment of these groups that all believe that it\'s something
that they could do.

The one thing we have to be very careful of is that, you know, in
highlighting best practices that we don\'t put together a book for the
enemy on, \"What are the best practices here?\"

Secondly, what you don\'t want to do is to create a big award around a
specific company or issue and then they become the target. When they
fail the ultimate test you\'ve then blown your award sky-high as a
result.

And I think we need to think through the vulnerabilities of that and how
we\'re going to deal with that well in advance of launching any award.
That was feedback from the private SAC team yesterday afternoon.

**MR. GRANO:** We\'re going to spend the next 20 minutes in open
discussion to give you the input from the council, Lydia. Jerry.

**DR. COHON:** On behalf of the APRSAC, which discussed this somewhat
briefly in its 45-minute meeting, the first objective and the primary
objective for the award, I think, is very well-stated and well-crafted.

I would just emphasize the private sector part of it. And I say that
not, not that others should not be recognized \-- of course they should
and will be, but one of the arguments for an award, from the very
beginning, was to provide incentive to private sector companies. And the
award would help in that by highlighting best practices, like Baldridge
\-- I\'m not endorsing Baldridge \-- nor is my SAC, but I just wanted to
emphasize that. And it\'s there, it just needs to be emphasized.

**MR. CILLUFFO:** I second Jared\'s point on that. To spur the
investment in the private sector and to serve as a model, and to get
that seal of approval will go a long way to meeting some of those
self-initiated standards and best practices that the Private Sector
Committee\'s looking at. Right?

**DR. COHON:** And \-- just to complete the APRSAC reaction, the second
point they made was to express their concern about the review process
\-- that it just not be overly burdensome. And I have to say that the
\-- I\'m even more concerned about that given the exchange that went on
about simplicity of the process.

Simplicity is a great virtue, and there should not be high barriers to
entry. However, if it\'s too simple \-- we will get hundreds of
thousands of applications.

**MR. GRANO:** The weight of that could kill it.

**DR. COHON:** Yes. You have to think that through. So, I mean, there
are various ways you can keep it simple, but maybe say you cannot
nominate yourself.

**MR. GRANO:** I had three points in listening to you, Lydia. One is,
obviously, you have to avoid a process that can get politicized. This
cannot be politicized. And so who actually selects the award winner is
going to be very critical here. I think that whatever that group is, if
they make that recommendation, that recommendation should be final. I
don\'t think you want to insert an individual. I wouldn\'t put that
pressure on the Secretary or the President because it could politicize
the whole issue.

Secondarily, to Jerry\'s point, my concern is, if it\'s too simple and
you get hundreds or thousands or millions of applications and the
program will die under its own weight.

Then the issue of image and awareness level has to be thought through.
And you may want to go with a straw man-type approach and accelerate the
selection of the first company and the first individual so everyone
knows what it means and what we\'re talking about. And that may have to
be somewhat contrived, but I think that that would get you an
accelerator in terms of awareness.

**MS. BADER:** A little more input from the Private SAC from yesterday,
Lydia, and it blends on what Frank was just saying about criteria and
what the Chairman was just saying about, you know, the need to at least
have it sufficiently rigorous that people will believe there\'s really
something here, because your prestige will, in part, be built on that
reality.

But one of our members commented, you know, \"How are you really going
to benchmark who is the best?\" Because if you end up putting someone
forward and you haven\'t checked it through that in fact this is the
best practice and it\'s unique and it\'s worthy that, it will simply not
get the prestige it should get.

The belief was that if you want to spur private industry to invest that
there has to be some criteria established and some rigor to the criteria
or it\'s just going to be a \"nice to have,\" and most companies will
not view it as strategic, and therefore won\'t go for it.

**MR. CILLUFFO:** Mr. Chairman, in addition to who selects, it \-- the
\"how it is selected,\" criteria is exceedingly important. And the
private sector is going to have some potential concerns that if they are
seen as the best of breed, they don\'t want to put themselves in the
crosshairs for it to become a target.

So the process there becomes exceedingly important on how you can
protect. If I am Herb Kelleher, I don\'t necessarily want to be the
airline that has the crosshairs as being the most secure.

