[Congressional Record: May 26, 2006 (Senate)]
[Page S5311-S5318]
GENERAL MICHAEL V. HAYDEN TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will
proceed to a vote on Executive Calendar No. 672, which the clerk will
report.
The legislative clerk read the nomination of General Michael V.
Hayden, United States Air Force, to be Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
Ms. MIKULSKI. Mr. President, there are five criteria I use to
evaluate all executive branch nominees: competence, integrity,
commitment to the core mission of the department, commitment to the
Constitution, and independence. Based on what I know about General
Hayden after working closely with him for more than 5 years, and based
on his testimony last week, I will support his nomination to be
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA. I have no question
about his competence or personal integrity and expect him to remain an
independent voice, committed to the Constitution not just with words
but with deeds.
My confidence in General Hayden should not be interpreted as
confidence in this administration. I have flashing yellow lights about
the Bush administration's willingness to politicize this important
intelligence agency. I am also concerned that this administration
sometimes pays lip service to the law of the land, as we have seen with
recent revelations about the warrantless surveillance program.
In more than 35 years as military intelligence officer, General
Hayden has clearly demonstrated his competence, both in his work as
Director of the National Security Agency, NSA, and as Deputy Director
of National Intelligence. He led NSA at a critical time in the Agency's
history, as the United States took the offensive against those who had
attacked us. He inherited an agency that needed to be transformed: from
its Cold War orientation, from analogue to digital, from concentrating
on the Soviet threat to looking at multiple threats and nonstate
actors. He accomplished this transformation at breathtaking speed. As
Deputy Director of National Intelligence, General Hayden helped stand-
up a brand new intelligence organization, recruiting a top-notch team,
breaking down ``stove pipes'' between agencies, and helping to unify
the entire intelligence community.
I have known and worked closely with General Hayden since 1999, when
he came to NSA. I have no question about his personal integrity. He has
always been a candid reformer. But recent revelations about the
warrantless surveillance program have raised serious questions:
questions about the integrity of surveillance programs that may have
side-stepped the law; questions about a decision at the highest level
to keep most members of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee in the
dark about these programs; and questions about whether a candid
reformer has become a cheerleader for this administration. I discussed
my concerns with Hayden during the confirmation hearing, and he
promised to ``speak truth to power.'' I take him at his word, but the
proof will be in his deeds.
I have no question about General Hayden's commitment to the mission
of the intelligence community. He has worked in almost every aspect of
collecting and analyzing intelligence. But his expertise is technical
intelligence, known as signals intelligence, SIGINT, and the CIA is our
Nation's lead agency for human intelligence, HUMINT.
[[Page S5312]]
These two disciplines have very different challenges, different
technology, and different cultures. Many have asked if a SIGINT expert
is the right choice to lead a HUMINT agency. General Hayden addressed
this question in our hearing. He believes his long career in
intelligence has prepared him for this challenge. He has a plan to
improve HUMINT tradecraft and develop common standards among all HUMINT
agencies, including the Defense Intelligence Agency. He will also
invest in research and development of the cutting-edge technology our
men and women at the CIA need to accomplish their mission. General
Hayden has promised to focus our human intelligence activities on
understanding tomorrow's threats, not just responding to today's
headlines. I believe he will bring to the CIA the same leadership,
passion for reform, and respect for our intelligence workers that he
brought to the NSA. He will be a strong advocate for the CIA as it
struggles to redefine itself.
I have two flashing yellow lights about this nomination. First, I
have serious questions about the Bush administration's commitment to
protecting the Constitution. Second, I believe that we need a CIA
Director who will be independent.
I believe General Hayden is committed to protecting the Constitution
while he works to protect our country from terrorists. But I am
concerned that others in this administration pay lip service to the law
of the land. We all take an oath when we take office. We swear to
support and defend the Constitution of the United States. We don't
swear to a President or to a party. We know there are real threats,
predators, actors who want to kill Americans. And we know that some of
the tools that keep us safe must remain secret. Which is why our
commitment to the Constitution is more important than ever. We can not
protect the American people and ignore their Constitution when nobody's
looking. Support for the Constitution must be more than lip service. We
need a real commitment to put the Constitution first. The Framers gave
Congress the responsibility for oversight over the President's
policies. We must be informed about significant intelligence
activities, as the law requires, so we can exercise our responsibility
to protect the Constitution as we protect our Nation from the threats
we face.
I am very concerned about the independence of the CIA. We need an
independent voice at the CIA, someone who is willing to speak truth to
power to whomever is President and also to the congressional oversight
committees. The last few years have been difficult ones for the CIA, in
part because American people have lost confidence in its leaders. The
Agency has had too many ``yes'' men, too few independent voices. I
asked General Hayden how he would avoid another Powell, when our
distinguished Secretary of State was sent to the United Nations with
wrong information, because CIA analysis had become too politicized.
General Hayden said that his job at the CIA will be to let intelligence
analysts do what comes naturally: provide unvarnished intelligence
analysts, independent of political concerns. He said, ``My job is to
keep anything from getting in the way'' of their work. He promised to
consider implementing a dissent channel to allow intelligence workers
an avenue for expressing their concerns without leaking classified
information to the press.
In conclusion, Mr. President, I believe General Hayden is qualified
to lead the CIA, and I will vote for his confirmation. But I have
serious concerns about how the Bush administration has politicized this
important intelligence agency. The Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence must keep a close eye on the CIA as it struggles to
redefine itself and its role in our reformed intelligence community.
Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I opposed the nomination of GEN Michael
Hayden to serve as Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
General Hayden has many qualifications as an intelligence
professional, but I am sad to say that he is the wrong person for the
job.
Over the last years, the abuse of the CIA by the Rumsfeld Pentagon
and the Cheney White House has hurt our national security and our
credibility around the world, as the CIA was bullied into becoming a
client of administration ideologues, yielding unfounded claims of
``slam dunk'' evidence for mythical weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq.
I am not confident that General Hayden is the person best equipped to
restore the CIA's independence and credibility, not just because he
comes from Secretary Rumsfeld's Pentagon but because he was the
Administration's principal spokesperson and defender of an illegal
domestic spying program.
We are reminded again and again of the administration's determination
to keep the extent of their illegal domestic spying program secret. All
we have to do is look at the news that the Department of Justice
abruptly ended an investigation into the conduct of Department lawyers
who approved the program--not because the approving lawyers were
cleared of wrongdoing but because investigators were denied the
information to conduct the investigation.
The question before us is not whether we are committed to destroying
terrorists and preventing terrorist attacks before they happen. We all
are. In fact, we can wage and win a far more effective war on terror.
No, the question is whether we can restore checks and balances between
the executive and legislative branch and what can be done to restore
accountability for an administration that too often appears run by
people who hold themselves above the law. How many times will
Government secrecy shield decisionmakers from any kind of
accountability?
The fact that General Hayden was the key architect and, more
recently, the principal defender of a program that listened to phone
calls of Americans without a warrant, a program the administration
refuses to come clean about, resides at ground zero of this debate.
The goal of General Hayden's program was appropriate: to find al-
Qaida operatives who would do us harm. But the administration, instead
of relying on the consent of the people through the American Congress
and the court created under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act,
chose, unnecessarily, to assert the President's unfettered authority as
a war-time commander to execute this program.
We must use every tool at our disposal to protect America. But the
administration has no reason to assert unchecked Executive power when
Congress is more than willing to work to create the mechanisms to keep
America safe while we still preserve our essential liberties.
America has been the strongest, safest, most secure Nation on the
planet for more than 200 years without ever having to choose between
security and freedom. We can have both. But it requires an executive
branch that respects the co-equal branches of Government. After the
terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the Nation was united behind
the President. Congress was--and is--prepared to do anything necessary
to win the war on terror and ready to work with the President. If
President Bush believed the domestic eavesdropping laws were
insufficient, then all he had to do was ask Congress to improve them
immediately. But the President didn't do that. Instead, he decided he
was above the law.
General Hayden was the architect of that plan, and to this day he
clings to an unnecessarily expansive interpretation of Executive power.
That is not what America needs in the next Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency.
We take our civil rights very seriously--and we should. It is our
heritage and our birthright--one generation's gift to the next, earned
in the blood of Americans since our revolution.
The mistrust, the anger, the lack of confidence so many Americans
feel about this program is a reflection of our love of liberty.
Regrettably, it is also the result of the way this administration has
conducted itself: asserting its right to act by executive branch
dictate because we are a nation at war. In one moment, the President of
the United States says we are not listening to domestic calls without a
warrant; in another, the Attorney General says he can't rule it out.
