[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18023-18026]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                      EVENTS OF THE LAST TWO WEEKS

  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I rise today to reflect on some of the 
experiences I have had over the last 2 weeks, and also the activity of 
the U.S. Congress, and in particular the Senate.
  It is hard to believe it has only been 2 weeks and 1 day since the 
tragedy of September 11. It seems such a longer period of time because 
of all the emotions and all the experiences and all the visual images 
which have been burned into our minds and our hearts.
  I think so many times of that day and what happened to me. Yet when I 
meet anyone on the street in Chicago or any part of Illinois and 
Springfield, they all go through the same life experience. They want to 
tell me where they were and how their lives were touched and changed by 
September 11. It was a defining moment for America. It is one which 
none of us will ever forget.
  Over 6,500 innocent Americans lost their lives on that day--the 
greatest loss of American life, I am told, of any day in our history, 
including the battles of the Civil War.
  Of course, we weren't the only country to lose lives in the World 
Trade Center. It is reported in the papers today that more German 
citizens lost their lives to terrorism on September 11 at the World 
Trade Center than in any of the terrorist acts on record in Germany. 
The stories are repeated many times over.
  Yesterday, the father of one of the victims of American Flight 77 
that crashed into the Pentagon came to my office and spoke about his 
wonderful daughter. He reflected on her life and the life of so many in 
my home State of Illinois--lives that were lost on September 11. We 
have tried to address that.
  Yesterday, we had a hearing on airport and airline security in the 
Governmental Affairs Committee under Chairman Joe Lieberman, the 
Senator from Connecticut. Other Members came forward to hear testimony 
from the appropriate Federal agencies--the FAA, the Department of 
Transportation's inspector general, as well as the General Accounting 
Office.
  Then we brought in a panel of those who were more directly in contact 
with air service--the vice president of American Airlines; airport 
managers from Bloomington, IL; from North Carolina; from St. Louis' 
Lambert; and Aubrey Harvey, who was a screener at one of the airport 
security stations at O'Hare, came. If I am not mistaken, he was the

[[Page 18024]]