So I want to have the process where I can protect the intellectual
property and not make myself a target in terms of opening up to the
world my security countermeasures.

So I do think that the \"who\" is important, but the \"how\" becomes
even more important. And in terms of the process itself, in addition to
making sure it\'s rigorous to meet certain objectives and standards, you
also have security vulnerability issues you don\'t necessarily want to
disclose to the entire world in terms of how we would respond to a
contingency.

**MS. BADER:** And that\'s what, that\'s what our committee was talking
about when we talked about not wanting to showcase best practice.

I think you should consider that there\'s the option for a company,
particularly, to receive this award non-publicly. I don\'t know you \--
but, I mean, in other words, they could come and the President could
bestow it, but there\'s no \-- but it isn\'t communicated. I mean, there
should be an option of saying, you know, your cybersecurity \-- the
cyber guys will tell you, you never talk about how good your cyber is,
because every hacker in the world \-- has now got you on their list,
because they\'re going to take you down.

So, and particularly those guys would say, \"Give it to us in a nice
ceremony and don\'t tell anybody you gave it to us. You know, we\'ll
hang it somewhere. We\'ll be proud to receive it, \--\" But I think you
have to have some consideration for that.

**DR. THOMAS:** These are exactly the same kinds of discussions that we
have been having in the Working Group, believe it or not. The notions
that you bring up this morning, you know, are not new flashes, if you
will, because if you think about it for more than a few minutes, that\'s
what you come to.

And when we say \"simple,\" I said the fact that trying to do something
simple is the most difficult, for all of the reasons that, that we\'ve
just said. You know, we\'re trying to not raise the barriers of entry so
high that only the very large organizations of the country could
possibly participate. But on the other hand, not have it so low that,
you know, Mrs. Jones\'s fourth-grade class would be just as eligible as
everybody else.

And where, you know, where you draw that line and how you go about doing
that, we recognize is, is a very difficult process, which is one of the
reasons that we believe there should be full-time, dedicated people in
the Department who work this issue every day, not, you know, on \--
every two or three weeks having a teleconference call to, to toss some
of these ideas around because there is a flipside to almost every
positive thing that you come up with.

And yet, we are trying to meet the Secretary\'s objective by having it
have the image that we are talking about. I noticed that Jared was
shaking his head when Kathleen said, you know, \"Invite them to the
White House, but don\'t tell anybody.\"

You know, on the one hand, we\'re trying to incentivize people to do the
very best thing and to try and bring out all of the important aspects
that we are pursuing. It\'s hard to do that if nobody else knows about
it. On the other hand, if you \-- everybody knows about it, then you
have the problem that Kathleen has brought up. And, you know, we\'ve
been around and around on some of these.

**MR. GRANO:** My personal opinion that \-- there is common ground in
between. I think that if the award isn\'t tied to specific tactics that
a corporation is deploying, if it is general in nature in terms of how
it\'s presented, \"For your commitment and efforts to protect our
homeland,\" something that generic, although the process would vet how
you would win it, or the protocol would have to be there to do that, but
you would never want to display or articulate your security measures,
for instance, to Frank\'s point.

But if you made the presentation and the award generic enough, and I\'m
reminded of \-- my corporation is one of the few where every single
employee that was called into the National Guard or Reserves, by law, we
have to pay them for two weeks, and then they\'re on their own.

In our particular case, we made up the difference between what the Army
was paying and what they were making here, and some of them have been
getting that stipend for 18 months. So the National Guard comes by and
says, \"Wow, Joe, your corporation\'s great, with a beautiful plaque,\"
I said to them, \"Well, you ought to get the word out so other
corporations would do the same thing.\" Because what good is it that
plaque is on my little wall? I would have made that decision regardless
of any pressure, but a lot of corporations would never make that
decision.

And in this particular case, I think if we have something that alludes
to commitment and effort in terms of homeland security, and it\'s
generic enough, you\'ll be fine on that sensitive part of the issue.