We are a nation at war with global jihaadists, a war that, as the
Department of Defense calls it, will be a ``long war.'' Ad hoc and
secret solutions to issues that demand a reasoned balance between
security and the freedom of
[[Page S5313]]
law abiding Americans cannot simply be handed over to the executive
branch--of any party.
This Congress has much work to do before we can say we have
effectively insisted on that balance and done our duty. Before we do,
it would be a mistake to support General Hayden's nomination.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, I intend to vote against General Hayden.
I respect General Hayden's lifetime of public service, and his
testimony included some encouraging signs that he learned important
lessons from the way intelligence was used to defend the Iraq war.
However, I cannot support General Hayden's nomination in light of the
very serious questions about the scope and legality of the NSA domestic
surveillance programs that he helped design, implement, and defend.
Until there is a full accounting of the surveillance program, I
cannot in good conscience support a promotion for its chief architect.
We all want the administration to have strong leaders and the
necessary means to gather the best possible intelligence for our
foreign policy and national security, especially the war on terrorism.
Those critical goals require a Director of Central Intelligence who
will work with Congress--not against us--in our efforts to prevent
terrorism and improve our national security laws. We must protect the
country while preserving our constitutional freedoms.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, today the Senate will vote on confirmation
of three of President Bush's nominations. Once again, the President has
nominated experienced, well-qualified individuals who deserve
confirmation by the Senate.
The President has nominated Brett Kavanaugh to serve as a judge on
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. Mr. Kavanaugh has
extensive experience in the law, having formerly served as a law clerk
to Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. He later served as Associate
White House Counsel, where he worked on a wide variety of legal and
constitutional issues. Mr. Kavanaugh also practiced law as a partner in
the Washington, DC, law firm of Kirkland & Ellis, and most recently
serves as Assistant to the President and staff secretary at the White
House.
Yesterday I voted in favor of the motion to invoke cloture on Mr.
Kavanaugh's nomination, which now allows the Senate to give him an up-
or-down vote. I am pleased that the Senate will now be allowed to vote
on Mr. Kavanaugh's nomination, and I hope the Senate will continue to
give fair up-or-down votes to the other well-qualified judicial
nominees the President forwards to the Senate.
The President has also nominated GEN Michael Hayden as Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency. General Hayden is a career Air Force
officer with a distinguished history of service to our country. His
previous service as Director of the National Security Agency will serve
him well in his new role at the CIA, where I believe he will continue
to be a strong leader in service to our Nation.
Finally, the President has nominated Gov. Dirk Kempthorne to serve as
Secretary of the Department of the Interior. Governor Kempthorne has an
impressive career in public service, having served as a United States
Senator representing the State of Idaho in this body for 6 years. I am
confident that his career of public service and his Western State
perspective will help him be an effective and responsible steward of
our country's public lands, waters, and other natural resources.
Unfortunately, a family obligation prevents me from being present
during these votes. However, I support each of these nominees and, if
present, would vote to confirm them. I therefore ask that the record
reflect my support for each of these nominations.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, had I been present to vote on the
nomination of Gen. Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, I would have cast a vote of ``no''.
I oppose General Hayden's nomination because of his role in the
administration's program to conduct warrantless electronic surveillance
on U.S. persons--a practice I believe is unlawful under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act.
During his nomination hearing before the Senate Intelligence
Committee, General Hayden admitted to participating in the design of
the electronic surveillance program during his tenure as director of
the National Security Agency. And as the Principal Deputy Director of
National Intelligence, General Hayden became the chief advocate for the
electronic surveillance program, even taking the unusual step of
appearing before the National Press Club to defend the Administration's
program.
We are all united in fighting terrorism, but we can do it in a legal
and constitutional way that gets the bad guys and protects our values
and freedoms.
While I oppose the nomination of General Hayden because of the
controversy surrounding the electronic surveillance program, I wish him
the very best and hope that he will turn out to be a strong and
independent leader at the CIA.
But I also hope that the Intelligence Committees in the House and
Senate will conduct careful and thorough oversight over General Hayden
and the CIA to ensure that the civil liberties of U.S. citizens are
protected.
