[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 9]
[Senate]
[Pages 13156-13159]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            REMEMBERING 9/11

  Mr. SCHUMER. Mr. President, we are now approaching the 10th 
anniversary of 9/11. As with countless others who experienced all that 
happened that day, recounting 9/11, assessing its implications on our 
Nation is both a profound and deeply personal undertaking.
  I will never forget the moments when I learned what happened. I was 
in the House gym. I was a Senator then and still went to the House gym. 
There is a little TV on top of the lockers, and somebody pointed out--
one of our colleagues who was in the House with me from the other side 
of the aisle said: Look on the TV. It looks like a plane has crashed 
into the World Trade Center.
  We all gathered around and watched the TV and came to the conclusion 
that it was probably a little turbo plane that had lost its way. We 
kept our eyes on the TV, and then, of course, we saw the second plane 
hit the second tower, and we knew it was not just an accident.
  I quickly showered, dressed, rushed to get into my car, and as I was 
driving quickly to my office, I saw another plane flying low over the 
Potomac, and I saw a big plume of smoke, which obviously was the plane 
aimed at the Pentagon. I said to myself, ``World War III has started.''
  I quickly called my wife, and our first concern was our daughter who 
went to high school just a few blocks from the World Trade Center. We 
didn't know what happened. The towers were on fire. We actually took 
out the almanac to see how high the trade center was to see whether it 
could fall in the direction of her school and whether it would hit it. 
For 5 hours, we couldn't find Jessica. They had successfully evacuated 
the school, but because they shut down the elevators in the school, 
they all had to walk down the stairs. She was on the ninth floor, and, 
being Jessica, she escorted an elderly teacher who couldn't get down 
very quickly and lost her way from the group. Of course, praise God, we 
found her.
  That was just the beginning of the anguish. The next day, Senator 
Clinton and I flew to New York. I will never forget that scene. I think 
of it just about every day. The smell of death was in the air. The 
towers were still burning. People were rushing to the towers--
firefighters, police officers, construction workers--to see if they 
could find the missing. The most poignant scene I think of all the time 
is literally hundreds of people, average folks of every background, 
holding up little signs--``Have you seen my daughter Sally?'' with a 
picture, ``Have you seen my husband Bill?''--because at that point we 
didn't know who was lost and who was not. It was a very rough time, and 
we think of it every day.
  We know what happened, and it is something that will remain in our 
minds for the rest of our lives but, of course, not close to those who 
lost loved ones either during the horrible conflagration or in these 
later years. Now is the time for the 10th anniversary, so it is a good 
time to take stock of the effect of the trauma and what it means, both 
locally and nationally.
  Obviously, every one of us in America was scared, shocked, 
traumatized, horrified, angry, and heartbroken. At first, we didn't 
know what happened. Then, as we learned who had attacked us and why, we 
had to confront a crisis for which we didn't feel prepared. It was an 
experience we as New Yorkers and Americans were not used to at all. We 
felt so vulnerable. Were we now going to be the subject of attack after 
attack from stateless, nihilistic enemies we poorly understood and were 
even more poorly prepared to fight? There was this doctrine of 
asymmetrical power: Small groups living in caves were empowered by 
technology to do damage to us--horrible damage--that we couldn't stop. 
Could it be that our vast military was a poor match for a small group 
of technologically savvy extremists bent on mass murder and mayhem, 
directed from half a world away? It seemed more likely--certain even--
that attack after attack would come our way from a small group willing 
to use any tactic, from a box cutter and a loaded plane to weapons of 
mass destruction, focused solely on massive loss of life and damage to 
the economy, not to mention to our collective psyche and confidence as 
a people.
  It certainly was a hammer blow to the great city in which I live and 
have lived my whole life. It raised the question of its future. People 
everywhere were writing the obituaries on downtown Manhattan. People 
and businesses were leaving or seriously contemplating leaving. Being 
diffuse was the answer, not concentrated. Some wrote that maybe now 
densely populated, diverse cities such as New York

