NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

TERRORIST ATTACKS ON THE UNITED STATES

Minutes of the December 8,2003 Meeting

The Chair called the Commission to order at 4:45 PM on December 8, 2003. The Chair,
Vice Chair, Commissioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorelick, Gorton, Lehman, Roemer,
and Thompson were in attendance.

Minutes. The Chair asked for approval of the minutes of the November 6-7th and
November 19l meetings. Commissioner Ben-Veniste suggested several changes to the
November 19th minutes, stating, as he had done at previous meetings, his strong view that
the Chair should schedule more time for Commission meetings, as some agenda items are
covered in haste and others are deferred because of insufficient time for consideration.
Upon agreement with Commissioner Ben-Veniste's changes, the Minutes were approved.

Interview Guidelines and Possible Extension. The Chair opened discussion on the
interview guidelines topic and a wider discussion ensued. Commissioner Ben-Veniste
noted his surprise at the Chair and Vice Chair's statement to the press that the
Commission believes it can meet its deadline, when that very question was a topic for
discussion at the meeting. He also noted his strong surprise at the Guidelines on
Interviews. He had not seen them before and stated his strong opposition to them.

Commissioner Roemer added that he wanted to be on the record against the Guidelines,
and believed that the Commission needed to respond strongly and immediately to the
letter from White House Assistant Counsel Monheim. He also stated his strong support
for an extension. He noted that the original time envisioned for the Commission was 24
months, and that the Commission needs to set its standard as one of doing not a good job
but an excellent one. In his view this requires 24 months. He noted that staff says they
can get the job done, but they vary in their estimates of the quality of the job they can do.
He believes the Commission should be on record seeking an extension.

Commissioner Gorelick noted examples of how time constraints are impinging on the
Commission's work. First, because of time constraints, the Commission proposes to
interview former Attorney General Reno and former FBI Director Freeh before
interviewing former FBI Deputy Director 'Bear' Bryant and Steve Colgate. In her view,
this is backwards, and the Commission will not be able to ask Reno and Freeh all the
questions that need to be asked. Second, she noted that review of the PDBs will likely
require several rounds of negotiations with the White House. This will take a lot of time.
Commissioner Gorelick also observed that if any outside observer stepped back and
looked at the Guidelines and the Monheim letter, they would be shocked. She stated that
she did not intend to be critical of staff: they are doing the very best they can, and it is
impressive.

The Vice Chair observed that he had met with seven of the nine teams, and that he began
each discussion with the question: Can you get the job done in time? Every answer he

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

has received was in the affirmative. Commissioner Gorelick said that she saw no
inconsistency: the gap is between what the staff believes it needs to do and
Commissioners' own judgment about what they need to do. Commissioner Ben-Veniste
said that the staff defer to the Executive Director; the Executive Director noted that he
was not present at any of the meetings the Vice Chair mentioned.

Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked for greater detail on the hearing proposal: Who is to
testify, what is the list of witnesses, who can tell the story? He also stated his concern as
to whether investigative work will be done or reviewed properly, because Commissioners
did not have enough time to do their job. The Vice Chair agreed that the Commission
needs to have more dates set aside for meetings in April and May.

The Chair observed that time is always a hard judgment. You can always use more of it.
Would the report be better with two additional months? Yes. Four additional months?
Yes. But some deadline must always be chosen.

Commissioner Gorton asked several questions that need to be considered with respect to
an extension. What is the view of the staff? Will the staff be around an additional six
months? At what point will the Commission's recommendations have the most impact?
Commissioner Gorton noted that, for himself, this argued for a December 31, 2004
deadline, making recommendations to a new administration. The staff may be ready in
May, but when will the Commissioners be ready to issue a report? In his view, the
Family Steering Committee and the public generally believe the Commission needs more
time. Commissioner Gorton also commented, as several Commissioners did, that the
Commission can only recommend: Congress and the President will decide. Balancing
these several factors, Commissioner Gorton gave greater weight to requesting a
December 31st extension.

