[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 6]
[House]
[Page 7041]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




       COMMISSIONER GORELICK MUST STEP DOWN FROM 9/11 COMMISSION

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite) is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today seeking 
answers to very tough questions. Like many Americans, I have been 
following the 9/11 Commission hearings with very keen interest. As an 
American, I want to know how the terrorists infiltrated our borders 
without detection, and, as a Congresswoman, I have a responsibility to 
implement policies that protect our country. I view this duty as one of 
my most urgent and most sacred obligations.
  At the outset, let me be clear: I do not seek to blame anyone for 9/
11, not anyone but the terrorists and their evil supporters. However, I 
do want to know what happened and what our government can do to make 
sure that attacks like those on 9/11 never happen again. Therefore, 
like millions of others, I am eagerly awaiting the report from the 9/11 
Commission.
  Unfortunately, and to my disappointment, during the hearings last 
week it became clear that Americans may not be able to get the complete 
and honest picture that we deserve. Let me explain what I mean.
  Last week, under oath, Attorney General John Ashcroft introduced a 
recently declassified memo by Commissioner Jamie Gorelick regarding the 
now familiar wall separating the Federal agencies from intelligence 
agencies. For her part, Ms. Gorelick responded to these charges in an 
editorial in the Washington Post. However, many tough questions still 
remain. Ms. Gorelick highlighted why her testimony is so crucial, if 
not critical, to understanding why our government failed in detecting 
these attacks.
  At the closing of her editorial, Ms. Gorelick says she made all 
relevant opinions and briefs available to the Commission. However, the 
Commission would not accept this reply from National Security Director 
Condoleezza Rice, and they most definitely should not accept this 
excuse from one of their own members.
  Now, I am not in a position right now to judge the validity of these 
competing claims. Most of us are not in a position to say whether 
Attorney General Ashcroft is right or wrong. I do not know if, in fact, 
Ms. Gorelick's policies prevented us from catching the terrorists. I do 
not know if the current administration could have done more to tear 
down this wall. But I do know that we need to have, and Americans 
deserve, the full and complete answer to these questions.
  Never mind that resolving the dispute between Attorney General 
Ashcroft and Commissioner Gorelick is the essence of this Commission's 
charge. Never mind that Condoleezza Rice was subject to intense 
criticism for refusing to testify under oath, which, by the way, she 
finally did. Never mind the fact that Dr. Kissinger was widely 
criticized and stepped down for far less of an appearance of conflict 
of interest than Ms. Gorelick has. Never mind that the Gorelick memo is 
the biggest news out of the hearings thus far. And, obviously, we must 
keep in mind the glaring self-interests of this Commissioner.
  We believe that the Commission's charge is that all witnesses with 
essential information, particularly with the ability to clarify 
policies, must testify. Why is Ms. Gorelick above the standard? The 
American people, the victims' families and the Commission have a right 
to hear from Ms. Gorelick in public under oath.

                              {time}  1945

  Simple logic tells us that simply recusing herself from her 
activities will not suffice. Ms. Gorelick must step down.
  She must submit her actions and the actions of her Justice Department 
to the same scrutiny that Dr. Rice and the current administration 
faces.
  How can she claim impartial judgment on policies she so obviously 
disagrees with?
  How can she comment on the failings of our intelligence and law 
enforcement communities if her policies actually influence those 
failings?
  In short, how can she be on both sides of the witness table?
  We created this commission to assess our weaknesses and to make 
recommendations. To that end, we need to continue the tough, honest 
ques-
tionings that have been the hallmark of these hearings. If Ms. Gorelick 
refuses to step aside and submit herself under oath to questioning, 
then the outcome of this commission must be looked at in an entirely 
different and very tainted light.
  We would have to ask ourselves what we do not know from what now 
seems to be destined to be an incomplete record. Knowing what we know 
about Ms. Gorelick's policies, we must demand she answer for them if 
only to clear up the charges brought by Attorney General Ashcroft that 
her policies were to blame.
  There are many questions to be answered. And obviously Ms. Gorelick 
must step down and testify under oath.

                          ____________________