[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 13 (Thursday, February 5, 2004)]
[Senate]
[Pages S610-S611]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
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 24\1/2\ 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.
[[Page S611]]
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.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
____________________