[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 1]
[Senate]
[Pages 1119-1120]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  THE PRESIDENT'S INTELLIGENCE PROGRAM

  Mr. ALLARD. Mr. President, I want to take just a moment to say a few 
words in support of the President's intelligence program and associate 
myself with the comments that have been made both by the Senator from 
Georgia as well as the Senator from Kentucky. They focused a lot on the 
legal arguments, but I thought perhaps I would approach this from what 
is best for the security of this country and how the American people 
are reacting to the President's intelligence program. I will have to 
base my observations on town meetings I have recently held in Colorado. 
I had several town meetings. I think they help me better understand the 
issues of importance to my constituents, and I think my constituents in 
Colorado are a cross-section, pretty much, of the United States.
  Interestingly enough, the top issues facing most Coloradans at those 
town meetings had to do with the war in Iraq, whether we should be in 
the conflict or not; the Federal deficit--we had a lot of discussion 
about getting the debt in order, getting the deficit in order--and 
obviously, because we are a cold weather State, there was a lot of talk 
about the cost of energy and our continued reliance on foreign energy 
resources.
  The National Security Agency surveillance program was not a top 
issue. Indeed, it was hardly mentioned. This tells me a couple of 
things. First, it tells me that Coloradans are not particularly alarmed 
by the use of those tools that seem to be used by the President which 
are creating so much objection from the other side of the aisle. I 
think most Coloradans view this as just a commonsense thing. They know 
it is important to national security and we have to conduct such a 
program. They understand that we need to protect this country. I think 
they understand this Nation is at war. It is at war with terrorism. And 
I think they are beginning to understand, as I am beginning to 
understand, that this didn't start with 9/11, it started in the 1990s--
maybe even as far back as 1979 when we began to have terrorist attacks 
on embassies and ships and planes and various symbols of prosperity in 
the Western World. Unfortunately, it took a devastating attack such as 
9/11 for us to really begin to realize that this war is a war to the 
finish.
  In the 9/11 attack there were more people killed than at Pearl 
Harbor. This was a serious assault on America. It was an attack on 
America. We began to realize that al-Qaida is not interested in talking 
about peace. As a group of extremists, they are not interested in 
conducting diplomatic relations. They don't want to compromise. They 
are fanatics who only want to kill, maim, and destroy.
  Al-Qaida is a very sophisticated enemy that operates in dozens of 
countries, including the United States. They have global reach, as seen 
by their bombings in London, Madrid, and Jordan. This organization 
works clandestinely, in the shadows, and is very hard to track much 
less to stop. Most Americans realize that. We have been fortunate that 
we have not been attacked again since September 11. We

[[Page 1120]]

all know those attacks could come at any time, but that does not make 
these attacks inevitable. These terrorists can be stopped. We have the 
tools at our disposal that we can and must use to defeat al-Qaida. The 
President's use of the National Security Agency program has to be one 
of those.
  Let's be clear. The President promised after September 11 that he 
would direct every resource at his command--whether it is diplomatic, 
intelligence, or military tools--to disrupt and defeat the global 
network of terror. Americans all over stood up and praised him for 
stepping forward. The media praised him for stepping forward because we 
all realized this was unprecedented in American history, and it could 
not be ignored. It had to be addressed immediately.
  The terrorist surveillance program is a very important tool in that 
effort. The program is narrowly focused. It only targets communications 
when one party is outside the United States and the reasonable 
information suggests that at least one party is a member of al-Qaida or 
an affiliated terrorist group. This program is not being used to listen 
in on communications of innocent Americans. Those people who want to 
put a slant against this program, they call it a domestic program. It 
is not a domestic spy program. It is an extension of our information 
gathering outside the borders of the United States. It just so happens 
that we have people in the United States who have aligned themselves 
with those terrorist groups to harm American citizens.
  I think most Americans understand that if they want to have a secure 
home, if they want to have security for their families, these 
individuals have to be followed and we have to do what we can to 
prevent these catastrophic, terrorist-driven events from occurring.
  The President takes full responsibility for moving forward. He even 
mentioned it in his State of the Union Address. But he has done it in a 
responsible way. He has followed the reauthorization process every 45 
days to ensure that innocent Americans are not being targeted and that 
the program is working successfully. Republican and Democratic leaders 
of the Congress have been briefed on this program more than a dozen 
times since 2001, and no Member of Congress, Republican or Democrat, 
expressed any concern about this program until it was reported publicly 
in the press last December.
  Here is a problem that this brings up: so many times reports about 
these intelligence programs, when they come out in the press, are 
wrong. I have served on the Intelligence Committee. I have taken the 
opportunity to be briefed on these intelligence programs. But most of 
what shows up in the press out there is wrong. Those of us who really 
know the story and would respond cannot respond because in the process 
of response you may actually validate the fact that it is an 
intelligence program--which you don't want al-Qaida or the terrorists 
to know. And the other thing is, if you respond to those accusations 
that are made in those news articles that are wrong, you have to bring 
out the facts which just fully discloses what our intelligence program 
is. With full disclosure, then you tip off the terrorists as to what we 
are up to.
  I think it has been reported time and time again in the testimony 
before our committees that it is hurting our intelligence program. We 
are not gathering the information that we were gathering before 
because, in effect, the terrorists have simply shut down because they 
have realized what has happened and what our capabilities are in 
gathering this intelligence. At times, with disclosure of some of these 
intelligence programs, we have actually had Americans who are in the 
process of collecting information die as a result--perhaps individuals 
overseas who are acting on behalf of the United States.
  We need to protect this tool because we all know that the enemy 
listens. They have not stopped their intelligence gathering and would 
love nothing better than for us to begin a discussion about the 
operational aspects of these sensitive programs. Compounding this 
difficulty is the fact that many of the press reports, according to 
Attorney General Gonzales, have in almost every case--and he confirms 
what I just said--been misinformed, inaccurate, or just outright wrong.
  I support the President. I believe it is a responsible tool to use in 
the war against terrorism. If we do not use it, we are going to lose 
our ability to secure the homes of Americans. I think most Americans 
understand that. We must use these tools provided by law to combat our 
continued threat. We cannot sit and hope that terrorists will not 
attack us again.
  We should not play into the hands of the terrorists. We now see the 
danger in front of us. We see what must be done. We simply must go out 
and do it and do it in a responsible way. The President's intelligence-
gathering program is effective and it is responsible to support him if 
we want to have security for our families and our homes.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent I may have 15 
minutes to speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has that right, so he may proceed 
without objection.

                          ____________________