FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMMISSION SENSITIVE

NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
TERRORIST ATTACKS UPON THE UNITED STATES

Minutes of the July 8, 2003 Meeting

The Chair called the Commission to order at 10:05 AM on July 8, 2003. Chairman Kean,
Vice Chair Hamilton, and Commissioners Ben-Veniste, Fielding, Gorelick, Gorton,
Lehman, Roemer, and Thompson were present.

Minutes. The minutes of the June 26, 2003 meeting were agreed to, after the incorporation
of 3 minor changes.

Meeting with Judge Gonzales. The Chair asked the Vice Chair to report to
Commissioners on the meeting they had just concluded with Judge Gonzales. The Vice
Chair stated his notes represented his best understanding of the Judge's comments, and he
observed that the issues raised by Gonzales were ongoing. Outcomes were not final,
subject to change through staff discussions and future talks with Gonzales.

Note-taking. The Vice Chair stated that Judge Gonzales believes he is offering
unprecedented access to White House documents, and therefore believes note-taking
controls are appropriate. The Judge spoke of two options: (1) the White House could
review all notes before releasing them to the secure control of the Commission; or (2) the
White House could keep all notes on its premises. The Judge stated that his preference is
the second option, as he is not comfortable reviewing the notes of Commissioners.

Commissioners Gorelick, Roemer, and Fielding all asked how the Commission can write
its report without access to notes. Commissioner Ben-Veniste stated that the notion of the
White House reviewing notes, or keeping those notes on its premises, was offensive to the
idea of an independent Commission. He stated the more material the Commission gets, the
more it needs to work with the material, and have access to its notes. He agreed with the
Executive Director that notes should be classified at the highest possible level, and then be
transmitted consistent with security guidelines to Commission control. Commissioners
Gorton and Roemer agreed with Commissioner Ben-Veniste on the importance of
controlling notes, although Commissioner Roemer advised against the use of the highest
possible classifications, because such a practice would hinder internal conversations and
use of the material.

Commissioner Gorelick asked whether the Judge's statement on note-taking was a back-
door assertion of Executive privilege. The Vice Chair replied that the Judge had not stated
any assertion of Executive privilege. Both Commissioners Ben-Veniste and Commissioner
Roemer stated their support for a letter to the White House on note-taking, signed by 10
Commissioners. The Vice Chair said that he and the Chair certainly would report back to
Gonzales on the strong views of the Commission, and visit with him again.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

Commissioner Lehman observed that the Gonzales position on access is significant, goes
far beyond what every White House is willing to offer, and for now the Commission should
take up the offer of access and avoid other issues that could lead to delay.

Document Access. The Vice Chair spoke further from meeting notes with Judge Gonzales
and recounted that the White House would allow all Commissioners and a handful of staff
to have access to documents. The Commission would be permitted to look at non-
responsive material. If there is objection to a redaction, the White House would be willing
to hear out that objection for possible reconsideration. Commissioner Ben-Veniste asked
if any Commissioner would be able to review redactions; the Chair and Vice Chair replied
that they understood that to be the case.

With respect to covert action documents, the Vice Chair recounted that Judge Gonzales had
proposed a process, whereby the Chair, Vice Chair, Executive Director and General
Counsel would review such documents and let the White House know what documents the
Commissioners needed to see. The Vice Chair stated his discomfort with arrangements
limiting the access of Commissioners. Commissioner Gorelick proposed, and
Commissioner Ben-Veniste concurred, in the importance of a subcommittee to review,
together with staff, CA material. He stated that he would be willing to serve on such a
subcommittee. Commissioner Fielding thought the CA issue needed clarification; that if
the limits sought were with respect to ongoing actions, then the issue went away, as the
Commission in his view would not press for access to ongoing actions.

On the question of Clinton Administration documents, Judge Gonzales thought that access
may be available as soon as August, earlier than the September time horizon originally
anticipated. In response to a suggestion by Commissioner Gorelick, the Chair and the
Executive Director noted that direct contact had already been made with the Clinton library.
On the question of agency representatives, Judge Gonzales thought he was "generally OK"
with the Commission position. The Vice Chair indicated to him that there may be
circumstances where the Commission believes strongly that no minder should be present;
in those circumstances, Gonzales said "let's talk."

On draft memoranda, Judge Gonzales expressed concern about Commission access.