Commissioner Gorton mentioned that he found the Monheim letter insulting. It was his
view that the Commission should invite White House witnesses to testify. Either they
come, or they do not. What we ask those witnesses, and how much time we require, is
our business, not their business. He concluded that the Commission should accept none
of the conditions the White House is seeking to impose.

The Chair offered his impressions on the timing question, noting that there is dead time
after the primaries and before the Conventions, and the Commission has the opportunity
to influence the platforms of both political parties. Commissioner Lehman agreed. He
worked with Senators Jackson and Tower on a "Defense Recovery Act" in the summer of
1980, and the ideas were adopted 100% by the Republicans and 90% by the Democrats at
their party conventions.

Commissioner Ben-Veniste observed that the Commission under the current schedule
does not have time for follow-ups, and that the Commission will not have the time to get
things right unless it gets things right the first time. He observed that the Commission
will be carrying out three full-time tasks at once—conducting interviews, conducting
hearings, and writing a report.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE 2
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Commissioner Fielding noted that if we seek an extension, it should be because we

believe we need an extension to be credible. The downside, he noted, is that the report
will be forever blemished if the Commission publicly argues for an extension and does
not receive one.

The Executive Director commented that he can argue deadlines round or flat. The
politics, in his judgment, is a wash—and that is a judgment for Commissioners anyway.
He noted that deadlines are always arbitrary and restraining—that there is never enough
time. Staff have said it is very hard to meet the deadline, but they will do it. But many
staff cannot stay past the summer. Moreover, when would we know that we get extra
time? It may not be until April, when it is already too late. He observed that the staff
feels the same way as Commissioners do: they are committed to excellence. In response
to Commissioner Ben-Veniste's comment that the staff has only one chance to "get it
right," the Executive Director observed that staff have rescheduled interviews and called
back officials for second and third interviews as needed. He noted that the staff is open
to ideas from Commissioners about sequencing of interviews and how work can be done
better; staff will do their very best to meet Commissioner expectations.

The General Counsel observed that the schedule is tight and difficult. Under other
circumstances he would have argued for an extension, but he noted the Commission's
dilemma: If it cannot be known until March or April whether the Commission will get an
extension, it is not much help to the staff. The Commission has no choice but to act for
most of its scheduled life as if there is no extension.

Commissioner Ben-Veniste observed that, setting all politics aside, the Commission
needs more time for factual work and sufficient time for the Commissioners to read,
digest, and discuss matters collegially. Even if the work gets done, there will still need to
be time for Commissioners' mid-course and end-course corrections.

The Chair observed that he and the Vice Chair have stated publicly that the Commission
can meet its deadline because of their desire to keep staff focused on the goal and to show
the world that the Commission is working hard. That said, the Chair asked whether it
would be possible to have a quiet conversation on the possibility of an extension.
Commissioner Gorton observed that such conversations would be in the Post the next
day; Commissioner Roemer observed that publicity alone would not defeat the need or
interest of the Commission in making such an inquiry.

The Executive Director outlined a plan for engaging Commissioners' advice and input in
the final report. The plan is to get draft monographs to Commissioners early enough so
that they can provide comment and direction; drafts would be presented to
Commissioners in beginning in January and ending in April. A second round of
discussions on key policy issues would follow in April; a draft report would be circulated
to Commissioners in May. In other words, all Commissioners would have three bites at
the apple with respect to each team's draft conclusions and recommendations.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Commissioner Thompson stated his belief that the odds of getting an extension are slim.
There will be no overt rejection of the Commission's request; the proposal will just die
on the vine. Unless the Commission is prepared to extend to the end of 2004, and is
willing to fight to get such an extension, the effort is not worth making, in his judgment.

The Vice Chair stated that all Commissioners grapple with the question: What is the best
way we can fulfill our mandate? Each Commissioner has to be able to answer, for
himself or herself, "we have met our mandate, or done all that we can to meet it." He
observed that, as best he is aware, there is no possibility of a free-standing bill for an
extension of the Commission. He said that he and the Chair had discussed this question,
and that they would be guided by the will of the Commission. If directed, he and the
Chair would be willing to speak to the Senate and House leadership and seek more time.