**DR. DAVID:** And let me offer one counter to the counter. You can also
view the award presentation as a bit of psychological warfare, because
to the extent that we tout successes, there is a psychological impact on
the adversary in terms of their perception of relative strength. So
there is power in that as well. And if I were going for the award, I
might actually argue that I have now given them the idea I\'m a hard
target. So they\'re going to go somewhere else. Now, hackers are a breed
apart.

**MR. GRANO:** That\'s true. That\'s true. That\'s why I think the
criteria can\'t be that tactical. It has to be more generic or you run
that risk. Absolutely.

Any other commentary?

**MAYOR MCCRORY:** The only word that sticks with me is it\'s got to be
sustained.

If you award someone who is \-- it\'s a very short-term thing or a
change in management would change it \--it\'s going to be ridiculed in
the long-term. The award winner in 2004 gets it in 2004, but in 2006,
someone checks up and goes \-- What is that?

**MR. GRANO:** To your point, Pat, I mean, that can be somewhat
mitigated by making sure there\'s an event associated with the award.
Every year on the 11th or 12th or the 10th, there will have this gala
event for this, where the President does attend. And then you can
structure on that.

**MAYOR MCCRORY:** Because you know how they\'ll be meeting at a
separate level to follow up what\'s happened since, and that\'s why I
think it works the same way.

**MR. GRANO:** Again, as contrived as it is, I do think you\'re going to
need a straw man out of the box or corporation, somebody that everybody
says, \"Oh, sure, Giuliani did deserve that award,\" type of thing.

**DR. DAVID:** I would lodge only one minor, maybe, concern about tying
it to the 9/11 attack, because to the extent that we tie homeland
security to that day, it will recede from importance as we get further
from that day and have no further events.

And I am concerned that we make that day the be all and end all about
the Homeland Security program. I don\'t think this started on 9/11. That
may have been a wakeup call, but that wasn\'t the start of the problem.

**MR. GRANO:** I actually would agree with that to a degree, and one of
the things that you might consider is have the award on Veteran\'s Day.
That, to me, would be symbolic relative to protecting our nation, and
give it stature.

**MAYOR MCCRORY:** Remember, you do have some awards like the Medal of
Honor, which, there\'s no schedule.

**MR. CILLUFFO:** From a standpoint of our need to quickly advance best
practices in Homeland Security, the ability to hand out the award, not
on a particular annual schedule, necessarily, although you could do
that, but have the ability to quickly make an award to highlight a best
practice right \--

**MR. MCCRORY:** That\'s the Medal of Honor.

**MR. GRANO:** Yes, but the problem you\'re going to have is getting the
President to give the award, and his schedules impossible. So you almost
have to \-- you may do it two times a year, three times a year, that\'s
fine. But I would suggest that you have some type of protocol.

**DR. THOMAS:** Well, that\'s why we said, if possible. I mean, there
was some sentiment around the date; there will always be sentiment
around the date, but I agree with Ruth. As time goes on, I don\'t think
the date of the award will matter one whit, actually. What will drive it
is the availability of the President of the United States, whoever he or
she may be, which is indeed why some of these medals don\'t have a
schedule. It\'s because you give them when the opportunity arises.

What we were trying to do this time was kind of get the thing off the
ground and get everybody pointed toward a real schedule. Otherwise, we
will not meet the Secretary\'s directive and it will just drift. He
believes that this is an important thing to do. I think he\'s probably
right. And so we want to get on with it for this year. After that,
however, I think it may take on a different flavor after the first two
or three years.

**MR. GRANO:** My final comment, I applaud the concept that the judge
and yourself alluded to, and that is, you want this to be inspirational
and you want to be proud to wear that pin. I think that that is an
excellent idea. And as a CEO, I would literally engage my employee base
to try to get this thing and spend the appropriate money which is
exactly the activity you want from the private sector. And I would not
fear being a target to that degree. I\'m more concerned about a truck
outside trying to put us out of business, period, rather than
recognition for Homeland Security. I don\'t think that threat goes away
anyways.

**HSAC Lexicon Project:**

**MR. GRANO:** Okay. I thank everybody for their input on the awards
program. We\'re now going to move to the second working group and our
second volunteer in Dr. Ruth David who is leading the Homeland Security
Lexicon Project which \-- and I\'m sure everyone is aware of the
complexity.

