[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 52 (Wednesday, April 21, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4173-S4175]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          THE 9/11 COMMISSION

  Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I wish to make a couple of observations 
related to the proceedings of the 9/11 Commission, which have been in 
the news recently.
  Specifically, I am troubled by the partisanship that some 
Commissioners have displayed, such as by cross-examining public 
officials as if they were common criminals.
  I am not the only one who is troubled by the proceedings. Former 
National Security Adviser under President Clinton, Tony Lake, has said 
that the hearings are ``a sad spectacle that has become so partisan.'' 
That is the National Security Adviser under President Clinton.
  Max Holland, a former fellow at the University of Virginia who is 
writing a history of the Warren Commission, notes that, ``in some 
respects,'' the proceedings of the Commission are ``definitely a new 
low.'' He added that ``this is a commission charged with establishing 
facts and the truth rather than posturing for political gain. But some 
of the hearings amounted to lecturing and posturing.''
  Still others, such as Professor Juliette Kayyem of the Harvard's 
Kennedy School of Government who served on a congressional terrorism 
panel to investigate the 1998 African embassy bombings, have questioned 
why 9/11 Commission members have granted so many interviews. She notes 
that ``they have become too public'' and that ``tempts Commissioners 
into making assessments and conclusions prematurely,'' she suggests.
  My understanding of the 9/11 Commission was that it was to 
impartially determine the facts and make nonpartisan recommendations on 
how to move forward. I am trying to be fairminded and positive about 
this, and I hope the Commission holds to its mission. I think it has 
strayed somewhat off into the political arena. It has received, I 
think, justified criticism for so doing. They still have an opportunity 
to move back in the direction they know and we know they should go and 
produce a report that we will all feel will pass the smell test and 
stick to the goal we all thought the 9/11 Commission had in the first 
place.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from New Mexico. Does the 
Senator yield time to himself under the standing order?
  Mr. DOMENICI. I did not hear the Chair.
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator yield time under the 
existing order for allocation of time?
  Mr. DOMENICI. Yes. I understood I was going to speak next. How much 
time do I have?
  The PRESIDENT pro tempore. There are 20 minutes remaining.
  Mr. DOMENICI. I thank the Chair.
  Mr. President, I followed with interest the media comments and 
partisan criticism of the President in light of testimony from a 
variety of individuals before the 9/11 Commission. I find the criticism 
almost laughable, in some cases. Here is what I gather is the essence 
of the criticism prior to the attacks on 9/11:
  One, President Bush didn't care about terrorism, didn't care about it 
enough, but if he did, he didn't want to know about it.
  Second, President Bush didn't know about terrorism, but if he knew, 
he didn't know enough to do anything.
  Third, President Bush didn't do anything about terrorism, but if he 
did, it wasn't enough.
  Finally, President Bush and the agencies of Government knew about the 
pending attacks on September 11, 2001, but didn't do anything about it.
  Or President Bush and the agencies of Government didn't know in 
advance about terrorism plans for September 11, but they should have.
  Just laying out this summary of the charges shows the contradictory, 
almost ludicrous nature of these attacks. How outrageously partisan 
this all has become.
  Let me talk a minute about the way I see it.
  First, let's for a minute assume that 9/11 did not occur. Remember, I 
am going to talk for a minute about the President, America, and the 
Congress as if 9/11 did not occur.
  Mr. President, 9/11 did not occur, but the President got a report 
from the CIA, FBI, NSA, and others, telling him al-Qaida was getting 
anxious, they were a little bit worried about things; the group is 
moving around a little bit too much; they may be thinking about 
attacking America. But no 9/11 has

[[Page S4174]]

