T3 B7 Dialogue W Commissioners Fdr- Emails And Withdrawal Notice Re Extension Of Commission 095
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View T3 B7 Dialogue W Commissioners Fdr- Emails And Withdrawal Notice Re Extension Of Commission 095 as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,274
- Pages: 5
Page 1 of2
Mike Hurley From:
Jonathan Stull
Sent:
Friday, February 27, 2004 1:02 PM
To:
staff
Subject: The AP's latest update on the extension Sorry to flood inboxes, but I know this is of interest to everybody. Considering the next clips will likely come out on Monday, I thought I'd pass it along...
Highway Bill Embroiled in 9/11 Dispute By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Nearly 5,000 Transportation Department workers face a furlough on Monday, a possible result of two senators using an expiring highway bill to force House Republicans to accept a two month extension of an independent investigation of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. "We all have a choice here to make," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., was using the highway bill as leverage to win an extension for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which is scheduled to finish its work on May 27.
He said the choice was between "minor" disruptions in highway projects and "telling the families of those who died on 9/11 that the commission will not be able to complete its work." President Bush has agreed to extend the commission's work until July 27, but efforts to legislate that action have met resistance among House Republican leaders, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-I11. "There are people that have great concerns about extending the 9/11 commission on our side of the rotunda," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Thursday. One of those concerns is that the findings of the commission, which is studying the nation's preparedness before the attacks and its response, may come too close to the presidential election. Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the commission's chairman, said getting an extension was urgent. Without it, he said, "means certain research we're planning to do won't get done, and certain trails we won't be able to follow. Some of our conclusions won't be as informed." Lieberman said the commission had not been able to complete its work because of foot dragging by the administration and stalled highway programs would "pale in significance to not giving the commission the extra time it needs." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who supports extending the commission's life, on Friday sought to meet the demands of the two senators by quickly bringing up for a voice vote a bill, approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, that authorizes the two-month extension. But McCain and Lieberman wanted that extension on a bill that the House could not ignore. The existing highway and public transit spending law expires on Sunday, and without a temporary
2/27/2004
Page 1 of 2
Mike Hurley From:
Mike Hurley
Sent:
Monday, February 09, 2004 3:44 PM
To:
Chris Kojm
Cc:
Dan Marcus; Steve Dunne; Mike Hurley
Subject: Further to our talk about Richard Ben-Veniste
Chris, Further to our conversation and with regard to Richard Ben-Veniste's citing what he believes is my position on an extension to Lee Hamilton:
No one from our team recalls either me or anyone else on the team telling Richard Ben-Veniste during our discussion last Friday with Jamie Gorelick and Ben-Veniste that we were urging a 6 month extension.
• The team generally believes that the 2-month extension is really only a 1 month-extension, as we had been planning on submitting the final report at the end of June anyway, and the extension we have reportedly been offered by the WH allows us to submit the final report on July 27. That one month really doesn't give us very much, but our view is that it's better than nothing.
We probably ideally need a 2-3 month extension. We recognize that such an option, however, would thrust us right into the middle of the election season, and that that is controversial.
So the two options seem to be, the current 2-month plan (which in our view gives us only 1 month), or 6 months. Ben-Veniste may have interpreted our view that 1 month is not enough as suggesting that we wanted 6 months. It's not that we want 6 months, or think 6 months are necessary. It's that there appears to be no middle ground here. 6 months would be justified if commissioners wanted us to accomplish certain things. It's really up to them to decide what they want us to produce. But that in turn should be rationally related to the amount of time we're given to the tasks we're assigned.
For anyone who's interested, I'd summarize my position as follows:
2/9/2004
o
In general, if commissioners want us to do more, then they should be prepared to give us more time in which to accomplish it.
o
If our only round of policy hearings is the current proposal of 2 days in late March, then we can live with the extension that allows us to turn the final report in on July 27.
o
On the other hand, if commissioners decide that they want more policy hearings, then they should give us more time. Moreover, any additional round of policy hearings should not be scheduled before, say, mid-May, so as not to interfere with us devoting the substantial time required to prepare for the late March round and to complete our monograph in April.
o
If commissioners want us to circle back and re-interview a number of people we've
Page 2 of2 already interviewed for the purpose of really nailing down factual disputes, nuance, and in general ensuring a full and comprehensive factual investigation that is not conducted under time pressure and tight deadlines, then they should give us more time. o
If commissioners want us to produce, in addition to our monograph and our part in the final report, a comprehensive, bipartisan CT strategy for the country, one that incorporates ideas/elements/measures that go beyond anything the USG has produced to date, then an additional few months would be desirable to accomplish that.
o
I think the more time we have the better the job we can do overall and the higher quality the final, national report will be. The driving factor in all of this should be our common desire to produce the best national report possible. That goal should have priority over anyone's schedule—commissioner or staff member.
o
That said, we'll clearly take our taskings from commissioners as conveyed through the front office.
Mike
2/9/2004
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:
52100
FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107
WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008
BOX: 00003
FOLDER: 0001
COPIES: 1 PAGES:
TAB: 1
DOC ID: 31205813
2
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE: 02/06/2004
DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/fProfs Notes)
FROM: Hurley TO: Zelikow SUBJECT:
Meeting with Commissions Gorelick and Ben-Veniste
This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Closed by Statute
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley From:
Chris Kojm
Sent:
Monday, January 05, 2004 1:26 PM
To:
Team Leaders
Cc:
Front Office
Subject:
Re: Possible participation in discussion of an agenda item on seeking an extension
Importance: High The Chair and Vice Chair believe you should stand by for possible participation in a discussion on this topic, but it is not/not now their intent to ask Team Leaders to join that discussion. The agenda item will not/not be changed from its place on the agenda. In other words, it is not coming up now (1:20 PM). It would come up later this afternoon (2:30 or later) We will try to give you a heads up and adequate notice if the schedule changes
1/5/2004
Mike Hurley From:
Jonathan Stull
Sent:
Friday, February 27, 2004 1:02 PM
To:
staff
Subject: The AP's latest update on the extension Sorry to flood inboxes, but I know this is of interest to everybody. Considering the next clips will likely come out on Monday, I thought I'd pass it along...
Highway Bill Embroiled in 9/11 Dispute By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON — Nearly 5,000 Transportation Department workers face a furlough on Monday, a possible result of two senators using an expiring highway bill to force House Republicans to accept a two month extension of an independent investigation of the Sept. 11 terror attacks. "We all have a choice here to make," said Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who along with Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., was using the highway bill as leverage to win an extension for the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which is scheduled to finish its work on May 27.
He said the choice was between "minor" disruptions in highway projects and "telling the families of those who died on 9/11 that the commission will not be able to complete its work." President Bush has agreed to extend the commission's work until July 27, but efforts to legislate that action have met resistance among House Republican leaders, including Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-I11. "There are people that have great concerns about extending the 9/11 commission on our side of the rotunda," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said Thursday. One of those concerns is that the findings of the commission, which is studying the nation's preparedness before the attacks and its response, may come too close to the presidential election. Former Gov. Thomas H. Kean of New Jersey, the commission's chairman, said getting an extension was urgent. Without it, he said, "means certain research we're planning to do won't get done, and certain trails we won't be able to follow. Some of our conclusions won't be as informed." Lieberman said the commission had not been able to complete its work because of foot dragging by the administration and stalled highway programs would "pale in significance to not giving the commission the extra time it needs." Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., who supports extending the commission's life, on Friday sought to meet the demands of the two senators by quickly bringing up for a voice vote a bill, approved by the Senate Intelligence Committee on Thursday, that authorizes the two-month extension. But McCain and Lieberman wanted that extension on a bill that the House could not ignore. The existing highway and public transit spending law expires on Sunday, and without a temporary
2/27/2004
Page 1 of 2
Mike Hurley From:
Mike Hurley
Sent:
Monday, February 09, 2004 3:44 PM
To:
Chris Kojm
Cc:
Dan Marcus; Steve Dunne; Mike Hurley
Subject: Further to our talk about Richard Ben-Veniste
Chris, Further to our conversation and with regard to Richard Ben-Veniste's citing what he believes is my position on an extension to Lee Hamilton:
No one from our team recalls either me or anyone else on the team telling Richard Ben-Veniste during our discussion last Friday with Jamie Gorelick and Ben-Veniste that we were urging a 6 month extension.
• The team generally believes that the 2-month extension is really only a 1 month-extension, as we had been planning on submitting the final report at the end of June anyway, and the extension we have reportedly been offered by the WH allows us to submit the final report on July 27. That one month really doesn't give us very much, but our view is that it's better than nothing.
We probably ideally need a 2-3 month extension. We recognize that such an option, however, would thrust us right into the middle of the election season, and that that is controversial.
So the two options seem to be, the current 2-month plan (which in our view gives us only 1 month), or 6 months. Ben-Veniste may have interpreted our view that 1 month is not enough as suggesting that we wanted 6 months. It's not that we want 6 months, or think 6 months are necessary. It's that there appears to be no middle ground here. 6 months would be justified if commissioners wanted us to accomplish certain things. It's really up to them to decide what they want us to produce. But that in turn should be rationally related to the amount of time we're given to the tasks we're assigned.
For anyone who's interested, I'd summarize my position as follows:
2/9/2004
o
In general, if commissioners want us to do more, then they should be prepared to give us more time in which to accomplish it.
o
If our only round of policy hearings is the current proposal of 2 days in late March, then we can live with the extension that allows us to turn the final report in on July 27.
o
On the other hand, if commissioners decide that they want more policy hearings, then they should give us more time. Moreover, any additional round of policy hearings should not be scheduled before, say, mid-May, so as not to interfere with us devoting the substantial time required to prepare for the late March round and to complete our monograph in April.
o
If commissioners want us to circle back and re-interview a number of people we've
Page 2 of2 already interviewed for the purpose of really nailing down factual disputes, nuance, and in general ensuring a full and comprehensive factual investigation that is not conducted under time pressure and tight deadlines, then they should give us more time. o
If commissioners want us to produce, in addition to our monograph and our part in the final report, a comprehensive, bipartisan CT strategy for the country, one that incorporates ideas/elements/measures that go beyond anything the USG has produced to date, then an additional few months would be desirable to accomplish that.
o
I think the more time we have the better the job we can do overall and the higher quality the final, national report will be. The driving factor in all of this should be our common desire to produce the best national report possible. That goal should have priority over anyone's schedule—commissioner or staff member.
o
That said, we'll clearly take our taskings from commissioners as conveyed through the front office.
Mike
2/9/2004
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE RG: 148 Exposition, Anniversary, and Memorial Commissions SERIES: Team 3,9/11 Commission NND PROJECT NUMBER:
52100
FOIA CASE NUMBER: 31107
WITHDRAWAL DATE: 11/18/2008
BOX: 00003
FOLDER: 0001
COPIES: 1 PAGES:
TAB: 1
DOC ID: 31205813
2
The item identified below has been withdrawn from this file: FOLDER TITLE: Dialogue with Commissioners DOCUMENT DATE: 02/06/2004
DOCUMENT TYPE: E-Mail Printout/fProfs Notes)
FROM: Hurley TO: Zelikow SUBJECT:
Meeting with Commissions Gorelick and Ben-Veniste
This document has been withdrawn for the following reason(s): 9/11 Closed by Statute
WITHDRAWAL NOTICE
Page 1 of 1
Mike Hurley From:
Chris Kojm
Sent:
Monday, January 05, 2004 1:26 PM
To:
Team Leaders
Cc:
Front Office
Subject:
Re: Possible participation in discussion of an agenda item on seeking an extension
Importance: High The Chair and Vice Chair believe you should stand by for possible participation in a discussion on this topic, but it is not/not now their intent to ask Team Leaders to join that discussion. The agenda item will not/not be changed from its place on the agenda. In other words, it is not coming up now (1:20 PM). It would come up later this afternoon (2:30 or later) We will try to give you a heads up and adequate notice if the schedule changes
1/5/2004
Related Documents
More Documents from "9/11 Document Archive"
Letter To 9/11 Commission About John Kerry
April 2020 0