Commissioner Gorelick noted that draft memoranda are routinely produced in response to
document requests. Commissioner Roemer noted that if Judge Gonzales blocks access to
draft memoranda, the Commission loses insight into the decision-making process. He
observed that if you add up all the individual limiting restrictions, he did not see the
"unprecedented access" as claimed by Judge Gonzales.

May 2004. Commissioner Gorton raised the issue of a possible extension if the
Commission does not obtain the cooperation it requires to complete the job on time.
Commissioner Ben-Veniste concurred, that the Commission's due date of May 2004 is one
of its very few points of leverage. If the Commission has not been able to do the job, it
should say so, and not produce an inferior product. Commissioner Fielding expressed

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

concern about an extended deadline; the Chair observed that, for now, the Commission
needs to hold to its schedule and he will state so publicly.

Reviewing the Commission Draft. Gonzales also asked for the opportunity to review the
Commission draft report on national security and "core deliberation" issues, including the
advice given to the President by National Security Advisers. The Chair and Vice Chair
stated that any such changes to the Commission report would have to be done by mutual
consent. Commissioner Gorelick said that the Commission ought not to be put in the
position where it is seen that the White House has a veto or check over the Commission's
work. The Vice Chair and Commissioner Gorton agreed with her about the importance of
how such an arrangement is explained or presented.

Interim Report. The Chair noted that the interim report had now been through 11 drafts,
and that the most recent draft incorporated comments from Commissioners. The Vice
Chair noted that the draft walks a fine line, trying to strike the right tone. Commissioners
Gorton stated that the "temperature needed to be raised" with respect to the May deadline,
and Commissioner Gorelick agreed, that the Commission needed to lay the predicate for a
future request for extension. The Chair and Vice Chair pointed to two sentences
incorporated from Commissioner Ben-Veniste's comments, which in their view set exactly
the right tone, stopping short of a call for an extension. Commissioner Ben-Veniste stated
his support for Commissioner Gorton, that the Commission cannot be accordioned against
a deadline. He added that the draft interim report is a crossroads statement: the only way
the Commission can met its deadline is through full cooperation from the White House.
Commissioner Roemer spoke in support of the leverage issue, that the report could provide
leverage with the Administration. He expressed doubt, however, as to whether an
extension for the Commission would be possible; the House would simply not take up
consideration of such a bill.

Commissioner Lehman stated that the Commission needed to demonstrate that it has made
some progress, that the report needs to represent more than whining about delays by the
Administration. The Vice Chair concurred that the Commission does not want to convey
the message that it is in dire circumstances. Commissioner Gorton stated that at some
point, certainly no later than September, the Commission is going to have to lay down the
marker that it may ask for more time. The Chair said that he did not want the story to be
"Commission complaining, needs more time."

Hearings. Commissioner Ben-Veniste stated that he would like to see circulated a new
schedule on hearings. He expressed his concern that there had been no discussion in the
Commission about the hearing scheduled for the following day, and that he is troubled with
how the Commission has prepared for these hearings. He stated that the Commission is in
no position to make a judgment about the theories, hypotheses, and speculation of one of
the key witness on the question of Iraq and al Qaeda. He stated his concern that the
Commission has marched into a political minefield. Commissioner Gorelick asked whether
the hearing would be able to advance our understanding of key issues based on the
testimony of the referenced witness. Commission Lehman stated his view that this

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 3

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

witness, right or wrong, represented an important voice in the debate and needed to be
heard. The Chair observed that he thought the Commission has some very good witnesses
lined up. The Executive Director observed that the hearing would seek to frame a clear
message about what the Commission has learned from the witnesses.

Commissioners Lehman and Gorelick stated that the Commissioner would need to spend at
least a half-day on Saudi Arabia. Commissioner Gorelick stated that she wanted to have a
hearing with NORTHCOM General Eberhard on the topic of "who is defending us?"
Commissioner Ben-Veniste reiterated comments that he noted he had made previously, that
the Commission needs to work backwards from May: what does it want to accomplish? hi
his view, the Commission is going to need 3 days of hearings on the tick-tock of 9-11, and
at least a day or two on domestic intelligence and FBI issues, and a schedule of upcoming
meetings. He asked whether Commissioners can have an expectation that there will be a
hearing schedule. The Chair answered in the affirmative.