first person actually involved in that profession who came forward to 
tell his side of the story about airport security.
  It was an important hearing. I think it dramatized the need for us to 
focus on several achievements as a nation.
  First and foremost, we must restore the confidence of the American 
public to get back on airplanes. That will require several actions. It 
requires, first, to have an immediate visible security response to what 
occurred on September 11. Changes have taken place in every airport. I 
have been to O'Hare and to Dulles and to Baltimore, as well as to St. 
Louis since that event. I have seen the changes. They are important. 
They are significant. They may not be enough. We need to do more. We 
need to do it quickly.
  I have noted that after Secretary Mineta, of the Department of 
Transportation, testified last week, I suggested that he immediately 
write to every airport manager and communicate to them the need to put 
in place at every airport security checkpoint a uniformed law 
enforcement officer.
  Secretary Mineta, whom I respect and admire so very much, said some 
airports have done that. I urged him to make sure every airport does 
that because I think it changes the environment of the airport. It 
makes security a more serious matter.
  I do not know if it was a coincidence or what, but when I went up to 
Baltimore to catch the plane last Friday, as I went through the airport 
security, there were five or six very serious screening employees and 
two law enforcement personnel there. They not only went through my 
luggage--which was something I invited them to do--then they did the 
wand all over me, and then checked to see if there was any explosive 
residue on my briefcase. I do not know if they knew who I was, but 
they, frankly, responded with the most amazing display of security I 
have ever seen at one time at an airport; and I travel a lot.
  Let me tell you something else. I do not begrudge a single moment of 
the time they asked of me, and neither should any other American. There 
is a little inconvenience involved in this, but for our safety and 
security it is not too much to ask. When I think about giving up 30 
seconds or a minute of my life, I reflect on how many people are making 
such extraordinary sacrifices of their time and their lives in the 
interest of the security of America. That is not too much to ask any 
airline passenger.
  But now we see in airports across America a change in attitude and a 
change in approach. At all the airports I visited--four in the last 2 
weeks--I have seen a much more serious approach to security.
  Yesterday we talked about the security on the ramp, as well, in terms 
of all of those people who have access to airplanes. We focused on 
passengers and what they bring on board, but we should also focus on 
every single person who can enter that airplane at any time; not only 
the pilot and crew, but also those who are responsible for baggage 
handling, fueling the plane, catering services, cleanup crews. All of 
those people have access to that airplane.
  A search of one of the grounded airplanes after the event found one 
of those notorious box cutters wedged in the cushion of a seat of the 
plane. Whether the passenger left it there or it was planted is 
unknown, but it at least raises an important security question.
  So when we talk about security in airports, it is not just the 
screening, it is not just the questions asked of passengers, it is to 
make sure that the ramp and the perimeter around the airport is secure, 
that we know the people who are coming in contact with that plane, that 
they have been checked out, that they are hard-working, good people, 
who are not going to be involved in anything that would endanger the 
life of another.
  One of the baggage handlers from O'Hare called me. I spoke to him in 
my office the other day. He told me about his experience. Did you know 
baggage handlers at O'Hare start at $8.50 an hour? I did not know that. 
In a few years they can get as high as $19 an hour, but, again, it 
reminds us that many of the people who are in direct contact with the 
airplane and its contents are people in starting-wage jobs that require 
perhaps minimal education and minimal training. I think that has to 
change.
  I think we need to raise the standards, the skills, and the 
compensation to the people who are involved in security. I think we 
have to consider security as not just part of the process of taking a 
flight but an element of law enforcement. When you take that into 
consideration, you start changing your standards as to what you might 
expect.
  So I believe we should federalize this activity. There have been a 
number of suggestions on how to do it. Some have said we should 
actually have Federal employees directly involved. I am not opposed to 
that concept. I am open to it. I am trying to keep an open mind to the 
most cost-efficient way to guarantee the security as best we can of 
airline travel.
  Others have asked, how about a governmental corporation that has this 
responsibility that operates under the rules and standards promulgated 
by the Federal Government? That, too, is an approach which I think we 
should consider. But more than anything, we have to make it clear to 
the American people that we are going to do something, and we are going 
to do it soon, and that it is safe for them to get back on airplanes.
  I am still flying commercial flights. Most of my colleagues in the 
Senate are--in fact, all of them. I think it is a testament to our 
belief that we have confidence in air travel. We have to convince the 
rest of the American people.
  Let me address another issue that was raised a few moments ago in 
this Chamber by my colleague from New Jersey, Senator Torricelli. It is 
one which I have heard him express before, and one I have reflected on, 
and on which I have come to an agreement with him. It is the question 
of our preparedness as a nation for what occurred on September 11.
  Back before the United States was engaged in World War II, President 
Franklin Roosevelt called on George Marshall, an Army general, to 
prepare the United States for the possibility of war. I remember, in 
reading the biography of George C. Marshall, one of our Nation's 
heroes, they talked of his first trip to the so-called War Department, 
I believe it was, in 1940.
  He went to the War Department, and he asked what battle plans were 
there for him to review. They went to the vault, opened it, and pulled 
out the battle plan--the one battle plan --which had been prepared for 
the War Department of the United States of America in 1940.
  George Marshall opened the folder to discover that battle plan was 
for the invasion of Mexico. That is all he had. No one had thought 
ahead about other possibilities. And in a short period of time, America 
was involved in a world war. We were not prepared and had to race to 
become prepared, not only to provide the goods and services and 
resources for our allies in the war but to make sure we could defend 
ourselves. America rose to that challenge, but we lost valuable time 
because we were not prepared.
  The obvious question we must ask, as Members of Congress, is, Were we 
prepared for September 11? Well, clearly, the answer is no. For the 
United States to have faced the greatest invasion, the greatest attack, 
the greatest crisis in our history, is to say, on its face, that we 
were not prepared.
  And I have to point to a number of areas. Whether it is in the 
military field or law enforcement or intelligence, in all three levels 
there are important questions that need to be asked and answered about 
our failure to avert this terrible crisis.
  We have identified some 19 alleged hijackers who were involved in 
this endeavor. I think we understand that there probably were hundreds 
more who had some part to play in this sad and tragic drama that cost 
so many lives. But to think what they have done to America--those 
people, one day in our history--it has changed our Nation.

[[Page 18025]]

