MEMORANDUM

To: Team 7
From: Lisa Sullivan
Date: 7/2/03
Re: Conference call with Alan Schwartz, former Counsel on the PAN AM Commission

Team 7's conference call with Alan Schwartz, former Counsel on the PAN AM
Commission, covered topics related to Commission work and report production in
general, as well as more specific areas of overlap between the team's investigation and
the work of the PAN AM Commission.

I. Report Production and Commission Structure:

Commissioners need to be integrated in the staffs investigation throughout the process.

The PAN AM Commission held a two-day series of presentations for the Commissioners
to fully brief them of their research, leaving ample time for changes to be made following
the Commissioners' suggestions and critiques.

In writing the report, it is imperative to avoid a fractured, disjointed final product

arising from stylistic, substantive, and documentation differences that are likely to arise
from a staff divided by research topic. As the deadline neared, the PAN AM
Commission had to hire an outside editor to synthesize the separate components into a
seamless report. To avoid hiring an outside editor, devising "ground rules" on, among
other things, style, level of detail, and frequency and format of citations would benefit the
staff and focus its work. The suggestion of "bullet points" as a format from which to
build a narrative would require, in Schwartz's opinion, "a very talented writer to create a
nuanced final report."

Schwartz recalled no interest in primary, secondary sources and documentation

following the release of the Commission's report. However, Shwartz concurred that
background files and sources are of value, are essential to Commission credibility, and
every effort should be made to maintain an accurate and accessible file of research
sources. Schwartz felt that it was the PAN AM Commission's "responsibility to restore
the victims' faith in the federal government;" while strictly adhering to the Commission's
charter and not creating a "roadmap to the bad guys."

In crafting recommendations for the report, Schwartz advised that this Commission
keep in mind that the current climate (post 9-11) is far more litigious; and public
expectation of retribution and compensation in the event of a terrorist attack is higher
than it was during his experience at the PAN AM Commission.

Successful implementation of Commission recommendations requires someone to take

ownership of the report with expertise in legislative language and great familiarity with
the report and the intent of the drafters. This "translation service" turns empty
recommendations into worthwhile legislation and U.S. policy. The Commission should
consider building into the report mechanisms to ensure that such recommendations are
addressed by Congress and the Administration.

II. Team 7 and PAN AM Commission Areas of Overlap:

The PAN AM Commission's findings did not exhibit confidence in FAA leadership. To
demonstrate the point, Schwartz discussed a prototype - a nitrogen machine - developed
by Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) to detect bomb materials at
airports. SAIC was awarded the contract through a procurement competition it had
"lobbied hard for" and tailored the machines to specifications provided by the FAA.
During deployment by DOT, the "pilot program" encountered many false alarms, and it
was concluded that the machines were not sufficient detection devices due to incorrect
specifications provided by the FAA during the research and development phase. Pressure
from Congress, the administration, SAIC's lobby, and particularly the families had
prevented the DOT from finding a suitable alternative to the SAIC prototype long before
the deployment phase. Not only was public safety compromised in the short term, but
scientific/technical development in bomb detection devices froze for a number of years.

Today, funding for research and development in airport security lacks "scientific rigor."
Schwartz saw the value of drafting a significant roadmap of tech/research/development
goals in order to avoid starting from scratch every five years. Since 9-11, military and
commercial interests have converged in terms of force protection and infrastructure
protection (DHS), thereby changing the landscape for future research and development
projects. He said he would give the idea of such a roadmap some thought and get back to
team 7 on ideas, such as who to interview from R and D firms.

Schwartz also touched on the PAN AM Commission's threat assessment, which was
international in scope and focused on explosives. Security measures the USG wished to
enforce at airports abroad were first implemented domestically in order to achieve a
parallel response from other countries. Commission staff did not perceive the threat of
terrorism to be the same or higher domestically. He acknowledged that the
Commission's assessment was not comprehensive, and in so doing he pointed out the
difficulty of legislatively imposing unprecedented infrastructure change upon a
cumbersome bureaucratic system.

Schwartz welcomed the invitation to talk further with Chris and Philip, and he suggested
another person the Commission might benefit from talking to is Nina Bonyensen.
~ V /

(l^sJjrSvWj^