**DR. DAVID:** Let me first thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being given the
privilege of volunteering for this task. We do recognize the importance
of the task that we\'ve taken on. I first want to recognize and thank
the team of volunteers that has agreed to help move this effort forward.
We have begun to frame the problem because it is not only complex, it is
almost bottomless. It\'s a bit like having opened Pandora\'s Box, in
terms of scope and complexity. We do though have some initial thoughts,
and I believe a path ahead.

I want to point out that the objective of the project is not to write
the dictionary, but rather to lay out a process whereby the Lexicon is
developed and maintained over a long period of time by the Department.
So I really want to focus on the process, the methodology and the
discipline.

We\'re actually dividing the project into three distinct categories: One
is the individual words or terms that are of such critical importance;
another is the set of acronyms which are foundational to clear
communications. And I will register one concern with the seeming
proliferation of acronyms on an ongoing basis, which, I think, is
characteristic of federal government, but unfortunately is a growing
problem in Homeland Security because of the very diverse stakeholder
community and the need for clear communications. I currently have no
idea on how to slow down acronym proliferation, but I do think that in
its current state the use of acronyms is an impediment to clear
communications.

The third category are what we term \"phrases\" or \"strings of words\"
that are given a specific element of importance or a specific meaning
when used in the context of a document. So we\'re going to look at each
of those three categories separately. In terms of the requirement, and
while I think this is very well understood by everyone, I do want to
emphasize that part of the lexicon complexity derives from the very
diverse set of stakeholders for Homeland Security. Certainly all levels
of government, the private sector, but also every American citizen has a
need for a baseline understanding. And so, as we move forward, and while
we don\'t believe that everyone needs to understand every term or every
phrase with the same level of specificity, there needs to be some
consistency across that very diverse stakeholder set. Further, I think
that it is something that must be kept front and center as we move this
project forward, and by extension and once again, brings up the caution
with the proliferation of acronyms.

We see the requirement really stemming from two aspects: One is
certainly the nationwide, and even international, frankly, communication
of what it\'s \-- what we\'re about, but also the only way that we will
implement the national strategy in a sustainable fashion, so that people
really do come together over a long term and develop a common
understanding.

In terms of the environment, this is something we actually discussed at
the last meeting, but has become increasingly evident as we dove into
this project. English is a context-based language. I think while we all
have a desire to have a single meaning for every term, I think that\'s
unrealistic. And just as in Webster\'s dictionary, you\'ll find
definition 1, 2, 3 and so on, based on the context, I\'m confident that
the ultimate Homeland Security Lexicon will have some of that as well.
When a term is used in a certain context, here is the meaning; when
it\'s used in another context, here is the meaning. That may be
problematic over the long haul, but at this point, we don't see a way to
derive a Lexicon where there is the one size fits all -- that is, this
is what the word always means.

Another thing that we feel very strongly about, and this is something
actually that Jared raised at the last meeting, is that there are people
called lexicographers who manage lexicon professionally, and those
skills, at least in our understanding, are not resident within DHS,
certainly are not resident on our working group. So we do believe that
it will be important to engage professional assistance for the long haul
in developing and maintaining a Homeland Security Lexicon. Jeff has
already done a bit of research in terms of what kinds of people those
are and where those skills might reside.

The last comment that I would make is that we really do believe in the
importance of this project and accordingly and recognizing that we
aren\'t starting from a clean sheet, have resisted the temptation to
pick five words and create from whole cloth our own definitions. There
are many documents already in existence that have defined the words or
phrases or acronyms, or have used them in a context without definition.
We think it important to begin to understand that set of foundational
documents, and rather than creating yet another new definition,
understand what\'s already out there, and if there are contradictory
definitions, what we can do about that, if anything.

The reality is the Department is operating from a set of documents and
legislation that are already in existence, and unfortunately we are
creating more documents on a daily basis. So that\'s the ongoing piece
of this project that we would need to be aware of. But we didn\'t want
to come at this by simply creating yet another set of definitions that
you then are forced to try to deal with.

