WASHINGTON – Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee are undecided on whether to back President Bush’s nominee to head the CIA, Republican congressman Porter Goss, saying that so far he has failed to convince them that he will be apolitical in running the troubled agency.

During his nearly five-hour confirmation hearing on Tuesday, Mr. Goss repeated a pledge to remain above the partisan fray, if confirmed. In interviews since, Democratic members have remained in attack mode, with Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois criticizing Mr. Goss’s eight-year performance as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

“I’d give him a C+ to a B because I think, though he’s handled it with competence and with the integrity, at a time when we needed to be more aggressive in oversight and more forceful in reforming the intelligence agencies, he did not lead, and I think we needed it, both under President Clinton as well as under President Bush,” said Mr. Durbin.

Following the hearing filled with hostile questioning of the Republican and former CIA case officer from Democrats, Senator Feinstein of California said she was not sure whether she is being asked to confirm the “fair, reasoned, knowledgeable” Porter Goss who co-chaired the joint congressional probe into September 11 or the partisan player who during the summer made “highly charged comments.”

Democrats have been especially offended by an attack by Mr. Goss in the summer from the floor of the House on their presidential candidate, John Kerry.

Mr. Goss, who resigned this summer as chairman of the House intelligence committee, is expected to win Senate confirmation to the CIA post when the nomination comes up for a floor vote, possibly next week. Most Democrats beyond the intelligence panel are expected to join the Republican majority in the Senate to approve the nomination, fearing that unless they do so they risk being tagged obstructionist.

Mr. Goss, backed by the White House, has pursued an aggressive behind-the-scenes lobbying campaign to persuade as many Democrats as he can to vote for him when his nomination reaches the Senate floor. Republican Senate aides calculate that he would have met privately with at least 50 senators before the floor vote, including the senate minority leader, Tom Daschle, of South Dakota and the minority whip, Harry Reid, of Nevada.

Capitol Hill staffers say that Mr. Goss’s demeanor during the hearing irritated some Democrats, along with his tendency to say that his record spoke for itself when pressed on his initial opposition to the September 11 commission and his support of cuts on intelligence spending in the 1990s rankled the Democrats.

In the hearing, several Democrats accused Mr. Goss of dismissing their questions. “Whoever briefed you for this hearing and said that when you get in a tight spot over something you have said or done, keep repeating ‘the record is the record,’ did you no great service,” remarked Mr. Durbin.

The panel’s Democrats will decide after a closed session of the committee on Monday whether to support the nomination or to withhold their backing.

Meanwhile, House leaders yesterday promised to complete an overhaul of the intelligence community before returning to their districts to campaign for re-election, while Senate leaders unveiled an intelligence reorganization proposal that they want approved before the end of the month.

Senator Collins, a Republican of Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, says her panel will vote next week on legislation that would create a national intelligence director with spending authority over all nonmilitary intelligence agencies.

The proposal, which is being cosponsored by Senator Lieberman of Connecticut, the panel’s ranking Democrat, is not totally in line with the recommendation of the 9/11 commission, which wanted an intelligence tsar with control over all military and nonmilitary agencies. The Collins-Lieberman plan would leave the Pentagon controlling the Defense Intelligence Agency and other intelligence agencies solely used by the Pentagon or the military.

The intelligence-reform plans in the House are not as advanced as the Senate’s, and so far there is little agreement on the responsibilities and reach of an intelligence tsar.