国会纪录：2004年4月28日（参议院）Page S4482-S4483主席。来自德克萨斯州的参议员在上一个订单下得到认可。康宁先生。谢谢主席女士。9/11委员会主席女士，早些时候,我鉴于该组织承担了一项重要使命，即首先确定导致9/11事件的事实记录，然后向国会和各个政府机构提出建议，关于我们如何继续保护我们的国土免受任何进一步的恐怖袭击。我提到了其中一位专员，杰米·戈雷利克专员，需要提供她对相关事实的了解。当然，她是克林顿政府的副司法部长珍妮特·雷诺。我还提出了另一个我认为值得在这里重复的观点;也就是说，这不是指责。对9/11事件负有责任的唯一个人和实体是基地组织和奥萨马本拉登。这不是指责克林顿政府或布什政府。这是要弄清事实。这是关于在所有信息的基础上得到好的建议，从而使美国人民更安全。 On Monday, Senator Lindsey Graham and I asked the Justice Department to produce any他们可能拥有的文件与Jamie Gorelick的参与有关建立政策，阻止智力和执法官员之间分享关键恐怖主义相关信息。事实上，现在已经公开了，实际上，在司法部的网站www.usdoj.gov张贴的事实上，让我回到参议院的地板，简要提及为什么我认为格里洛里克女士的证词甚至更多重要的是解释她作为janet reno的司法部成员所做的事情，以竖立和支撑这堵墙，这是一个如此多的谈话的主题，为什么她这样做是如此重要，因为9/11委员会的可信度危在旦夕。今天发布的文件在司法部的网站上显着诋毁Gorelick女士最近的声称，第1号，她并没有大大参与新的信息分享政策，而第2号，该部门在克林顿下的政策。-Reno管理增强而不是限制信息共享。主席女士，这些文件 - 他们并不是特别冗长，但他们确实提出了关于委员会决定的重大问题，而不是在公共场合中作证Gorelick女士作证。实际上，我们知道她已经给予的唯一证词已经在秘密或相机中，使用技术术语。这些文件使我们更重要的是，我们为这些明显的不一致和矛盾获得了解释。事实上，律师将军Ashcroft在他的见证过程中解密并发布了关于他对勃起和这种墙壁的支撑的最强大的证词，这是从Al-as-as-as-as-as-as-asama的威胁蒙蔽了美国执法和情报机构的最强大的见证本·拉登 - 这些新文件揭示了，实际上，格罗利克女士在建立该政策方面发挥了关键作用，最终签署了珍妮特·雷诺的律师委员会批准并批准; indeed, that she received and rejected in part and accepted in part recommendations made by the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York with regard to this wall. Specifically, Madam President, as you will recall, the first attack on American soil that al-Qaida administered was, in all likelihood, the World Trade Center bombing in 1993. Indeed, the document that Attorney General Ashcroft released pointed out that Mary Jo White, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, was concerned about an ongoing criminal investigation ``of certain terrorist acts, including the bombing of the World Trade Center,'' and that ``[d]uring the course of those investigations significant counterintelligence information [had] been developed related to the activities and plans of agents of foreign powers operating in [the United States] and overseas, including previously unknown connections between separate terrorist groups.'' Well, in response to some draft proposals for establishing criteria for both law enforcement and intelligence, counterterrorism officials, Ms. Gorelick noted that the procedures that were adopted at her recommendation by the Justice Department under Attorney General Janet Reno went beyond what is legally required. Indeed, I spoke earlier about the fact that the USA PATRIOT Act brought down that law that had been established both by this policy and, indeed, by policies that had preceded it. But it is important, in these new documents that have just been revealed today, in response to my request and Senator Graham's request, that there is, indeed, a memorandum by Mary Jo White dated June 13, 1995, in which she was given an opportunity to respond to the proposed procedures that have maintained and buttressed this wall that blinded America to this terrible threat. Mary Jo White, in part, said--and the documents are on the website so anyone who wishes can see the whole document, but she said, in part: It is hard to be totally comfortable with instructions to the FBI prohibiting contact with United States Attorney's Offices when such prohibitions are not legally required. . . . She goes on to say: Our experience has been that the FBI labels of an investigation as intelligence or law enforcement can be quite arbitrary depending upon the personnel involved and that the most effective way to combat terrorism is with as few labels and walls as possible so that wherever permissible, the right and left hands are communicating. Indeed, it was this lack of communication, which I think is universally acknowledged, that contributed to the blinding of America to the threat of terrorism leading up to the events of 9/11. So Ms. White made what she called a very modest compromise and some recommendations for change to this proposed policy. In the interest of fairness and completeness, let me just say the documents reveal there were two memoranda by U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White, and they contain recommendations for revisions of the policy, and that Ms. Gorelick, through and in cooperation with Michael Vatis, Deputy Director of the Executive Office for National Security, accepted some of those proposed changes and rejected others. But then in these documents, again, which were finally disclosed today in response to Senator Graham's and my request, there is a handwritten note from Ms. Gorelick that says: To the AG--I have reviewed and concur with the Vatis/ Garland recommendations for the reasons set