[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 31, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Page S3391]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE 9/11 COMMISSION

  Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, I stood in this general area a couple years 
ago and spoke out against the need for the 9/11 Commission. I am not 
generally an advocate of commissions. I think it is an abdication of 
our responsibility when we do it repeatedly. As a matter of fact, we in 
the Senate should do the job of investigating what happened or what 
didn't happen that perhaps should have been leading up to the events of 

9/11 and in the aftermath, as we went into Iraq. That is why we have 
the Armed Services Committee. That is what Senator Warner, the 
chairman, is working on. That is why we have the Intelligence 
Committee. I serve on that committee. We work assiduously to take a 
good look at the intelligence, to see where the problems have been and 
see what the solutions are.
  Having said that, I think this Commission has shown a great deal of 
calm and maturity. The leadership of the two senior members, former 
Governor Kean and former Congressman Hamilton, has been thoughtful. 
Members on both sides of the Commission have asked good and tough 
questions. I may regret saying this when their final report comes out, 
but I think they have been doing a good job. It is not an easy job 
because you are trying to deal with hundreds of witnesses and thousands 
of pages of evidence.
  That leads me to the real point. I have had occasion to watch a 
number of national security advisers to Presidents over my 32 years in 
Congress, seven different Presidents and their national security 
advisers. There have been some good ones of both parties but none 
better than Condoleezza Rice. This is an outstanding individual with a 
brilliant mind, tremendous insight into what is going on in the world. 
I could give some anecdotes of why I believe that. For that reason, I 
am pleased she is going to come before the Commission. She is going to 
take every question on and give a thoughtful, complete, thorough, and 
convincing argument. She will do fine. I think it is unnecessary. Maybe 
this whole process of whether she would testify has been unnecessary.

  From a public relations standpoint, yes, she should have gone from 
the very beginning. But there are some important separation-of-powers 
principles involved. Executive privilege is not insignificant. It is 
something that is woven in the very fabric of this country. We cannot 
have a process where slowly but surely, in President after President 
after President, executive privilege and separation of powers have been 
eroded.
  I have watched it. Yes, former national security advisers have waived 
their executive privilege and gone before Congress. I thought it was a 
mistake, regardless of party. I have always spoken out against that. So 
I do think it is important we say this is not a precedent. It should 
not and cannot be a precedent, or you are not going to have men and 
women willing to give in confidence the best advice to the President or 
to give him the information he needs to hear without concern that some 
day some congressional person will have that person before them 
testifying.
  This is not an insignificant matter. It is very significant. Under 
these extraordinary circumstances, we need to have everybody we can 
testify in full, not so we can blame somebody but so we can plan for 
the future and do a better job next time.
  Condoleezza Rice will be the key to that effort.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________