国会纪录：2004年4月28日（参议院）Page S4449-S4450第9/11委员会Cornyn先生。主席先生，我想谈谈9/11委员会的工作。我知道它已经变得流行 - 也许这一直是这样的 - 对于那些坐在委员会的人，那些从事关于华盛顿特区当天当天伟大原因的政治辩论的人，试图为各种各样地责备责备发生这种情况。9/11委员会在调查当天的可怕事件的原因时，这也不少于这也是如此，并且在提出关于我们可以做些什么的建议时要确保那种排序悲剧再也没有发生在我们自己的土壤上。但我认为我们应该清楚谁应该责备9/11的可怕事件。这不是克林顿总统或其政府。这不是布什总统或他的政府。为9/11事件发生故障的个人和故障的组织是奥萨马·本·拉登和施安达。 Regardless of our differences, especially in this election year where we are going to select a President, I think we ought to make sure our enemies do not draw any comfort from the debates we have on the floor of the U.S. Senate or elsewhere that we somehow are redirecting the blame to others for political gain and to score political points. I think all Members of the U.S. Senate--indeed, all Members of the U.S. Congress--should be absolutely clear where the blame lies. As I said, that lies with al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden. Indeed, after that terrible day there was an upswelling of bipartisan support in this country to try to make sure we did whatever we needed to do in order to make sure that the events of that day would never occur again. Indeed, the Senate unanimously approved a resolution authorizing the use of all necessary and appropriate force against the persons and organizations responsible for September 11. Indeed, in an unprecedented fashion, also, we saw that our allies in NATO, under article V of that treaty, declared that an attack against the United States was, in effect, an attack against all NATO nations. Of course, this issue is as current as today's news because we know there are two cases that are going to be argued before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Hamdi and Padilla cases, which are going to look at the limits of Presidential power under a declaration of war, such as was authorized by the Congress, by the Senate unanimously. Of course, they are going to decide, and it seems obvious to me, but perhaps it is not as obvious to others, that the approval of all necessary and appropriate force must necessarily include the capture and detention of enemy combatants. But that is perhaps an issue for another time. Also, in the spirit of bipartisan support for using all necessary and appropriate means to defend our country, the Senate passed the USA PATRIOT Act 98 to 1. Of course, this important legislation provides law enforcement with sorely needed tools to combat terrorism. Unfortunately, we also recall that spirit of bipartisan unanimity did not last very long. Once the Democratic Party began to choose its Democratic nominee, we heard a lot of disparaging remarks made about the USA PATRIOT Act. Indeed, in a misguided and perhaps ill-informed way, there are 287 different municipalities around the country that have passed resolutions disparaging the USA PATRIOT Act. It is amazing, in Washington, how events can turn on a dime. After we heard testimony before the 9/11 Commission from Janet Reno, former FBI Director Louis Freeh, Attorney General John Ashcroft, FBI Director Robert Mueller, and others, a bipartisan chorus said it was the USA PATRIOT Act which tore down the wall which [[Page S4450]] previously precluded information sharing between law enforcement and intelligence-gathering officials. We haven't heard very much more about the previous calls to either repeal or change the PATRIOT Act because, indeed, it was the PATRIOT Act that tore down that wall and which has made America safer. Perhaps the best evidence of that is not just my statement or anyone else's. It is the fact we have, thank God, avoided another 9/11 in the days since that terrible day. The spirit of bipartisanship that resulted in a resolution authorizing the use of necessary force against our enemies who brought the war to us on 9/11 and the spirit of bipartisanship that saw a 98- to-1 vote in favor of the USA PATRIOT Act and tearing down that wall needs to continue to prevail on the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States that was created by Congress and appointed by both the Congress and the President. Of course, it is the job of that Commission to find facts, to create a historical record of the events that led up to that date, and then come up with recommendations. It is absolutely critical that the work of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks, the 9/11 Commission, not be undermined and that the public confidence be preserved in that Commission. That brings me to the testimony which I believe must be provided in an open forum by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick. As Attorney General Ashcroft revealed during his testimony, when he declassified a key 1995 memorandum, dated actually March 4, 1995, authored by Ms. Gorelick when she was Deputy Attorney General, it was the policy of the Justice