forth in the Vatis memo. Jamie. So it is clear Ms. Gorelick was intimately involved with consideration of the arguments, both pro and con, on establishing this policy which, according to her own memo, went well beyond what the law required. Thus, it becomes even more clear she is a person with knowledge of facts that are relevant and indeed essential to the decisionmaking process of the 9/11 Commission. I wish it stopped there, but it does not. Indeed, it appears these new documents contradict or at least require clarification by Ms. Gorelick of subsequent statements that she has made on the 9/11 Commission. For example, in a broadcast on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports, Wolf Blitzer asked her: Did you write this memorandum in 1995 . . . By reference, this was the one that was declassified by Attorney General Ashcroft that established these procedures building the wall and blinding America to this terrible threat. He asked: [[Page S4483]] Did you write this memorandum in 1995 that helped establish the so-called walls between the FBI and CIA? Ms. Gorelick said: No. And again, I would refer you back to what others on the commission have said. The wall was a creature of statute. It existed since the mid-1980s. And while it is too lengthy to go into, basically the policy that was put out in the mid 1990s, which I didn't sign, wasn't my policy in any way. It was the Attorney General's policy, was ratified by Attorney General Ashcroft's deputy as well on August of 2001. In other words, Ms. Gorelick, notwithstanding the fact that her initials as Deputy Attorney General appear on the very memos considering recommendations, both pro and con, with regard to establishing these procedures, in spite of the fact she appears by these documents to have been intimately involved in the adoption and establishment of these procedures, said: I didn't sign this memorandum and it wasn't my policy. Well, at the very least it is clear that it was the policy of the Attorney General, based on her explicit recommendation, and that she consciously adopted in some cases and rejected in others the recommendation of the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York with regard to sharing of information between law enforcement and counterintelligence authorities. Finally, another example of an apparent contradiction, and maybe one that Ms. Gorelick could explain if she would testify in public, as I and others have requested, before the Commission, she said in an op-ed that appeared in the Washington Post, April 18, 2004, entitled ``The Truth About the Wall,'' in giving the various reasons for her side of the story in response to the testimony of Attorney General Ashcroft and the revelation of this previously classified document: Nothing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. That appears to directly contradict what is contained in these documents. I would imagine if asked to provide her own testimony, Mary Jo White, the now retired former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, would beg to differ. The primary purpose of this is not to cast blame. We know where the blame lies. But it is important the 9/11 Commission get an accurate record, a historical record of the events leading up to September 11. If, in fact, there is a way for Ms. Gorelick to shed some light on this subject, indeed, if there is a way for her to clarify or reconcile the apparent contradictions between what these newly released records demonstrate and her public statements and writings, then she ought to be given a chance to do so. If she does not avail herself of that opportunity, if the Commission refuses to hear from this person in public and to give the American people the benefit of this testimony in public in a way that they have done with Attorney General Janet Reno and former FBI Director Louis Freeh, current FBI Director Robert Mueller, George Tenet, Director of Central Intelligence, and Attorney General John Ashcroft, if they refuse, if they continue to refuse to avail themselves of this public testimony and the opportunity for questions to be asked about these apparent contradictions, they will have administered a self-inflicted wound. The public will be left, at the conclusion of the 9/11 Commission, with grave doubts about the impartiality and the judgment of the Commissioners who have refused to allow the American people the benefit of this relevant and important testimony. I yield the floor. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon. [...]