  I would like to say that we can brush it off and go on about our 
business. Everybody knows better. Life in this country is going to be 
different, and it must be different so we can avert that kind of crisis 
in the future and be prepared for our own defense.
  Now we have requests coming to us from agencies representing the U.S. 
military, law enforcement, such as the FBI, and the intelligence 
agencies, for additional resources and additional authority. I join 
every other Member of the Senate in a bipartisan, solid vote giving the 
President and his administration all of the resources and authority 
they have asked for. I think we feel that party labels should be put 
aside. We have to stand together in Congress to wage this war against 
terrorism. We want to provide the President what he needs to be 
successful in that effort. We want to provide him the resources he 
needs so the men and women in uniform, and everyone involved in this 
effort, have the tools they need to succeed.
  Now we are receiving requests from the Attorney General, and from 
others, to change the laws of the United States to provide additional 
authority to those who are involved in fighting terrorism. I do not 
think that is an unreasonable thing to do. In fact, some of the 
requests that have been made by the Department of Justice are eminently 
sensible.
  I think it is important that we have changes, for example, in the 
authority to eavesdrop or have wiretaps to reflect new technology. In 
the old days, the FBI would turn over the name of a person and the 
telephone number and ask for authority from the court to put a wiretap 
on a phone.
  Today, of course, that suspected person may have in fact a dozen cell 
phones and change three or four numbers a day. We have to be prepared 
to follow them through all of the different levels of technology people 
can use against us. I don't think that is unreasonable.
  Changing the statute of limitations on crimes of terrorism? Of 
course, we should. We have to view this as more than just a garden 
variety crime because we have seen the terrible disaster that occurred 
on September 11.
  Other requests have been made by the FBI and CIA for the collection 
of more information beyond what I have just mentioned. It raises an 
important point that we should pause and study. We have seen in the 
past that these information-gathering agencies have collected enormous 
amounts of data, whether it is electronic data or data from human 
intelligence resources. And many times that data has not been 
assimilated, formulated, or distributed so that it can be used in 
effective law enforcement and the deterrence of the kind of disaster 
and tragedy we experienced on September 11.
  I ask, at least as part of this debate, that Congress come to these 
same agencies and ask them what they have done in the past with similar 
information, how much of a backlog of unprocessed information they 
currently have, and what they are going to do with any new information 
they receive.
  Before we expand this authority to collect more information, it is 
reasonable to ask the capacity of these agencies to assimilate and to 
use this information in a valuable fashion.
  How many Arabic speakers are available at the CIA and FBI if we are 
going to focus on those who are involved in this latest terrorism and 
any conversations among people who use that particular language? That 
is an important question and one which I think we will come to find is 
not answered to our satisfaction. We have to do better.
  I also have to relate that for the first time in 20 years, the 
Judiciary Committee, just a few months ago, had a thorough 
investigation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and came up with 
some major concerns. It is hard for me to believe that this premier law 
enforcement agency in America is still so far behind the times when it 
comes to important technology such as computers. The computer 
capability of the Federal Bureau of Investigation was described as 10 
years behind the rest of America. At a time when it should be on the 
cutting edge, it is that far behind. That needs to change. It needs to 
change immediately.
  Providing access to more information without the ability to 
assimilate it, to process it, to distribute it is, frankly, a waste of 
our time. We cannot afford to waste a moment in this war against 
terrorism.
  I have the greatest confidence in Bob Mueller, who has been appointed 
as the new Director of the FBI. I salute President Bush and those who 
were instrumental in naming him. He is an excellent choice. I believe 
he and Attorney General Ashcroft have an opportunity to work together 
to not only give more authority and resources to the FBI but to also 
change the climate at the FBI in terms of how it works internally and 
how it works with other agencies.
  Yesterday Attorney General Ashcroft told us that the FBI's wanted 
list and list of dangerous individuals in America had not been shared 
with the Federal Aviation Administration before September 11. What that 
meant was that those names that were suspicious were never given by the 
FAA to the airlines so they could monitor the travel of these people. 
That seems so basic. It reflects, unfortunately, a sad state of affairs 
when it comes to the exchange of this information.
  Let me speak for a moment about the daunting task we face in 
challenging terrorism around the world. The President is right. He has 
done the appropriate thing in warning the American people that this is 
a long-term commitment, that we need to take a look and find the 
resources of this global terrorism network and cut them off where we 
can--financial resources, political resources, whatever they are 
gathering from other nations, organizations, and persons. We have to 
stop that flow, to try to choke off this global terrorism. That is 
going to take quite a bit of effort and patience.
  The other day I met with a prosecutor who had spent most of his 
professional life prosecuting the Osama bin Laden terrorists. For 30 
minutes he sat down and described for me from start to finish his 
experience with this group. I came away with the following impression: 
They are educated; they are determined; they are invisible; they are 
patient; and they hate us.
  I was sobered by that presentation because he went through, chapter 
and verse, every single item he had discovered in the course of 
prosecuting these terrorists. I came away with the belief that we are 
not dealing with a ragtag bunch that got lucky, in their view, on 
September 11 with terrorism. They know what they are doing.
  We have to know what we are doing. We have to be prepared to fight 
this battle and to win it as quickly and as decisively as possible.
  Let me suggest that as we get into this, as we make this dedicated 
effort to fight terrorism as a nation, we should stop and we should 
reflect on the state of affairs on September 11, 2001, in America. It 
is time to ask the painful and hard questions of where the intelligence 
community failed, where law enforcement failed, where our Government 
failed, when it came to averting that crisis.
  This is not an easy task. Some have suggested maybe we should put 
that aside for another day. I don't think so. There were clear 
omissions, and there were clear problems within our collection of 
intelligence that led to what happened on September 11. We need to know 
what they were. We need to know if they changed. We need to know, for 
example, whether this exchange of information by law enforcement 
agencies has now changed for the better and decisively.
  To do that, I agree with Senator Torricelli, we should establish a 
board of inquiry that asks these hard and difficult questions and 
reports back to Congress, to the President, and to the American people 
about what we did wrong and how we need to change it.
  There is a rich tradition of this sort of inquiry. Senator Harry 
Truman of Missouri was involved in a similar inquiry in the 1940s when 
it came to defense contractors and whether they were wasting taxpayer 
dollars. As has been noted, the Challenger disaster led to a board of 
inquiry that changed the way the National Aeronautics and

