A bad day in the Senate

Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Madam President, I have to declare myself absolutely
a series of things: furious, double-crossed, misled, minimized--in
terms of my role as a Senator and as chairman of the Intelligence
Committee--shocked by the arrogance of the technique that was used
between the White House and the minority leader to say to Republicans,
after weeks in which Vice Chairman Bond and I worked out a compromise
on a managers' amendment on which we worked in good faith--I dropped
things he did not like, he dropped things I did not like--but it was a
genuine effort.

Vice Chairman Bond, whom I respect greatly, stood here praising the
managers' amendment. Then the word came down from the White House--not
from Vice Chairman Bond but from the White House--through the minority
leader, that this vote was to be a test of Republican Party loyalty and
that therefore all Republicans were instructed to vote against it.

In all of my years in the Senate, and certainly all of my years on
the Intelligence Committee, I have never seen something so repugnant,
putting politics over national security. That is the bottom line.
Politics was put over national security.

An order came down: This is a test of Republican Party loyalty. When
it comes to that, by golly, you put politics over national security....

But this act of cynicism, this act for the third year in a row,
blocking intelligence legislation is beyond me. We all understand
nothing can happen in military action without intelligence leading the
way in; to scout out the territory, to get the feeling, to get through
language skills, et cetera, to get the feeling of what is going on so
we know what we are getting into.

I will not get into the importance of intelligence for Iraq or
Afghanistan, but this is a real crusher. I am not shocked or
discouraged with the intelligence. I am more fired up than ever on
intelligence. I am shocked because something like this happens in the
United States Senate for any reason at any time. I have been in this
body for 24 years.

I have been in this body for 24 years, and on one occasion a majority
leader called me at home--I happened to be shaving, and it was not a
convenient phone call--and asked me to vote against a particular piece
of legislation, which I was going to vote against in any event. That
has never happened since then. Not once have I been instructed by my
party or by my minority or majority leader to vote a certain way.

Yet when it comes to national security, to funding intelligence
agencies, where we change the authorities, where we spent weeks in
trying to work out hard problems, and did so in the managers'
amendment, with more amendments to come, which we would have agreed to,
to alleviate the White House's concern--the White House decided they do
not like oversight. Well, I understand that. When I was a Governor, I
did not like oversight. Nobody likes oversight, but it is our
constitutional responsibility. We do not have that choice. We have that
duty.

One of the great things about the Intelligence Committee is it has
come together in recent months to accept this responsibility and to
reach out and take hold of it with a vigor and a lust that makes us
want to do more--but not to overdo but to do. Then along comes this
vote.

It certainly is the most disappointing day, the most disappointing
vote, the most disappointing sign of where we are in this country--the
most disappointing sense of the relationship between the executive
branch and the legislative branch--the failure of the realization we
exist for a reason, that we work hard, getting ready for this vote
because we had a chance to do it. Then comes down the instruction: No.
Politics trumps national security. Prove you are a loyal Republican.
Vote no.

It is not a good day in the Senate.