ever occurred for my hypothesis about how I see it.
  The President says: In light of this report, we better get ready and 
we better take this issue to the American people. So the President gets 
ready, and he makes a speech to the American people. There has been no 
9/11, so he cannot talk about that.
  He gets up and says: Things are a little dangerous. Al-Qaida is 
moving around too much. I am a little worried about America, so I think 
we ought to do something about it.
  No 9/11 has ever occurred.
  The President says to the American people: I want to set up a 
department, and I want 45,000 people hired so we can check on everybody 
who gets on an airplane in the United States.
  Mr. President, 45,000 people and everybody who gets on an airplane in 
America is going to be checked is the first request.
  The second request: The PATRIOT Act--which has been discussed this 
morning--I need that, I want that, says the President.
  Third, I need a homeland security agency. It will be big because this 
is a big problem, says he; $26 billion will be put into one agency so 
they can work on homeland security.
  Can we imagine the President of the United States taking that to the 
American people if we did not have 9/11? I can imagine it. In fact, I 
could ask the American people, What do you think would have happened? 
You know what they would say? Nothing would have happened. They would 
have laughed at the President. They would have said: Who does he think 
he is. He wants to search everybody who is getting on an airplane? He 
wants this new extraordinary power, some say, under the PATRIOT Act. He 
wants this new department.
  Do you know what we would have said in the Senate: You will never get 
that, Mr. President. Who do you think you are, a dictator? You want to 
check everybody who gets on an airplane in the United States? Never 
heard of such a thing. That is the truth of the matter. That is what 
would have happened. He would have gotten nothing. I just do not 
believe that this Congress, especially with the attitude I am seeing 
now--which is totally obstructionist, a minority but a large minority 
is trying to stop everything--can you imagine what they would have done 
if the President of the United States, without 9/11, would have 
requested all these items? I cannot.
  The point I am trying to make is, it is rather absurd to talk about 
which week did the President know, how much did he know, should he have 
known more; if he knew more, shouldn't he have done more? I have 
already gone through those, but I go through them again because, as a 
matter of fact, had he known a little more, had he known it sooner, had 
he had more reports from the CIA, nothing would have happened in terms 
of changing our laws.
  I am going to carp on one of them. Can you imagine Congress giving 
the President of the United States the authority to check everybody who 
gets on an airplane in the United States because he had some reports 
showing that al-Qaida was dangerous, al-Qaida might be looking at some 
activity in the United States? Of course not. Anybody who believes we 
would have done that for this President or any President is just not 
facing reality.
  As a matter of fact, it is my honest belief that if we did not have 
9/11, we would have passed none--not one or two--none of the 
extraordinary measures that were passed because of 9/11.
  It seems to me that for people to now run around and wonder and 
speculate about whether the President knew enough, whether he should 
have known more because if he did he could have gotten all these things 
that we are talking about, that is an absolute absurdity.
  Remember, we had a Senator from the State of Georgia. Remember what 
he did on the Senate floor? He resisted homeland security. He resisted 
it on the basis that he was not sure whether they should put unions in 
as a mandatory notion with reference to those people who were going to 
be part of this new agency of our Government. He lost an election on 
the basis that he favored unions over the Department of Homeland 
Security. We then got a sufficient vote to pass it. It was that tough, 
even after 9/11.
  I close by repeating that this Senator does not believe it is 
possible that we would have passed this legislation that everybody is 
saying the President should have worked on, he should have done more 
on, he should have worked on this, he should have gotten America more 
prepared, when as a matter of fact this Senate would probably have done 
nothing had we not had 9/11.
  So is it not ludicrous, is it not rather outrageous that we are 
spending time trying to figure out if he knew, when did he know, he 
should have known more, when the facts are that it would not have made 
any difference because we would not have done anything? We would not 
have done anything unless and until al-Qaida had attacked the United 
States.
  If anybody would like to argue that point, I would be delighted. Does 
anybody believe we would have said we are going to check every American 
who gets on an airplane if we had not had 9/11? Imagine what they would 
have called the President. They would have called him every name under 
the Sun and probably would have ended up asking, Who does he think he 
is, a dictator? He wants to take over the airlines and inspect every 
American? Americans would be saying to their Congressmen, Do not let 
him do that. It is crazy that they are going to search us before we get 
on an airplane.
  The point is, there is no question that we acted after 9/11. The 
President acted after 9/11. Whether he did something before 9/11 or not 
seems to me to border--as a question, it seems to be one that we know 
the answer to. Even if he knew more, even if he knew sooner, we would 
have done nothing.
  So why is so much being made about that period of time and talking 
about the 1 or 2 weeks and was there a breakdown in communication or 
not? Look, we all understand we were not on a war footing. We did not 
get there until we had been attacked. I do not think America would have 
gotten ready before the attacks. Maybe after this al-Qaida attack we 
might, but, frankly, I believe any President, and in particular this 
one, would have been attacked viciously had he been talking about 
searching every citizen, every person, who was planning to go on an 
airplane, or if he would have said, I want to amend the rules and I 
want to call it the PATRIOT Act and we are going to have a lot more 
authority to track people, to listen to their conversations, and do the 
kinds of things the PATRIOT Act provides.
  So it seems to me we ought to get on with the report and a study that 
says how were we deficient--not whether this President knew, when did 
he know, what did he do--with reference to our laws, our rules, and our 
ability to do something about a terrorist attack.
  I am sorry to say we did what we did only because we got attacked. 
But we would not have done it otherwise. Whatever the President knew or 
did not know or whenever he knew it, we would not have responded with 
the kinds of things we ultimately responded with. Some of them took a 
little longer than one might expect, but nonetheless the truth of the 
matter is we do not need a group of partisans to take over that 
Commission that was appointed in honesty and with earnest intentions. 
We do not need a commission spending all of its time trying to get to 
the President politically about what he did or did not do, when he did 
it, when he should have, when if we looked inward we would say, Well, 
Congress most probably would have done nothing had we not had 9/11.
  I hope the Commission thinks about that when they are writing their 
report. I hope they think about the reality of preparing ourselves for 
terrorism. I believe, as I have said this morning, we would have done 
nothing had we not had 9/11. I do not think any President would have 
succeeded in getting anything done if we did not have 9/11.

  It would be interesting for the Commission to look at the matter that 
way, to look at it from the standpoint of what would have happened, 
what could we have done, what is the reality of getting anything done 
prior to 9/11 actually happening.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection the majority's time is 
reserved.
  The Senator from Vermont.

[[Page S4175]]

  Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I listened to the Senator's very 
eloquent and well-prepared speech of the problems that occurred prior 
to 9/11. We all understand and know how bad they were.

                          ____________________