Some of our initial findings probably will be of no surprise. First is
that within individual disciplines there is, in general \-- I say again,
in general, a common understanding of terms, acronyms, and phrases. Part
of that is because of shared training and joint operations. For example,
most of the firefighting community has a common understanding of the
terms it routinely uses. The problems begin to arise across disciplines
(e.g., police and fire). We\'ve seen this phenomenon in exercises and
we\'ve seen it in actual events. So we understand that the real nexus of
the problem is when different disciplines come together, and that\'s
really the problem we need to focus on.

The third layer to that, though, is in some of the emerging areas where,
quite candidly, a Lexicon doesn\'t really exist today because there
isn\'t the training basis and the rigor \-- methodology in areas like
agro-terrorism, for example. So there is work to be done in that area
and in other areas just in developing training materials and the basics
of the Lexicon.

We also discussed, in part, the desire to have the media be more
consistent in their use of terms. I think the focus of our discussions
here was that DHS could perhaps provide an information resource. Were it
to be viewed as valuable and perhaps embedded in media training over
time, then the adoption of a common Lexicon and more standard use of
terminology, we think, could be effected. But that will take time, and
it must be viewed as a value-added resource by the media.

Similarly, we can\'t control what the public thinks, but certainly DHS,
through its own press releases, through its own website \-- ready.gov
for example -- and its own disciplined use of the Lexicon over time will
help, I think, reinforce with the public a common understanding of these
terms. Again DHS needs to be viewed as an information resource, a
trusted source of information in these areas.

The third level of that that\'s not on the chart is, we recognize that
sometimes when legislation is drafted on the Hill, new definitions are
created. To the extent, once again, that a Lexicon is readily available
as an information resource, perhaps we can develop a process that will
short circuit some of the creative writing that might otherwise occur
throughout the government.

There was certainly an \-- a hard push to just pick a term and get on
with it, and \"first responder\" is the term of art that everyone comes
to first. That is both critically important to get common understanding,
but also one of those where the context is also of critical importance.
For example, I would argue in a cyber attack, your system administrator
may be the first responder.

One approach that we can take in attacking the problem of arriving at a
definition for "First Responder" that fits every conceivable type of
event, is to go back and look at foundational documents to see what
definitions already exist, what the context was, how they\'re being
used, and see if there is a way to focus the definition in an
operational sense. As we learned "First Responder" is a very difficult
term to reach consensus on, because most of the definitions of first
responders typically relate to sort of the Ground Zero-type events,
where something catastrophic has occurred. However, the 21^st^ Century
has brought us scenarios which may not have an immediately recognizable
Ground Zero, which are equally important, so somehow we have to straddle
that line.

The other thing that we realized \-- and this probably that shouldn\'t
have been, but it was a bit of a surprise to me \-- is that the
definitions may have fiscal consequences, and this again gets back to
how legislation is written. When there are grants for first responders,
to the extent that the pool of first responders is broadened, then the
fight for resources is also broadened. Accordingly, I think there has to
be a discussion of whether that was the intent of the legislation,
whether that is the objective, or what the consequences of coming to
definitions may be in that sense. And I will say, this is one of those
areas where, even among the working group members, it\'s not clear there
is agreement on whether having a very broad scope definition for first
responders is a good thing or not.

So in terms of moving forward, one of the first things that Jeff Gaynor
has begun to do for us is pull together copies of what we\'ll call the
"foundational documents.\" And I don\'t expect that this will be the
complete library, but it\'s a place to get started. Publications like
the National \[Homeland Security\] Strategy, Homeland Security
legislation, the National Response Plan, the newly issued National
Incident Management System, and the Statewide Template Initiative \--
those documents that the Department is now using to guide its
operations. We will do this recognizing at the same time that we need to
reach back to some of the documents that were inherited from the
component organizations that now comprise the Department of Homeland
Security. For example, the Office of Domestic Preparedness has a number
of documents that provide definitions for some of these terms. So we
need to also understand what has been the basis of their Lexicon prior
to coming into the Department.