Commissioner Roemer advocated a six-month extension. Politics will make it very

difficult to accomplish anything in 2004, he noted; therefore a December 2004 launch
from his viewpoint was far preferable. Commissioner Ben-Veniste thought it useful to
ask for what the Commission truly needs—another two months—and then let the politics
sort out the actual date. The Chair stated that he and the Vice Chair would make such
queries as the Commission directs, and that he is also concerned about the ability of staff
to make the deadline. Commissioner Gorelick, responding to Commissioner Thompson's
earlier comment, thought the best approach to take in such conversations is: "we can do
it, focus and get it done—but we would do a better job if we had more time."

Commissioner Gorton stated that the conversation had been constructive, and that he
continues to believe December 31, 2004 is a better deadline. He approved of quiet
inquiries by the Chair and Vice Chair to seek an extension. He also stated that he thought
the Commission could take up to two additional months in the absence of legislative
action; the Commission, after all, is scheduled to exist for two more months after the
formal reporting deadline of May 27th. He recommended that the Commission (1) hold
informal talks with Congress and the White House about an additional 2 months to
complete its work; (2) keep in mind that the Commission can take 2 more months
anyway; and (3) write back to the White House and insist on more flexibility in the
conduct of its interviews, that the Commission cannot accept limits on time, number of
staff, or limits on questioning at interviews through a pre-screening process. A consensus
agreed on points one and two.

Interview Guidelines Rejected. Commissioners Gorelick and Roemer agreed with

Commissioner Gorton in his proposed response to the Monheim letter, and strongly
rejected guidelines with respect to pre-meetings. Commissioner Gorelick stated that it
was prudent to meet before an interview, but she rejected an agreement in writing, as it
would look as if the Commission had accepted an attempt by the White House to tailor its
questions. She stated that such an agreement did not comport with the independence of
the Commission. Commissioners Ben-Veniste and Roemer stated similar objections.

The General Counsel took issue with Commissioner Roemer's remarks. He noted that
the Joint Inquiry did not get a single White House interview, and its approach should not

COMMISSION SENSITIVE 4
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
 COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

be the model for the Commission. The Chair interceded, noting differences in perception
as well as reality. He stated that both the General Counsel and Commissioners are right.
He stated that he understood and endorsed what the General Counsel was doing to elicit
information, but he also understood that Commissioners found this particular piece of
paper on interview guidelines highly objectionable.

Commissioner Gorton agreed with Commissioner Gorelick's earlier observation: do what

you have to do to make the interview process work—but this particular piece of paper on
interview guidelines is shocking and must be rejected formally.

The Executive Director said that the views of Commissioners were coming through loud
and clear. The staff had never agreed with the Monheim letter on White House
interviews that commissioners found so objectionable. The Interview Guidelines for
other agencies had been agreed to only 'ad referendum,' and he believed staff had now
been instructed by the Commission to repudiate that agreement. The staff would
therefore prepare appropriate letters both to the White House, on the one hand, and to
Dan Levin as the representative of the executive departments.

Oaths. Discussion turned to topic of sworn testimony. Reflecting upon previous

Commission discussion, the General Counsel recommended that all public witnesses be
sworn in before they testify, and that if White House witnesses choose not to be sworn in,
the Commission should allow them to testify and direct all questions about unwillingness
to testify under oath to the witnesses and to the White House. Commissioner Ben-
Veniste observed that if witnesses refused to be sworn in, so be it—and they will have to
explain. Commissioner Gorelick agreed that White House witnesses would stick out in
an unfavorable manner if they refused to be under oath, but the decision was theirs to
make. A consensus agreed on this approach.

The General Counsel explained further that only a few of the 760 interviews conducted
by staff have been under oath. Staff policy has been to conduct interviews under oath in
cases where essential facts are in dispute or where there are doubts about the veracity of a
witness. Commissioners expressed no objections to this policy.

Adjournment. The Commission adjourned at 6:55 PM.

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY