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:

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

2/9/2004
 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 TAB: 1 DOC ID: 31205813

COPIES: 1 PAGES: 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