The second element is to research exactly how this is done in a
professional sense. How do Lexicons get built professionally? And,
again, Jeff has been very kind in beginning to do some research as to
how \-- what kind of assistance we might recommend that the Department
get for the long haul.

The third issue is \-- and we think it\'s very important to solving the
problem \-- is to observe lessons from ongoing operations and crises. We
don\'t want to build a Lexicon for the sake of building a dictionary,
but rather make sure that it targets clear communications and
integrated, effective operations. So to the extent that we learn things
from ongoing activities, we will need to fold those into the process.

So by the March meeting, we believe that we will, first of all, do as
you originally suggested and start with a handful of terms. But in doing
so, we will look for where they\'re already defined, so that we don\'t
simply give you a term with a definition without any context beneath
that. And we may actually find that we give you a term, and there are
four definitions, some of which are contradictory. So one of the issues
will be, do we need to resolve that in some way. But beyond that, we
will begin to build a structure methodology to flesh this out beyond
that original set of terms, trying to build a framework that can be the
basis of the Lexicon for the long haul. And we will also make a
recommendation on what kind of expertise will be needed to build this
Lexicon for the Department.

In addition to that, one of the things that I think will be critically
important is to ask how will the Department enforce the discipline of
using the Lexicon, once developed? In other words, before documents are
released, what\'s the review process to ensure that we are not creating
new definitions or contradictions for terms? Once you\'ve agreed upon a
set of foundational definitions, I think there will have to be a
compliance mechanism and a language standard or discipline imposed to
ensure the Homeland Security Lexicon is valuable over time. If we don\'t
think about this and build it in up-front, I\'m afraid that you\'ll end
up with just another dictionary at the end of the effort.

So for that reason, the final point I would leave you with is we feel
it\'s very important to identify where in the Department the ownership
of this activity must reside. And it must be in a place that can both
orchestrate the development and ensure the sustainment of the lexicon
compliance mechanism over a long period of time.

**MR. GRANO:** Thank you very much, Ruth. That was excellent \-- a very
complex issue, as you have learned.

Those of us in the private sector I would imagine have embedded
protocols within our marketing divisions that dictate how communications
get approved, sent out, and act as keepers of the gate, relative to
abbreviations, and the like. So I will scrub our area, see what we can
have and send it on to you, and I encourage everyone to take a look at
any protocols that exist within your respective organizations, and get
it to the working group.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** You really have taken on such an enormous project.
If you think the scope of what you\'re dealing with trying to devise a
language that 300 million Americans, not just within the Department of
Homeland Security, not just Congress, not just the Government \-- but
everybody understands. It\'s an enormous undertaking.

I just really appreciate Dr. David's willingness to take this on. I
think it will have to be a dynamic process, and it\'s going to take us
several years to do it, but once you have made the recommendations and
the process, and we start base \-- working some terms I believe we\'ll
probably get the Hill to participate because language makes a
difference, not just fiscally, but other ways, so its a massive
undertaking, and I think we\'re off to a great start.

**DR. DAVID:** I would say, it\'s also not only the 300 million American
citizens, but also some of our international allies.

**MR. CILLUFFO:** Mr. Chairman, another thing we may want look at, Army
Center for Lessons Learned. Ultimately, they do \"hot washes\" of
battles, where they\'d actually have historians, on occasion, on the
battlefield. From there, you drove actual procedures and programs where
the definitions of words can mean life and death and the difference
between defeat and victory.

I think that as we go through hot washes along those lines, that\'s
going to be the best place to launder that information. And I look back
to the White House experience. I remember the word \"surveillance\" came
up to an epidemiologist, to an agricultural services inspector, to the
military, to law enforcement. It has very different meanings. We do not
want to learn a language through the exchange of business cards on game
day.

And when you have real experiences and you know their players, you know
their roles, you know their limitations, they start walking a mile in
each other\'s shoes, and they get a better understanding of the cultural
norms. Through the hot wash process, you\'re going to be able to drive
the Lexicon.

