THE WHITE HOUSE

WASHINGTON
November 19,2003

Daniel Marcus, Esq.

General Counsel
National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
2100KStreetN.W.
Washington, D.C. 20037

Dear Mr. Marcus:

Following up on OUT prior discussions, I have returned under separate cover notes taken
by Warren Bass while reviewing certain sensitive documents made available to the Commission
in response to EOF Document Request Nos. 2 and 3. As you will see, I have returned,
uiiredacted, 88 of the 105 pages of notes. As we have discussed, however, the remaining 17
pages of notes are being retained for Mr. Bass' use, during reasonable business hours, at the
secure NEOB reading room, because of the degree to which they deviate from our understanding
of the principles for Commission review and handling of EOF documents (memorialized in your
letter to me of July 29,2003).

Based on his review of a few hundred pages of highly sensitive documents, Mr. Bass
produced notes that totaled more than 100 pages and included numerous verbatim quotations.
Our primary concern, however, as we have discussed, is that the notes "effectively recreate"
several lengthy documents. In many cases, for example, each substantive point of an original
document can be mapped to a grammatically-compressed rendition of the same point within the
notes, so that, even though the notes consume less space on paper, they effectively recreate
substantial portions of the source document. We believe this violates the letter and the spirit of
our agreement regarding review of HOP documents.

Although many of the notes being returned also, in our view, violate these principles,
only those notes most egregiously violating the principles are being retained. Together these
redactions reduce the volume of the notes by about 17 pages. Although the remaining notes also
effectively recreate many other sensitive documents, or substantial portions thereof, we are
providing them to you as an accommodation, recognizing that there may have been a good faith
misunderstanding regarding the principles governing the release of notes. All of the original
notes, in their unredacted form, will, of course, continue to be available for review by Mr. Bass
in the NEOB reading room.

The EOF has worked to provide the Commission with unprecedented access to a set of
documents of extraordinary sensitivity. As we have previously discussed, a critical part of the
arrangements provided for the review of EOF documents is the reasonable application of our
understanding regarding the handling of those documents' contents. While we are willing to
return Mr. Bass' notes as an accommodation this time, please be advised that in the future we
intend to maintain for the Commission's use, at the NEOB reading room — at least absent a
particularized showing of need — all notes that effectively recreate documents, or portions
 WEi) 18: JO i-AJL 1^1003

thereof, in the manner described above. We believe the most reasonable way to comply with the
existing arrangements, and to facilitate the release of notes in the future, is for the Commission to
review and analyze documents during visits to the NEOB reading room and request the removal
only of those notes sufficient to allow the Commission to complete its work and prepare a report.
This approach will help protect the Constitutional interests of the Presidency while enabling the
Commission to complete its work in a timely fashion.

Sincerely,

lonheim
Associate Counsel to the President