A spirit of bipartisanship returns to the Intelligence Committee

I was on Capitol Hill last week to testify before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI). Except for briefly stopping by the House floor last February, this was my first time back in Congress since December 2020, just days before my retirement after 28 years representing my district on Long Island. HPSCI Chairman Mike Turner had invited me, along with four other retired members — Democrats Jane Harman and Jim Langevin and Republicans Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and Frank LoBiondo — to discuss our experiences on the Intelligence Committee and our recommendations for the committee going forward. Besides any policy ideas we might have, Chairman Turner’s main goal was to have us show a spirit of cooperation to help him and Ranking Member Jim Himes restore a bipartisan framework to the committee.

I served on the Intelligence Committee for nine years, through 2018. Having access to our nation’s most sensitive secrets and working directly with so many players from our intelligence community and throughout the world was an incomparable experience. And while I am never one to say that Congress was all peace and harmony when I was there, no matter how severe the political storms, the Intelligence Committee was a veritable oasis of calm — until that all ended in 2017, when HPSCI became a political war zone. The spark for this partisan firestorm was the accusation of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. There was hearing after hearing, allegation after allegation, and a seemingly endless line of witnesses. There was hardly agreement on anything. Heated exchanges among members became the new norm. Following closed-door secret hearings with key witnesses, committee members would race to cable outlets, especially CNN. (Not intending to reignite that firestorm, I will only state that I never saw credible evidence of any collusion.)

All this was so different from my previous years on the committee, when consensus was the rule rather than the exception. Don’t get me wrong: There were serious differences on serious issues, such as NSA intercepts, Benghazi and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq. But the discussion and debate were civil, with the goal being to reach agreement or understand the opposing view. On overriding issues, such as the overall intelligence community budget, there was always general consensus.

I was term-limited off the committee after 2018, but from what I could view from the outside, the partisan fever only worsened, especially when the committee, now under Democratic rule, played a lead role in the Ukraine impeachment proceedings against President Trump in the fall of 2019. By all accounts the acrimony and division continued through 2022, and that was the situation Mike Turner confronted when he assumed leadership of the committee in January of this year.

When I spoke with Chairman Turner back in February, he told me how important it was to restore civility to the committee. He has acted on that goal. He and Ranking Member Himes do joint television interviews. Committee members have joined in bipartisan delegation visits to world hot spots. And the overall tone is one of cooperation.

Last week’s hearing was held in the hallowed Cannon Caucus Room. Meeting beforehand in the committee anteroom, the former members greeted each other, caught up on what we’ve been doing lately, and expressed our strong support for what the chairman and ranking member were attempting to achieve. That attitude prevailed at the public hearing. In my testimony, I urged the committee to keep a sharp focus on Islamist terrorism to prevent another 9/11 and emphasized the absolute necessity of working together in bipartisan cooperation. Ironically, as we were emphasizing the need for cooperation and going forward in a united effort, there was a revolt on the House floor by the Freedom Caucus against Speaker Kevin McCarthy, preventing any legislative action that day or for the rest of the week. That discord was in sharp contrast to the cooperation and good faith that prevailed at the Intelligence Committee that morning. With the leadership of Chairman Turner and Ranking Member Himes, I am hopeful and confident that this sense of bipartisan cooperation at the Intelligence Committee will continue.

Peter King was the U.S. representative of New York’s 2nd and 3rd congressional districts for 28 years, including serving as chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security. Follow him on Twitter @RepPeteKing.