Commissioner Contacts. The Chair raised the issue of individual Commissioners

contacting agencies. The Vice Chair noted that Judge Gonzales said it would be very
helpful if contacts are made in the name of the Commission, rather than by Commissioners
as individuals. Commissioner Gorelick thought that the point was well taken with respect
to fact witnesses, and that it was different with policy witnesses: for example, Director
Mueller was visiting all over town with his views on MI-5. Commissioner Roemer
thought it would be very useful to have a key person such as Dick Clarke come in and
speak with a large group of Commissioners. Commissioner Fielding agreed, but not in the
context of individual Commissioners making such contacts. The Executive Director
observed that Clarke is a key fact witness; Commissioner Roemer observed that Clarke has
already agreed to appear as many times as necessary before the Commission, and that he
should be invited as many times as is needed.

Team Leader Reports. The Commission heard reports from each of the Team Leaders.

Team #1: Team Leader MacEachin spoke positively about the cooperation Team 1 has
received from the DCI's Review Group on 9/11, and noted that it had received all the
material it had requested. Most material came from the CIA, but some from the FBI as
well. Team 1 also has access to a 4-foot stack of documents of detainee interviews. It has
gotten a good response to its question: "how do you evaluate former events in light of what
we know now?" It has also had the ability to submit questions that interrogators then posed
to detainees. The problem for Team 1 is not documents to study, but time to read the
documents.

Team #1A: Team Leader Snell echoed MacEachin's remarks. He noted that he is eager to
fill the last professional slot on the Team, and that his team doesn't have the luxury of
waiting because of the enormity of the document review task awaiting it. Snell noted that
the FBI has had an epiphany in the last two weeks, and is starting to improve on document
production. He said that the FBI has a very detailed timeline, and that his team needs
access to it. Simply acquiring the timeline instead of trying to "reverse engineer" its

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 4

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

creation from FBI documents would save a great deal of time. Commissioner Ben-Veniste
asked about access to material from foreign trials. He noted that translations from trials in
Germany were available from a law firm representing plaintiffs in a 9/11 suit. Snell
expressed keen interest, as did the Deputy General Counsel, and both noted the importance
of establishing a clear one-way street of document provision to the Commission, with no
provision of information from the Commission to litigants. Snell expressed confidence
that other teams will be providing information to his team, but noted that he does not have
enough experience yet to speak to this issue definitively.

Team #2: Team Leader Scheid noted that he has been impeded somewhat by the slowness
of the clearance process. Staffers Gordon Lederman and Lloyd Salvetti have been
immersing themselves in the Joint Inquiry files. He noted that recently his Team has had a
better response from the CIA; the wheels started turning as soon as the Commission began
discussing a progress report on compliance with document requests. Team 2 is looking at
the CIA's inner workings rather than finished intelligence, and this has been more difficult
for the CIA to provide. Commissioner Gorelick said that she would like to know where the
problems are; she said she would go directly to Tenet. Commissioner Ben-Veniste added
that if the process needed to be short-circuited through individual contacts, he thought
Commissioners should do so. Scheid thought the process now was back on track.

Team #3: Team Leader Hurley spoke to the 5 major document requests that Team 3 has
issued in the past week, plus the Executive Office of the President request. He noted it was
too soon in his Team's case to make a judgment about cooperation/non-cooperation. He
noted that the Team plans to conduct some 10-15 interviews in July, and the same number
in August, and has been busy framing questions for those interviews. In response to a
question, staff noted that the Commission's intranet site was now up and available.

Team #4: Team Leader John Roth noted that Treasury has been fairly responsive so far,
and has provided 10,000 pages. State turned over material before the due date. The FBI is
moving slowly. The Team knows that the FBI documents are readily producible; they have
been hung up because of the Moussaoui question. The Team has held 4 interviews; 60
more are scheduled.

Team #5: Team Leader Swope said that briefings with DHS were taking far too long to set
up, sometimes several weeks. Team 5 will be leading a trip to Kennedy Airport on July
28th to look in detail at the border inspection process. Briefings with the CIA were also
taking too long to set up. Team 5 will be working closely with Teams 1, 1A and 3. Her
judgment is that the team can still get the job done, if it has cooperation. She also
mentioned the complications of staff divided in two facilities, at two levels of
classification. Commissioner Gorelick asked about IG investigations; Swope noted that the
State OIG had interviewed all the officers who had issued visas to the hijackers. She stated
that the team had done 4 interviews so far.