**SECRETARY RIDGE:** Well stated. We also need to leverage all the
tabletops they do at the state and local level. ODP ought to be assigned
that task, and not only to handing out the money and overseeing it's
execution, but that recommendation \[a hot wash\] ought to just be
embedded in every exercise we conduct.

**JUDGE WEBSTER:** I guess I ought to say something because my name is
Webster.

I have an enormous \-- and historically, have had an enormous
frustration with acronyms. When I traveled abroad, the word was out, try
not to use them. But, particularly, with all respect to the military,
who like to pronounce their acronyms, and there are, as Frank and others
and Ruth said, there \-- sometimes they mean different things. SAC to me
means Special Agent-in-Charge, and ASAC means Assistant Special Agent,
and there are a lot of differences. But as I read these technical words
and comments, I know that fundamentally the first time they use an
acronym, they put the first words out. What they don\'t tell you is
where to find that, and sometimes you may be back-paging 30 or 40 pages
looking for your clue. If we could develop some suggested, at least
suggested protocols for how to set up reports and other things and when
to use them and when not to use them, it might reduce the confusion that
John Q. Public certainly must have as they look at these things. Even in
our family here, I get lost. There will be 20 or 30 of these things
bouncing around in a report trying to figure out what did that mean, and
then if someone begins to start to pronounce the acronyms, then it
becomes incomprehensible to me.

Why are we doing this? Then I realize if you\'re doing it every day, and
you\'re working with a small group on a ship or somewhere else, then
everybody gets used to that, but we have a broader responsibility here
to explain to the public what we\'re talking about when we do it. And
maybe, I think, I thought I heard Frank say something that rang a good
bell to me, maybe there is a way to bring together the 1,000 most often
used acronyms, and let the other 100,000 of them stay where they belong,
or at least have some frame of reference that you could use. If you turn
out a thing the size of a Webster collegiate dictionary, no one will use
it. If you have a website, some people will use it. Some people, like
me, will have trouble using it.

Maybe there ought to be a protocol that a multi-acronym-laden document,
there will always be a glossary at the back part of it or at the front,
somewhere where you don\'t have to go wasting time, looking for the
meaning of acronyms, and wondering as you read what the hell are they
talking about.

**MR. GRANO:** But without question, the most important thing here is,
what is the discipline to preclude the next creation? I mean, that
discipline mechanism has to have equal weight in the project because
otherwise it will just go back to ground zero. And I think that that
discipline, who is the gatekeeper, what\'s the process that you have to
go through before you can embed an acronym into the next document

**MS. BADER:** Ruth, Herb and I would like to put forward Jack Skolds as
the representative from the private industry SAC, so that when you get
to the point where that relationship with private industry is critical,
you\'ve got a contact.

**MR. ANDREWS:** Mr. Chairman, just reporting in my capacity as Chairman
of the Emergency Response Senior Advisory Committee, this was a subject
of a lot of discussion at our meeting yesterday, and one that the
members felt very, very strongly about, for probably two reasons. One
has been mentioned, is it does have potential fiscal impacts on their
organizations and their functions. Secondly, it has, as Frank said, real
operational consequences, in some cases, life and death consequences.
And I think at our last meeting, Sheriff Corona from Orange County cited
the case from the L.A. riots of what the difference between what
\"cover\" to a United States Marine means, and what \"cover\" means to a
local law enforcement. This has very real implications.

So the members of the Emergency Response Committee felt this was a
fundamentally important project, but probably a never-ending project,
will be a permanent operation. Within the fire services, which has
probably done the most to advance a common set of understandings, their
process took some 30 years, and it\'s still an ongoing process.
Accordingly, I think, as we go forward with this, it does need to be
recognized that we need to either hire a lexicographer, a group of
lexicographers, or refer the project to some standards-making
organization. I\'m a little scared at the idea of the military doing
this for the very reason that Judge Webster mentioned. I mean, they are
the preeminent masters of creating acronyms. But, again, that this is a
very, very important activity to the first responder community. In fact,
Chief Freeman from Los Angeles County said that he was in a meeting
where they had so much argument about what a first responder was that
they decided to skip that, and they did agree upon what second
responders were, which I\'m still not quite sure exactly how that works.