[[Page 13157]]

would no longer have a future. A permanent exodus seemed imminent. 
Downtown New York would become a ghost town. Who would work here again? 
Who would live here? Who would dine or see a show here? What global 
firm would locate thousands of jobs here? It was not an exaggeration to 
say that New York's days as the leading city on the global stage seemed 
as though they could be over.
  But our response was immediate, proactive, unified, and successful. 
In the days, weeks, and first months after 9/11, America as a society 
and, by extension, its political system came together and behaved in a 
remarkable way. New Yorkers, as always, did the same. There immediately 
developed a sense of shared sacrifice and common purpose that gave rise 
to a torrent of actions in the private and public spheres.
  Amongst the American people, there was an unprecedented outpouring of 
voluntary help--a tradition deeply rooted in our American tradition of 
community service and voluntary action noted by observers as far back 
as Alexis de Tocqueville, who, in the earliest days of our Republic, 
observed:

       Americans of all ages, all conditions, all minds constantly 
     unite. Not only do they have commercial and industrial 
     associations in which all take part, but they also have a 
     thousand other kinds: religious, moral, grave, futile, very 
     general and very particular, immense and very small.

  Fueled by this reaction, our government went to work immediately, at 
all levels, collaborating on the Federal, State, and local levels.
  In Washington, DC, the policy response to the situation at hand was 
remarkable for its productivity, its extraordinary speed, and, overall, 
the positive impacts it made both in the short term and long term. All 
of what we did was far from perfect, but when our government is able to 
be this nimble, responsive, and effective, it is worth asking what the 
elements of its success were so that we might think about how we can 
apply them to future situations such as the one we are in now.
  If I were to characterize our policy actions post-9/11, I would say 
they were nonideological, practical, partisanship was subdued; the 
actions were collaborative, not vituperative; they were balanced and 
fair; they were bold and decisive; and they were both short- and long-
term focused. Let's take a quick look at each.
  We were nonideological. Post-9/11, we were driven primarily by facts, 
not primarily by ideology. We asked, ``What does the situation require 
and how might we best execute that'' not, ``How can I exploit this 
situation to further my world view or political agenda or pecuniary 
self-interest?'' We didn't have a debate about the nature of government 
and whether or how we ought to support disaster victims or the need for 
housing or to get small businesses and not-for-profits back open, nor 
did we wring our hands about the appropriateness of rebuilding 
infrastructure or responding to the lack of insurance available for 
developers; rather, we attacked each problem as it became apparent. We 
professionally engaged, we compromised, and we hammered out a plan to 
address each problem as it arose. And we did it fast.
  We were tempered in our partisanship. Partisanship is never absent 
from the public stage, but the degree to which it is the dominant 
element in the many influences on public policy waxes and wanes. In the 
days after 9/11, we were able to keep partisanship on a short leash.
  I remember being in the Oval Office the day after I visited New York 
with Senator Clinton, and we told President Bush of the damage in New 
York. I asked the President: We need $20 billion in New York; we need a 
pledge immediately. Without even thinking, the President said yes. New 
York is a blue State, one that didn't support President Bush. He didn't 
stop and weigh and calculate politically; he said yes, and, to his 
credit, he stuck by that promise in the years to come.
  We were collaborative, not vituperative, unlike recent tragedies, 
such as the Fort Hood shooting, where some sought to heap blame on 
President Obama, or the Gabby Giffords shooting, where premature blame 
was mistakenly directed at the rightwing for spurring the attacker 
which, in turn, begat a round of unseemly recriminations. Unlike those 
examples, following 9/11, people refrained from using the powerful and 
exploitable event as an opportunity to blame President Bush or 
President Clinton for letting an attack happen.
  Rather than looking back and hanging an iron collar of blame around 
the neck of a President to score political points, people from both 
parties were willing to look forward, to plan forward, and to act 
forward. This, in turn, helped create a climate where collaboration was 
possible. And, to his credit, the President, as I mentioned, did not 
think about the electoral map or political implications of supporting 
New York.
  We were bold and decisive. We did not shrink from the big thing or 
fail to act on multiple levels at once. On one front, we crafted the 
$20 billion aid package to rebuild New York. On another, we crafted the 
PATRIOT Act. On still another, the military and intelligence 
communities planned the invasion of Afghanistan to root out al-Qaida. 
These were big moves, with massive implications for life, the national 
coffers, and the structure of our society. None of the moves was 
perfect, but rather than, for example, derail the $20 billion aid 
package to New York because you might think we do not have the money to 
spend or blocking the PATRIOT Act because you believe it does not do 
enough to produce civil liberties, in the period after 9/11, those with 
objections made a good-faith effort to have their points included in 
nascent legislation, and had some real success, such as building in 
punishments against those who leak information obtained from wiretaps 
or preventing information from unconstitutional searches from abroad 
from being used in a legal proceeding.
  But, in the end, on the PATRIOT Act, for example, Democrats--who were 
in the minority and could have played the role of blocker--let it pass 
with a pledge to improve it over time, rather than scuttling it 
entirely, because while there were parts of it that some disagreed with 
strongly, there were parts that were absolutely necessary.
  Compare this to our current stalemate on fiscal policy and the 
economy, where time after time the ``my way or the highway'' view seems 
to prevail, leading to inaction, gridlock, and failure to do what the 
economy truly needs.
  We were balanced and fair. On the one hand, we were pragmatic. We 
made the airlines and owners of the World Trade Center and other 
potential targets immune from potentially bankrupting lawsuits. It was 
not an easy decision. It was strenuously opposed by some in the trial 
bar and other Democratic allies, but it was a reasonable one.
  On the other hand, we were just. We created, with billions in 
financing, the Victims Compensation Fund, the VCF, so no victim or 
their loved one would be denied access to justice. It proved to be a 
win-win. The crippled airline industry, so critical to our economy, was 
able to get back up and running, and every injured person or loved one 
of those lost had an expedited and fair system to pursue a claim of 
loss.
  This harkened back to the kind of grand bargains on big issues that 
are the very foundation of effective government in the system of 
diffused power that we were bequeathed by our Founders, the kind of 
bargains the current state of politics make so elusive today.
  We were short- and long-term focused. We were concerned with both 
short-term support, via FEMA aid to homeowners, renters, and small 
businesses, and with long-term competitiveness. We invested heavily in 
transportation infrastructure to move millions in and out of the 
central business districts, even while we supported the arts, community 
groups, parks, nonprofits, and more to create the vibrant and growing 
24/7 downtown we have today--a hub that is at the very center of the 
Nation's economy and culture--far from the horrible view we had that