[[Page 18026]]

Space Administration did their business. There were inquiries 
throughout our history when something important and catastrophic was 
happening in America.
  We can do no less today than to dedicate resources to an inquiry that 
gets to the heart of what our deficiencies are when it comes to 
fighting terrorism.
  I suggest my colleagues consider that there are many we can turn to, 
to help us in this effort. Certainly there are committees of Congress 
on both sides of the aisle in the House and the Senate that could have 
a legitimate role to play in this question.
  We might consider turning to some of our former colleagues to 
establish this kind of commission of inquiry to ask about what we 
failed to do and how we failed to avert the crisis of September 11. As 
I sat here today reflecting, names came to mind immediately: Senator 
Bob Kerrey, former Senator from Nebraska, recipient of the 
Congressional Medal of Honor, former chairman of the Senate 
Intelligence Committee; Senator Bob Dole of Kansas, Republican majority 
leader; Sam Nunn, former Senator from Georgia, well respected for his 
expertise when it comes to the armed services; former Senator from 
Missouri John Danforth, who just recently conducted an investigation of 
the FBI on the Waco incident, and his findings were accepted by all as 
being thorough and professional; John Glenn, former Senator from Ohio, 
who has a legendary reputation not only on Capitol Hill but across 
America; Mark Hatfield of Oregon, who served as chairman of the Senate 
Appropriations Committee; Chuck Robb, former marine in Vietnam and 
Senator from Virginia; Warren Rudman from New Hampshire.
  These are eight names that could come together quickly and be willing 
to serve this country in a commission of inquiry as to what went wrong 
at the CIA and the FBI and the Pentagon and throughout the Government 
on September 11. I believe they can give us a roadmap so we can talk 
about changes that need to be made, and made immediately, to avert any 
future crisis.
  I agree with Senator Torricelli: This is something we should not put 
off. We ought to do it and do it soon. It is not a reflection of 
disunity on the part of those of us who suggest it but just the 
opposite. As we have stood with the President to make sure he is 
effective in fighting this war for America, let us stand together in a 
bipartisan fashion to concede our weaknesses and shortfalls from the 
past so we don't repeat those terrible mistakes.
  Mr. President, I will conclude by noting one other event that 
happened in the last several weeks, which has been nothing short of 
amazing. It is a rebirth of patriotism in America the likes of which I 
have never witnessed. There was a time during the Vietnam war when the 
American flag lapel pin was worn by some in support of the war and 
shunned by others as an indication of supporting a war they thought was 
wrong.
  That has changed so much. You will find Americans across the board 
proud of their flag, proud of their country. I was in Chicago Saturday 
morning and stopped at a car rental agency, and the lady behind the 
desk recognized my name when I filled out the contract.
  She said: Senator, I can't find a flag anywhere, and I am trying to 
get one I can wear.
  I pulled out this ribbon from my pocket--a lapel pin that many 
Members have been wearing. I said: Why don't you take this one.
  She said: I think I am going to break down and cry. It meant so much 
for her to have it, to be able to wear it. I also gave one to the lady 
working with her. I thought how quickly we have come together as a 
nation.
  You have seen it in so many ways, large and small. Huge rallies are 
taking place at the Daly Center in Chicago. There are long lines of 
people waiting to donate blood. Donations are being given to the United 
Way and Red Cross and all of the charitable organizations. There is an 
intense feeling of pride and patriotism at public events across the 
board.
  I have noticed that people are listening more carefully to our 
National Anthem--to the words that we used to say by memory --perhaps 
without thinking so many times. There is that pause when we get to the 
point in that great National Anthem when we say:

       O say, does that star-spangled Banner yet wave,
       O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

  I think those words have special meaning for us because the Star 
Spangled Banner, our national flag, still waves--not just on porches 
and buildings across America and across Illinois, downstate and in 
Chicago, but in our hearts as well. We will prevail.
  Those who thought they could bring us to our knees have brought us to 
our feet. This country will be victorious.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina is recognized.
  Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, I thank the Chair. I ask unanimous consent 
that it be in order for me to make my remarks while seated at my desk.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________