**DR. COHON:** I was the one that pushed first and most strongly to hire
outside experts \-- lexicographers. But listening to this, I think we
need additional experts. You know, the way organizations speak, and the
way they adopt languages are for good reason. There is an efficiency to
it. We hate acronyms, in part, because we\'re not part of the
organization or we don\'t live them every day. But it\'s fascinating to
listen to you guys speak. So the Coast Guard has its own language. Now
I\'ve heard \"hot wash\" for the first time, and I saw people nodding
their heads. I have no idea what that meant, but it meant something to
people. I get my car hot washed, but the point is that there is reason
for this, and I don't think you want to disrupt the way organizations
adopt language. So what do you need? I think you need anthropologists
who study language development. You might need a psychiatrist, too. But,
I mean, I\'m serious about this. I think that our starting point should
not be somehow that our language creation process is broken. It\'s
really about how we communicate to people outside the organization. And
I think that\'s really quite complex and quite involved, as Ruth\'s
committee has done such a great job defining the challenges. So my point
is, I don\'t think we should hesitate to reach outside to people who
really study this.

**MR. GRANO:** And I think something that you alluded to, it\'s, who is
the audience? It\'s one thing if it\'s embedded within a vertical
culture. But when it goes out and transitions from that culture, who is
the audience and what\'s the best methodology to get the information
across?

**MR. ANDREWS:** If this is an operational term you know it\'s going to
be used in the context where disciplines come together -- at the point
of incident. Accordingly, it has very real importance. If it\'s
something that you just simply refer to as you\'re reading a document,
it may be inconvenient to have to look up the definition but, you know,
that\'s life.

**DR. COHON:** Well, what it underscores too, is Ruth\'s excellent point
about context. I think we have a better appreciation that context has
many dimensions to it and many levels. It\'s not just the language
context in which I say something \-- it\'s organizational context. It\'s
the audience. It\'s whether you\'re talking about something controlled
by legislation or not, and all that I think has to be laid out.

**DR. THOMAS:** Just one, one additional quick thought, and that was
that while I totally agree that this is clearly a very important
subject, everything that everyone has said is the thing that makes it so
difficult to grapple with. And I was wondering whether or not, Ruth,
your group may want to think about how you start the activity by biting
off a small portion of the problem.

You know, just as we\'ve had to prioritize so many other things, I think
that perhaps what the Department could think about, you know, what are
the handful of terms that are causing the balance of the confusion or
the majority of the confusion, and then try and get all of those in
context, not get every one of these communities to now switch to the new
perfect definition because I don\'t, I don\'t think it exists.

It\'s too ingrained, but to get them out there, and so that everybody
can understand everybody else, which is sort of what Frank was talking
about with regard to the hot wash. But I think if we just look at that
entire universe of terminology, it will be just too daunting to deal
with. But if we can find the four, five, six, ten words \-- and try and
get those in the context by looking at the operations in those kinds of
things, it will be a tremendous step in the right direction.

**MAYOR MCCRORY:** Mr. Secretary, if I could just say one thing to you.
I think one of the major roles that are going to be so important to you
and your Department is to make sure the politics of funding is not the
controlling force over definition. There is no doubt in my mind that is
the battle of the definition of first responders. I mean, I don\'t want
to beat around the bush, and I\'ve said that the leadership has to lay
down the law, so we don't determine funding by definition.

**MR. GRANO:** All right. Ladies and gentlemen, I\'m sorry. I\'m going
to have to close our session. We have a stringent schedule. I want to
thank all of you. I think the progress that was displayed today was
immense. Obviously, we have quite a few hurdles in front of us, and I
encourage collaboration with everyone around the table and anyone should
feel free to call anyone else around the table for assistance as needed.

I would thank the public for their attendance today. And as I suggested
at the opening, for any member of the public who would like to provide
commentary to the HSAC, our address is: Homeland Security Advisory
Council, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, D.C. 20528.

Other information and minutes of this meeting, which will be posted, can
be found on www.dhs.gov website, and all of our meetings are, in fact,
posted in the Federal Register for compliance purposes. So we will
adjourn.