[[Page 13158]]

the downtown would become a ghost town shortly after 9/11.
  In short, the response to 9/11 by all Americans, by both parties, is 
a roadmap for how our political system ought to function but is not now 
functioning.
  I am not a Pollyanna. I understand the inherent nature of conflict in 
the political realm, and I often partake in it. I also know the trauma 
of 9/11 was uncommon, and made possible uncommon action. Then we had 
both the shocking murder of thousands of innocent victims, the heroism 
of the responders to inspire us, and the advantage of a common enemy to 
unite us.
  But what we were able to achieve then in terms of common purpose and 
effective collective action provides us with a model for action that we 
in Washington must strive to emulate and--even if just in part, even if 
just sporadically--to recreate. We should look back to what happened 
during 9/11 and apply it to our own time and see how we can make 
ourselves better and break the kind of gridlock, partisanship, finger 
pointing that seems to dominate our politics today, only 10 years 
later.
  As we survey the current state of our national psyche and the ability 
of our political system to debate and then implement effective policy 
actions for the challenges that confront us, it is painfully clear 
that, in a relative blink of the eye, the ability of our political 
system to muster the will to take necessary actions for the common good 
has degenerated to a place that is much too far away from our actions 
after 9/11.
  The question that haunts me--and should haunt all of us--is this: If, 
God forbid, another 9/11-like attack were to happen tomorrow, would our 
national political system respond with the same unity, 
nonrecrimination, common purpose, and effective policy action in the 
way it did just 10 years ago or are our politics now so petty, 
fanatically ideological, polarized, and partisan that we would instead 
descend into blame and brinksmanship and direct our fire inward and 
fail to muster the collective will to act in the interests of the 
American people?
  As I ponder it, I have every confidence that the first responders--
cops, firefighters, and others--would do now as they did then. Their 
awe-inspiring selflessness and bravery continues to be a humbling 
wonder and an inspiration.
  I know our building trades workers would again drop everything and 
show up, put their lives on the line, and throw their backs into the 
task at hand without waiting to be asked.
  I am certain that the American people would come together and find 
countless ways to donate their time, their energy, their ideas, and 
their compassion to the cause at hand.
  But what of our political system?
  I am an optimist, so I want to believe the answer is yes. But I am 
also a realist, and a very engaged player on the Washington scene, who 
has just been through the debt ceiling brinksmanship, amongst other 
recent battles, and that realistic part of me is not so sure the answer 
is yes.
  Today, would we still pass a bipartisan $20 billion aid package to 
the afflicted city or would we say that is not my region or would we 
fail to take the long view and say we cannot afford to spend lavish 
sums of money like that; we have to spend within our means.
  Would we be capable of coming together to pass a grand bargain such 
as the one that immunized the airlines from lawsuits and created the 
Victims Compensation Fund or instead would we embrace the politics of 
asphyxiation and find every excuse to block getting to ``yes'' in order 
to prevent our political opponents from appearing to achieve something 
positive.
  Would all parties refrain from using the occasion to place blame on 
the President and on each other to gain relative political advantage or 
would we hear, first, the leaked whispers, then the chatter, then the 
recriminations that build to the ugly echo chamber of vituperation that 
has been the sad hallmark of more recent tragedies and national 
security events.
  This political accord following 9/11 had its limits, especially in 
the aftermath of our invasion of Iraq, when one key rationale for going 