Department, under Ms. Reno and under Ms. Gorelick, during the Clinton administration, that went further than the law required in establishing this wall which prohibited information sharing between law enforcement officials and counterintelligence officials. Indeed, in the days since Attorney General Ashcroft revealed the existence of this memo, we have seen Ms. Gorelick respond in a Washington Post op-ed piece explaining her role. My point is, Ms. Gorelick, serving in a high-level position in the Justice Department as Deputy Attorney General, in effect the chief operating officer in the Department of Justice under Attorney General Janet Reno, has special knowledge of the facts and circumstances leading up to that memo and the erection and buttressing of that wall barring the sharing of communications. I believe her testimony under ordinary circumstances would be sort of a no-brainer. The 9/11 Commission would say: This is a person with knowledge of relevant facts. Let's bring her before the Commission and ask her to tell us what she knows. That has been requested now, public testimony by Ms. Gorelick, in letters signed by a number of Senators, and now been refused by the cochairs, Chairman Kean and Chairman Hamilton. Simply put, this is a self-inflicted wound on the credibility of the 9/11 Commission. We have learned that she has provided testimony in camera or, in English, in secret. In other words, she has been interviewed by the 9/11 Commission and told apparently what she knows out of the public eye. Obviously, she has written an op-ed piece explaining, without the benefit of further questions or followup, what it is she intended to do and the circumstances leading up to that 1995 memo. If public testimony by persons with knowledge of relevant facts ranging from Janet Reno to Louis Freeh to John Ashcroft to Bob Mueller and others, if that testimony was important--and indeed, I believe it was--then public testimony by Ms. Gorelick is important to preserving the public credibility of the work product of the 9/11 Commission. Secret testimony will not cut it. In fact, we need to know what it was that led up to this policy and the reasons for it in order to understand why it is important never to go there again. As I said, this policy is stated in that very same memo, which went well beyond legal requirements. In other words, the PATRIOT Act, once it was passed virtually unanimously in this body, dismantled that wall in a way that made America safer. May I ask how much time I have remaining? The PRESIDING OFFICER. Ten seconds. Mr. CORNYN. I ask unanimous consent for 2 additional minutes and also to extend the Democratic time by the same amount. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. CORNYN. First, Ms. Gorelick claims in this Washington Post op-ed piece that she had no choice when she penned the 1995 memo. It would be worth knowing why it is she thought she had no choice. Second, she claims this memo did nothing more than continue preexisting Justice Department policy first established in the 1980s. By the very terms of the memo, she states it is prudent to establish a set of instructions that will clearly separate counterintelligence investigations from criminal investigations. It is appropriate to ask her if she thought she was establishing a policy or continuing a policy, as she stated in another place. Finally, Ms. Gorelick appears to be shifting the blame for the policy--and we are not talking about blame for the policy--to then- Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson. At a minimum, it is not appropriate for one Justice Department official to attack her successor for failing to adequately correct their own mistakes, as we now know that wall was a mistake. So, Mr. President, in conclusion, let me say because I know time is running out, I believe it is absolutely imperative that Ms. Gorelick offer to come forward and give public testimony about what she knows about the erection of the ``wall'' barring the critical sharing of information that has subsequently now made America much safer. I believe the credibility of the Commission's report depends on that public testimony, and I urge the chairman of the 9/11 Commission to reconsider, and indeed Ms. Gorelick to consider her refusal to testify in public and avoid what has, by all appearances, the status of a self- inflicted wound on the credibility of the Commission. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Nevada is recognized. Mr. REID. Mr. President, I think that in addition to having Ms. Gorelick reassess her position, it would be good for the President and administration to reassess their positions and testify publicly, or at least separately, instead of this appearance that they have in secret. ____________________