Data Source and Collection

The primary data for this research project focuses on key texts that record the rhetorical reform debates of the post-reporting phase of the 9/11 Commission’s inquiry process. This includes the official transcripts of the legislative debate of both Houses of

3.4.1 Source of data

Congressional efforts to act on the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, legislating the largest reorganisation of America’s intelligence community since the start of the Cold War, is contained in the official record of the debate and proceedings of the United States House of Representatives and United States Senate. This official source is referred to as the Congressional Record. These transcripts provide a verbatim record of the legislators’ rhetorical strategies both in support and in opposition to the legislative embodiment of the Commission’s recommendations. This includes debates in the Senate of the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (S.2845) and the House of Representatives debates of the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (H.R.10). The breakdown of the legislative debate schedule for these two pieces of legislation, and the respective debate transcript lengths are outlined in Table 3.1 below.

TABLE 3.1 - Schedule of Congressional Debates: H.R.10 & S.2845

Legislative Activity Date (2004) Transcript Length(words) US Senate

US Senate US Senate

Introduction: S.2845 23 September ---

Day 1: Senate Debate on S.2845 27 September 32,286 Day 2: Senate Debate on S.2845 28 September 38,576 Day 3: Senate Debate on S.2845 29 September 59,833 Day 4: Senate Debate on S.2845 30 September 70,559 Day 5: Senate Debate on S.2845 1 October 79,523 Day 6: Senate Debate on S.2845 4 October 91,010 Day 7: Senate Debate on S.2845 5 October 44,571

Legislative Activity Date (2004) Transcript Length(words) US Senate

US Senate US Senate

Day 8: Senate Debate on S.2845 6 October 60,801 Day 9: Senate Debate on S.2845.

Senate passes amended S.2845 8 December 99,128 US House of Representatives

US House of Representatives US House of Representatives

Day 1: House Debate: H.R.10 6 October 182,198 Day 2: House Debate on S.2845.

House passes amended S.2845 7 December 52,137

Total Congressional Debate 810,622 Total Congressional Debate 810,622 Total Congressional Debate 810,622

There are two elements of the information contained in Table 3.1 that require explanation. First there is a dramatic difference in the amount of debate on the

respective bills between the House of Representatives and the Senate. This is due to the way each chamber conducts business and the different rules and procedures that

regulate debate, as will be discussed in the following chapter. The second is the time between the second last and last days of debate in both Houses. At the end of Day 8 of Senate Debate, S.2845 and at the end of Day 1 of the House Debate, H.R.10 there is a considerable time gap. During this time a conference committee met to negotiate a compromise between S.2845 and H.R.10, as the bills contained significant differences. The conference committee process is explained in greater detail in the next chapter as well.

These debates represent a lengthy series of rhetorical actions on behalf of legislators either supporting or opposing the changes recommended by the Commission. These

rhetorical acts are captured in text in the form of verbatim transcripts. These transcripts are freely accessible by the public and the lawmakers are aware that their comments are public and can be scrutinised. Filler (2001) identifies three functions of legislative debate. First the rhetoric employed during a debate can act to persuade other legislators to take or change a position on the particular item of legislation. Second, the debate can persuade a legislator not to change his opinion on the issue, but rather that voting in a particular manner would be politically advantageous. In this instance the debate can reflect public opinion or shape public opinion in such a way as to indirectly influence the votes of other representatives. Filler (2001) notes that “[i]n Congress particularly, where legislative debates are nationally televised, legislative rhetoric is particularly capable of capturing public attention and captivating voter interest” (p. 324). Finally, these debates are educational opportunities for the media and the public, as legislators are expected to understand and articulate the details of the particular public policy option under discussion. As such, the speeches of legislators are rhetorical in nature, in that their intent is persuasion. Legislators engage in these rhetorical acts to persuade others that their view of the issue is legitimate and it is these rhetorical sources of legitimacy that are of particular interest to this research project.

3.4.2 Characteristics of the data

The body of textual data derived from the transcripts of the Senate debate on S.2845

was different from the body of textual data derived from the transcripts of the House debate in two important ways. First, the debate in the Senate was significantly longer than the debate in the House. As outlined in TABLE 3.2 above, the Senate debate

generated approximately 576,287 words of transcription; whereas, the House debate generated only 234,335 words. Second, the number of opponents to the legislation in the Senate was quite small. This is reflected in both the first Senate vote on S.2845 in which only two Senators (Byrd, Hollings) voted against the legislation as well as the second vote of the Conference Report S.2845 in which again only two Senators (Byrd, Inhofe) voted against the compromise legislation. With such a small number of opponents, the researcher sought out Senators who resisted the legislation initially, analysing their rhetorical strategies for de-legitimating the reform-agenda, if only temporarily. In the House of Representatives, Speaker of the House, Representative Dennis Hastert was the sponsor of the Bill and there was a total of twenty-six co-

Sponsors. Numerically, there was considerably greater opposition in the House than in the Senate. The final votes on HR.10 and S.2845 were 282 ‘For’-134 ‘Against’-17 ‘Not voting’ and 336 ‘For’-75‘Against’-22 ‘Not voting’ respectively. This section of the chapter has detailed the source and scope of the dataset. Next, Section 3.5 details the coding and analysis of this dataset.