to war was discredited. But even for those who came to view our 
involvement as distracting and wrong--distracting from the more 
important political objective of rooting out al-Qaida and wrong because 
it could not work; and there was a great loss of life and treasure--
even for those of us who came to abhor the war in Iraq, it would have 
been unthinkable then to root against our country's eventual success in 
Iraq. Compare that to now, when it is fathomable that some would rather 
America not recover its economic strength and prowess just yet.
  When we think back to where we were then and to how we reacted and 
compare it to challenges we confront today, it is clear that while the 
sacrifice of the victims and the heroism of the responders were 
eternal, our ability to sustain both the common purpose and effective 
political action they inspired has proved all too ephemeral.
  I will not recount details of our current dysfunction, but suffice it 
to say our politics are paralyzed. Domestically, we are frozen in an 
illogical arm-wrestling match between the need to get people back to 
work and jump-start the economy and the drive to rein in the deficit. 
Globally, we are confronted by an uncertain place in an increasingly 
competitive world.
  Finally, our challenges are psychological and emotional and 
aspirational, much as they were in the darkest hours and days after 9/
11, and these doubts whisper to us the following questions: Are we no 
longer able to tackle the big issues? Are we a nation in decline?
  I am not saying the challenges we face today are an exact parallel 
for what we faced then. It is obvious they are not. Nor are all the 
conditions the same. But today's challenges--from the economic to the 
global to the social--are not intractable, and if any one of our 
current dilemmas were subject to the same policy environment we had 
post-9/11, I have no doubt we would make substantial progress in 
tackling it.
  Confronted with a more profound, complex, and existential challenge 
on 9/11, we rose to the occasion. We confronted the problem before us 
with uniquely American doggedness, pragmatism, creativity, 
collaboration, and optimism--optimism--because that is what Americans 
do and that is who we are. We believe that no matter how bad it gets--
whether hunkered down for the winter in Valley Forge after a series of 
humiliating military defeats or arriving, like Lincoln, in Washington, 
DC, in 1860 to find half our Nation and next-door neighbor States are 
attempting to destroy our Union or FDR confronting, in 1932, 25-percent 
unemployment and an unprecedented deflationary spiral in a modern 
industrial-financial economy or believing that, indeed, all people are 
created equal, even while you were rudely ushered to the back of the 
bus or facing down the totalitarian threats of fascism and communism, 
and believing that, yes, we will tear that wall down--Americans believe 
in a brighter tomorrow. We believe in our ability as a people, 
individually and collectively, both through private action and via our 
elected representatives who make our Nation's policy, to get things 
done to make that brighter tomorrow a reality.
  We have, as a nation, faced bigger challenges. We have answered the 
call, and 9/11 was one shining example. We are in better shape now on 
many fronts as a result of the actions we took in the immediate 
aftermath of 9/11, and those are well known: rebuilding New York City, 
compensating families, flushing al-Qaida from its base in Afghanistan, 
leading to the fact that Osama bin Laden is dead.
  In the Middle East it is not, as we feared after 9/11, the hateful, 
myopic, reactive philosophy of bin Laden that took hold and changed 
their societies. Rather, it is imbued with some decent measure of hope 
and optimism and courage that created a cascading wave of political, 
social, and economic aspiration that has transformed this region from 
Tunisia and Libya to Egypt and Syria, added and abetted by 
entrepreneurial innovations pioneered here in America. This 
transformation is not without enormous dangers and challenges, but 
consider how much worse it