Team #6: Mike Jacobson, acting for Team Leader Grewe, reported on the document
requests submitted to the FBI on June 4th, plus supplementary requests submitted later. He

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 5

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

reported that FBI had provided some documents: budgetary books, Attorney General
guidelines, indices from operational and administrative manuals. But the FBI has been
slow getting started, and the team is concerned about delays in document production.
Briefings on FBI and CIA reforms have taken place; a briefing on the Terrorist Threat
Integration Center and many additional briefings have been scheduled. Commissioner
Ben-Veniste asked if the team had enough staffing. Jacobson answered that the team will
soon be interviewing another candidate; Commissioner Ben-Veniste offered to help.

Commissioner Gorelick asked if there had been interviews of former FBI officials, so as to
help narrow and focus the Commission's requests. Jacobson noted that many former
officials indeed are on the interview list. She also asked as to why, when Team 6 has a
problem, it doesn't get addressed in a timely fashion. Jacobson answered that FBI has a lot
that is ready to roll, but it has been held up because of Moussaoui. He noted that the
Moussaoui exclusion seems to be broader than it was at the time of the Joint Inquiry. Both
Commissioners Ben-Veniste and Gorelick said that issues needed to be elevated with
greater frequency so that they can be addressed sooner. Commissioner Roemer added that
the Commission will need feedback from the team as to how the new arrangement with
Dan Levin and his 4 deputies works. Jacobson noted that the ability of Team 6 to carry out
its work plan depends on the timely receipt of information from the FBI. He added that the
team will do a very thorough review of 5 FBI Field Offices, and some level of investigation
at 5 other proposed field offices.

Team #7: Team Leader Brinkley spoke to what the team has been doing since its May 22-
23 hearing. The team wants to write a document on what the aviation security system
looked like on 9/10; the team believes it can complete this draft by the end of July and
move on to its next set of questions. He noted that TS A has been very responsive to
document requests, providing 30 binders of documents; FBI material has been coming out
in bits and pieces. The team will seek to interview 33 people to find out what the system
was like, both from the standpoint of operation centers and airport security, including
checkpoints. The team will also be following up with the Department of Transportation
and FAA on document requests and follow-up from the hearing. Commissioner Roemer
asked on follow-up with Secretary Mineta; Brinkley answered that there will be a follow-up
session with Mineta, with questions carefully prepared for the session.

Team #8: Dana Hyde briefed on the slowness of FAA, NORAD and the Defense
Department in document production. The team is also seeking policy documents on the
orientation of the Office of the Secretary of Defense on homeland security prior to 9/11.
Commissioner Gorelick expressed her strong interest in looking at why we have a
Department of Defense that doesn't defend us. She wants to look at the structure of
Northern Command, plus discussion going back 2 decades on the question of the DOD's
role in what we now call homeland defense. Team 8 has submitted two document requests
to FAA , seeking all documents, tapes, transcripts and logs. Right after 9/11, FAA pulled
together all kinds of information that went, first, to the NTSB and then the FBI. The
Commission needs to get that information. The Secret Service has provided information
on the White House Security Review (post-1994) and it also has a timeline of the day of

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6

COMMISSION SENSITIVE
 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
COMMISSION SENSITIVE

9/11 that is very helpful. Secret Service and National Military Command Center briefings
are scheduled.

Team #9: John Azzarello briefed in the absence of Team Leader Fanner. He noted that
the 3 major questions for the team relate to the (1) buildings; (2) evacuation plans and
performance; and (3) consequence management. He stated that a request for information
from the Pentagon Historical Project (scores of interviews of those present at the Pentagon
on 9/11) had been sent to the Defense Department on May 20th, with no response yet, and
no satisfactory response to Commissioner Gorelick's question as to why the delay.
Commissioners also asked why the front office hadn't moved yet on document requests first
submitted on June 16th. Commissioner Roemer urged movement. Azzarello noted that the
team and the General Counsel had met with the Port Authority on the scope and breadth of
the Commission's document request. One key question for the Port Authority is whether
Commissioners and staff would be called as expert witnesses in pending litigation.
Azzarello stated that if the team gets immediate compliance from New York City and the
Port Authority, it can do the mission. Nothing has come back yet on an FBI briefing
request; Commissioner Gorelick urged the staff to follow up right away. Azzarello noted
that the team also intends to pursue unofficial sources, through contacts in the police and
fire departments, and conversations with retired police and fire personnel and personnel in
adjoining jurisdictions. Azzarello noted that it was the team's intent to prepare 3-5 page
White Papers addressing key questions.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

COMMISSION SENSITIVE