Mr. NELSON of Florida. Mr. President, today I voted to confirm the
nomination of General Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency replacing my friend and Florida colleague Porter
Goss. I voted to confirm General Hayden based on his impressive record
as a career intelligence officer in a broad spectrum of strategic
intelligence activities and programs. He is widely regarded as one of
the most qualified intelligence planners and managers among military or
civilian intelligence professionals.
Despite my vote in favor of his confirmation I remain deeply
concerned that recent revelations regarding domestic intelligence
collection by the National Security Agency may have violated our laws.
In hearings before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence General
Hayden often deferred questions about the program, the President's and
Justice Department's statements about the program, and his own
involvement in the NSA's activity to closed sessions. My Intelligence
Committee colleagues pursued these questions and ultimately recommended
approval of the nomination on a bipartisan 12-3 vote. I still have many
questions about this program and how it was conceived and operated, and
I will continue to seek answers to them. However, General Hayden has
sufficiently demonstrated his objectivity, independence and openness
that I am comfortable with confirming his nomination.
Given the threats our Nation faces today and challenges that our
intelligence system has had coping with those threats, General Hayden
should bring to this position much needed efficient, effective and,
most importantly, independent leadership and management. That should be
good for our intelligence agencies and good for the Nation.
Mr. JEFFORDS. Mr. President, I am casting my vote today in favor of
GEN Michael V. Hayden to be Director of Central Intelligence. General
Hayden has a strong background in intelligence. He has spent his career
in national security and particularly intelligence, serving as
Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director of the
National Security Agency. General Hayden has served overseas in
leadership positions with the U.S. Government in South Korea and
Bulgaria, and is currently Principal Deputy Director of National
Intelligence, serving directly under Director of National Intelligence,
John Negroponte. General Hayden was straightforward in his answers to
tough questions during his confirmation process, showing a clear
command of the issues of national security and the challenges facing
the intelligence community.
The confirmation process has also brought to light General Hayden's
leadership qualities. At this time of change and realignment at the
CIA, strong leaders are clearly needed. The agency has had a difficult
time adapting to the changes in the intelligence community structure
and has suffered a decline in morale and sense of mission. By all
accounts, General Hayden
[[Page S5314]]
will bring a welcome change at the top, hopefully infusing the agency
with a new sense of direction and relevance that is badly needed.
I remain very concerned, however, that the wiretapping activities of
the NSA have been insufficiently investigated. General Hayden insisted
in his confirmation hearings that he was given unequivocal legal advice
each step of the way. I do not doubt that this is true, but I believe
that significant and compelling questions still remain about the
validity of the legal foundation for the wiretapping programs. I have
yet to be convinced that these activities are legal. Even if they are
found to be legal, I question whether we really want our Government to
be engaged in these activities.
But the debate on the NSA activities is far larger than just General
Hayden. This debate must go on in depth and focus on the legal and
policy issues at stake, not on the personalities of those involved.
We need to get the CIA back onto its feet and functioning properly. I
believe that General Hayden is capable of doing that. I trust he will
put his considerable skills to work in earnest on this task, as its
success is critical to our national security.
Mr. CHAMBLISS. Mr. President, the men and women at the CIA today
represent the best intelligence professionals in the world, and they
deserve the best leadership and support. I have known General Hayden
for some time, and I am convinced that he is the right person for this
job.
My initial concern regarding a military officer directing the world's
most sophisticated civilian intelligence agency have been addressed by
General Hayden in private conversation as well as at the public
hearing. The role and mission of the intelligence community at the
Department of Defense where General Hayden has been for over 30 years
is different from the role and mission of the CIA. General Hayden has
convinced me that he can make the transition from the military side to
the civilian side of the intelligence community while continuing to
move the CIA in a positive direction of change and transition.
General Hayden has been instrumental in building our intelligence
capabilities to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Even before
becoming the Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence,
General Hayden has demonstrated his willingness to express his opinion
and speak his mind. His credibility and integrity are second to none.
He brings all these traits to his position as the Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency.
He also brings with him the experience of leading an organization in
transformation when he was at the National Security Agency. Today the
CIA is in transformation to position itself from the preeminent
intelligence organization during the Cold War to becoming an
intelligence organization focused on new threats and national security
issues such as countering terrorism, preventing countries such as Iran
and North Korea from obtaining nuclear weapons, and protecting
America's interests in Asia, Latin America, and elsewhere.