[[Page 13159]]

would have been if a pro-bin Laden movement were fueling this 
transformation.
  It is plain we need more of what we had post-9/11 now. I am not 
naive. I know it cannot be conjured up or wished into existence. But if 
we are optimistic, if we are inspired by the Americans who died here, 
if we truly understand our shared history and the sacred place 
compromise and rationality hold at the very center of the formation of 
our Nation and the structure of our Constitution, then we can again 
take up the mantle of shared sacrifice and common purpose that we wore 
after 9/11 and apply some of those behaviors to the problems we now 
confront.
  The reality of our current political climate is that both sides are 
off in their corners; the common enemy is faded. Some see Wall Street 
as the enemy many others see Washington, DC, as the enemy and to still 
others any and all government is the enemy.
  I believe the greatest problem we face is the belief that we can no 
longer confront and solve the problems and challenges that confront us; 
the fear that our best days may be behind us; that, for the first time 
in history, we fear things will not be as good for our kids as they are 
for us. It is a creeping pessimism that cuts against the can-do and 
will-do American spirit. And, along with the divisiveness in our 
politics, it is harming our ability to create the great works our 
forbears accomplished: building the Empire State building in the teeth 
of the Great Depression, constructing the Interstate Highway System and 
the Hoover Dam, the Erie Canal, and so much more.
  While governmental action is not the whole answer to all that faces 
us, it is equally true that we cannot confront the multiple and complex 
challenges we now face with no government or a defanged government or a 
dysfunctional government.
  As we approach the 10th anniversary of 9/11, the focus on what 
happened that day intensifies--what we lost, who we lost, and how we 
reacted--it becomes acutely clear that we need to confront our current 
challenges imbued with the spirit of 9/11 and determine to make our 
government and our politics worthy of the sacrifice and loss we 
suffered that day.
  To return to de Tocqueville, he also remarked that:

       The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened 
     than any other nation, but rather in her ability to repair 
     her faults.

  So, like the ironworkers and operating engineers and trade workers 
who miraculously appeared at the pile hours after the towers came down 
with blowtorches and hard hats in hand, let's put on our gloves, pick 
up our hammers and get to work fixing what ails the body politic. It is 
the least we can do to honor those we lost.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown of Ohio). The clerk will call the 
roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________