Mr. President, I thank our leader for bringing this matter to the floor. I join with the very distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee because that is what we really ought to be about. We ought to be focused on winning the war against terrorism, not allowing one of our primary, sensitive committees, the Intelligence Committee, to be focused on winning the White House. I can't say it any better than the Senator from Virginia. We have heroic young men and woman in harm's way fighting to bring order to a region of the world where we have had many threats to our security. The least these brave men and women could expect would be that our country and our Congress would be behind them.

 

Frankly, one of the reasons I sought membership on the Senate Intelligence Committee as a new member was I realized that in this critical battle against terrorism worldwide, we cannot win unless we have the best possible intelligence.

 

As I understand it, the job of the Intelligence Committee is not only one of oversight but of taking a look and seeing what has happened in the intelligence-gathering analysis and sharing in the past, how we can do a better job. Our staffs have been deeply engaged in this exercise for many months. We have followed it. We have had numerous hearings. We have read some, but not all, of the tens of thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of pages that have come before us. We need, on a bipartisan basis, to be able to find out how we can improve that intelligence.

 

One of the reasons the Intelligence Committee is so special is the tradition it has. The intelligence community members, whose lives are at risk because of what they are doing--often undercover work, dealing with classified, sensitive subjects--have been able to come before the committee in the past, knowing they could count on confidentiality, professionalism, and on a body that was not going to be using their words or their actions for partisan political gain.

 

Unfortunately, when we first saw this memo, it looked as if there was somebody, or ``somebodies,'' in the Intelligence Committee who wanted to use it to win the White House. That is just unacceptable. Some people on the other side have said this is just an options memo tossed up for review. I have been around here for a few years, and a staff person on his or her own doesn't write a memo saying: We have carefully reviewed our options under the rules and we believe we have identified the best approach. Our plan is as follows.

 

I say that the occupant of the chair, and probably everybody else here, would be totally stupefied if they got a memo from the staff that was supposed to be an option memo and said: This is our plan. This is not an accident. Days have passed and there have been no consequences. If somebody was really off base, there would have been something that would have happened. Some steps would have been taken. As the distinguished majority leader has pointed out, nothing has happened. Unfortunately, too many of the actions we have seen seem to fit right in with this plan. Not only are they not disavowing it, they appear to be preparing to implement it, or are in the process of implementing it.

 

What is this plan? Is it to find out how the intelligence gathering could be better? Not likely. In addition to the President's State of the Union speech, they say, they want to look at the activities of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, as well as Secretary Bolton's office at the State Department. They want to go after political figures.

 

Somebody in my office said, ``This looks like a political witch hunt.'' I said maybe that is not a bad way to characterize it.

 

They are going after political scalps, not trying to find out whether the intelligence that we received, the White House received, the Department of Defense received, and the State Department received was good, but how they can use the process of the Intelligence Committee to win political points.

 

By the way, when they talk about ``when we can pull the trigger''--pull the trigger on an investigation--they say the best time to do so will probably be next year.

 

If I remember correctly, that happens to be a general election year. That would seem to square with some of the statements made by the many Democratic Presidential candidates who want to raise questions, who want to attack the President, using the process of the Intelligence Committee.

 

 

One of the things that is really bothersome is that they are not just speaking to an audience in the Senate. When they launch these attacks, these attacks get carried across the Nation and across the world. They get back to the people we are trying to fight. Do you know something? There is nothing a terrorist likes better than seeing discord, disharmony, and political infighting among the people they are trying to terrorize. That is one of the victories of terrorists. If they can tie up the intelligence-gathering operation, which is so critical for the protection, first and foremost, of our soldiers on the front line, but ultimately our allies and ourselves--if they can see that tied up in a political Gordian knot, then they know they are winning.

 

I strongly support what the majority leader has said. I strongly believe that our fine chairman has not only gone the extra mile, he has gone the extra mile and a half.

 

Some on the other side said we have not been able to get the information we want. When we have found we could not get information, the chairman has demanded it and we are going to get it. When they want to ask questions, they can do so. When they want to call witnesses, they can call witnesses.

 

There has been a suggestion that there was pressure on intelligence community members. The chairman has gone out and asked publicly of the intelligence community, if anybody has any information or concerns that they have been pressured, to come forward and talk to staff. We have set up elaborate procedures so they can come forward. We are still waiting. If we find any of that, we will certainly let it out.

 

In the meantime, it is time for us to get back to the job of the Intelligence Committee--how we can support, rather than tear apart, our intelligence-gathering system. It is with great regret we note that we have gone down this path and there doesn't seem to be any remorse or disavowal from the other side.