Keeping Politics Out of Intelligence Committee Function

KEEPING POLITICS OUT OF INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE FUNCTION

Mr. LOTT. Mr. President, let me first commend and congratulate Senator Roberts, the chairman of our Select Committee on Intelligence, for the leadership he is giving on that very important committee. It is a very important and difficult assignment.

I thought his statement today was a very good one. I jokingly said, but I meant it sincerely, I could not quite tell when he went from quoting Churchill to speaking for himself because the eloquence was very close.

He makes a plea that is so important, and that is: Do not prejudge what the subcommittee is going to do. Members of the Intelligence Committee should not prejudge the information we are going to receive in the staff report. We should work together to see what we have and what conclusions we reach and what should be done. That is our job.

I acknowledge that this is another in a series of what has been described in many different ways but I just refer to it as "oops" hearings-oops, we missed something here. But it has been going on for years.

There was not a clear indication of what was happening in the Soviet Union, that they were imploding economically and they did not have the strength we thought they did in the defense area. We had Khobar Towers. We have had a series of events that our intelligence did not pick up. Once again, we find ourselves now, with the 9/11 Commission, working to see what we missed perhaps in our intelligence and law enforcement community before 9/11. It should not be approached, though, with the idea of condemning some particular individual but finding out what happened: Why did we not do a better job? What did we not know? And more importantly, what are we going to do about it?

I am tired of oops hearings that happen after the fact and nothing really changes. Are we going to make a real change this time? Can we do a better job with our intelligence, and our intelligence community? I think we can.

By the way, when we start pointing a finger of blame, we better look in the mirror first. We have had these intelligence committees since the 1970s. We have known that their budget has not been adequate through much of the 1990s. We have known that we lost our ability to have human intelligence, people on the ground. It became politically incorrect in the 1970s to have the head of, say, a financial institution in Buenos Aires to be headed by an American who was an agent, or a journalist who was working for a newspaper but was an agent. We have made it extremely difficult. We have become too caught up in sophistication, thinking we could get enough with satellites or with technology. It is not enough.

I think what we need to do is lower the rhetoric. I know this is a political year, an election year. Everything is going to be somewhat political on both sides, but can we spare one thing, just one thing, from the political agenda? Can we not separate out intelligence and how we support it? Can that not be bipartisan? Now there is a call for an independent commission. We have even dropped "bipartisan." Now it is "independent."

Who decides that it is independent? Some people are indicating if the President calls for an independent commission, one to which he appoints good men and women, that is not independent, but if it is one established by the Congress where we name Republicans and Democrats; that is independent.

Quit the blame game. Ask legitimate questions. Work together. Draw conclusions and, more importantly, take action. Intelligence is so critical. In some respects it is even more critical than defense spending, because if we do not have good intelligence and if we do not have a reliable intelligence apparatus that works with our defense, our men and women are exposed to uncertainty, unknown difficulty, and death.

We are talking about the lives of young men and women. Is it good that we are condemning and revealing information about the quality of our intelligence community while our men and women are today in Iraq, Afghanistan, and all over the world, who are relying on the ability of our agents, the CIA, the DIA, the different organizations we have doing intelligence? Even doing that is dangerous, in my opinion.

We should do our work. I am not happy with the intelligence. I do not think the intelligence was what it should have been. It was inadequate, maybe even inaccurate. But why? There was large agreement not only within our community but also with agencies from around the world.

Has my time expired?

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. MURKOWSKI). The Senator's time has expired.

Mr. LOTT. I believe the Senator from Kansas yielded to me some more of his time, if I could inquire about using an additional 2 minutes.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the majority leader or his designee has 24½ minutes.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I yield myself an additional 2 minutes of time that has been designated for the leader or Senator Roberts. I will be brief because I know Senator Feinstein is waiting.

Mr. ROBERTS. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. LOTT. I would be glad to yield.

Mr. ROBERTS. I think the original order has it that the majority leader or his designee will be recognized for the next 24 minutes. In discussing this with Senator Feinstein, I know she has waited patiently and she has 22 minutes reserved.

I ask unanimous consent that after the remarks of Senator Lott Senator Feinstein be recognized for her remarks and we would reserve the remainder of our time.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection? Without objection, it is so ordered.

Mr. LOTT. Madam President, I conclude by talking about what we should do now. The Intelligence Committee should do its job. We should not jump to conclusions. Let's review the report. Let's do our homework. We pushed so much of it off on our staff, now it is time we do it ourselves. Let's read what is in there and then let's decide what recommendations we are going to make.

Why do we have these committees that are evenly divided? I have studied the history. I have been involved in how the Intelligence Committee works. We have carefully tried to make sure we put our best on that committee and that it is equally divided and that it is not partisan. The same thing in the House. Now it is time we lead and show some direction.

I hope we will take some action. I am for actually making some really aggressive rules. I am not sure our intelligence community is set up properly. I don't like the idea that we have 13 different agencies running around. Who is in charge, who coordinates and asks them and directs them? I think there are some problems there.

Then there are those saying we need an independent commission. The President said we should have one. Let's do everything we can to find out the facts and see the recommendations and take action and reassure ourselves and the American people. Now that is being condemned.

I think we should do our work in the Intelligence Committee. Let the President appoint this independent commission. Let's do this job in a responsible way and not rush to judgment.

There will be efforts today to say, well, the report is totally inadequate, before the Senators even read the report. I realize Senators don't like to have lengthy sessions of reading material to review these recommendations. But never before has it been more important that we do this right.

I think we should make changes. I personally think there need to be some personnel changes. That may not be my decision. But hopefully I can help get a result that will make sure we don't have another, "Oh, my God, what didn't we know?" hearing. This is too serious. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, let's do our job, let's do it in a nonpartisan way, and let's try to keep politics, as much as we can, at least out of Intelligence.

I yield the floor.