General Hayden will face challenges as he continues this
transformation to ensure that the CIA continues to be the world class
organization it must be to address these threats. This means continuing
efforts to replace the old, risk adverse system that was not positioned
to address the threats we are facing now and may face in the future. It
also means ensuring the Agency does not reverse course by infusing
ideas that previously opposed change, information sharing, or
oversight.
Throughout his career, General Hayden has proven his management and
leadership abilities. He will provide the enthusiastic and dedicated
officers at CIA the ``top cover'' necessary for them to undertake the
innovative approaches to intelligence gathering that is required to
penetrate the hard targets of today, and I am confident he will be able
to keep the CIA moving on the right course.
Finally, General Hayden will head an organization that is responsible
for managing our national human intelligence effort. His military
experience combined with his experience as the Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence will serve him well as he integrates
the human intelligence efforts of the Department of Defense, the FBI,
and others into the National Clandestine Service, recognizing the
requirements and capabilities of those organizations as he establishes
common standards designed to further strengthen our country's
intelligence capabilities.
I believe General Hayden is a qualified and dedicated person to lead
the CIA at this critical juncture, and I look forward to working
closely with him as the Director of the CIA.
Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I will vote against the nomination of
Michael Hayden to be Director of the CIA because I am not convinced
that the nominee respects the rule of law and Congress's oversight
responsibilities. General Hayden is highly experienced and talented.
And some of his testimony before the Intelligence Committee, including
his acknowledgment that the intelligence process was manipulated in the
lead-up to the war in Iraq, was encouraging.
It was therefore particularly disappointing that General Hayden
failed to dispel serious concerns about his direction and defense of a
program to illegally wiretap Americans on American soil without the
required warrants. Having finally been briefed about this program last
week, I am more convinced than ever that this program is illegal. I am
equally convinced that there is no reason that this program could not
have been briefed to the congressional intelligence committees 4\1/2\
years ago, as is required by law. Yet General Hayden expressed no
doubts or concerns about the legality of the program or the
administration's failure to inform Congress.
It is not sufficient for General Hayden to say that the lawyers told
him it was okay. He has an independent obligation to abide by the law.
No one can force him to break the law--not the lawyers and not the
President. Nor were the legal issues especially complex or beyond the
understanding of a very intelligent and experienced intelligence
professional. For years, General Hayden had been conducting
surveillance in compliance with the FISA law. For years, the NSA had
been notifying the congressional intelligence committees about its
programs. Then, one day, everything changes. FISA no longer applies--
and, by the way, don't tell Congress. We know from General Hayden's
testimony in 2002 that he understands the importance of the legal
protections that FISA provides regarding surveillance of U.S. persons.
His decision that it was OK to secretly bypass those protections is
inexcusable.
The Congress must stand up for the law and for our constitutional
system of checks and balances. I believe that the President must be
held accountable for breaking the law and for insisting that he can
continue to do so. I am deeply concerned that, unless this body speaks,
it will be seen by history as having consented to this illegal action.
But those who carried out and defended this program also have some
responsibility. We know, from Attorney General Gonzales' testimony to
the Judiciary Committee, that this administration acknowledges
virtually no limits to its authority. Under the theories put forward by
the administration's lawyers, whenever national security is supposedly
at stake, no laws are binding and Congress is merely an inconvenience.
These assertions are contrary to our constitutional system and they are
dangerous. And they cannot serve as an excuse for experienced leaders
like General Hayden who know better.
My decision to vote against General Hayden is not simply about
responsibility for past conduct, although that is important. I will
vote against this nominee because, given his recent actions and his
less than reassuring testimony, I am not convinced that he will abide
by the laws relevant to the position of the Director of the CIA. When I
asked General Hayden about legally binding restrictions on the
authorities of the CIA, such as those prohibiting the CIA from engaging
in domestic security, he spoke about Presidential authority and
consultations with Government lawyers. That was also his response to
questions about illegal warrantless wiretapping as well. We know what
this administration's lawyers have to say about following the law, and
General Hayden provided no reassurance that he will see things any
differently.
General Hayden's conduct and testimony also raise serious questions
[[Page S5315]]
about his willingness to respect congressional oversight. He was
complicit in the administration's failure to inform the full
congressional intelligence committees about the warrantless
surveillance program, even though this notification is required by law.
In his testimony, he repeatedly failed to explain or criticize the
administration's failure to inform the full committees about the
program. As Director of the CIA, General Hayden would have a legally
binding duty to keep the congressional intelligence committees informed
of CIA activities. If General Hayden does not acknowledge this duty, we
cannot be assured that the Congress will be kept fully and currently
informed, as is required by law.
Finally, I remain concerned about previous misleading testimony by
General Hayden regarding warrantless surveillance and his explanation
for that testimony. In 2002, he told a joint congressional committee
that, under FISA, persons inside the United States ``would have
protections as what the law defines as a U.S. person and I would have
no authorities to pursue it.'' In fact, the President had already
authorized the NSA to bypass those legal protections. General Hayden's
explanation for this statement, that he was speaking in open session at
the time and had earlier given a fuller briefing to the committee in
closed session, does not justify a public misleading statement.
Our country needs a CIA Director who is committed to fighting
terrorism aggressively without breaking the law or infringing on the
rights of Americans. General Hayden's role in implementing and publicly
defending the warrantless surveillance program does not give me
confidence that he is capable of fulfilling this important
responsibility.
The stakes are high. Al-Qaida and its affiliates seek to destroy us.
We must fight back and we must join this fight together, as a nation.
But when administration officials ignore the law and ignore the other
branches of Government, it distracts us from fighting our enemies.
I am disappointed that the President decided to make such a
controversial nomination at this time. In keeping with Senate
historical practices, I defer to Presidents in considering nominations
to positions in the executive branch. I do not believe it is the role
of the Senate to reject nominees simply because they share the ideology
of the person who nominated them. But we should not confirm a nominee
for this position of great responsibility when his conduct and
testimony raise such troubling questions about his adherence to the
rule of law.
(At the request of Mr. Levin, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. ROCKEFELLER. Mr. President, the Senate today considers the
nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to be Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. I support General Hayden's confirmation. He is the
right person to lead the CIA out of a period of turmoil and
controversy.
Without question General Hayden has the necessary credentials. He is
a career Air Force intelligence officer who led the National Security
Agency for longer than anyone in the history of that agency. When he
took over the NSA it was no longer at the cutting edge of information
technology as it had been during the Cold War. Not everything he tried
worked but he led the agency's turnaround. We no longer worry, as we
did in 1999, that the NSA is on the verge of going deaf.
General Hayden left the NSA a year ago to become the Principal Deputy
Director of National Intelligence--the number two job in the new
organization created by Congress to modernize the intelligence
community. He has helped Director John Negroponte start the process of
building a cohesive community from the 16 disparate intelligence
agencies. Now he will have a chance to continue working on that
integration as the Director of the agency that is the lynchpin for U.S.
intelligence, the CIA.
While his qualifications are obvious, General Hayden's selection is
not without controversy. As Director of the NSA he designed and
implemented a warrantless surveillance program, authorized by the
President, to intercept communications inside the United States. The
goal of this program is to find terrorists, something every Member of
this body supports. But the program's questionable legal underpinnings
and the decision to keep it hidden from most Members of Congress have
raised questions about General Hayden's judgment and independence.
I wrote Director Negroponte in February expressing my view that
General Hayden's role in the public defense of the NSA program was
inappropriate for an intelligence official. I reiterated that concern
directly to General Hayden in a letter to him prior to his confirmation
hearing last week. Officials of the intelligence community must avoid
even the appearance of politicization.
General Hayden addressed this issue in his hearing and responded
privately to my letter. After carefully considering his answers and his
response, I am convinced that he believes the NSA program is legal. I
also believe his public appearances were in large part his effort to
defend the men and women of the NSA. I still believe his participation
in the White House public relations campaign was inappropriate, but I
believe his explanation is sincere.
I raise this issue because it gets to the heart of what I think will
be General Hayden's challenge at the CIA--rebuilding the agency's
credibility and reestablishing its independence. The CIA was
established in 1947 to be an independent source of intelligence for the
President and other senior policymakers. We have no less a need for
that independence now than we did then. The Government, both the
executive branch and the Congress, must have intelligence that is
timely, objective, and independent of political considerations. This is
not just a goal; it is the standard set in law.
Unfortunately, over the past few years we have witnessed a pattern of
cynical manipulation of intelligence for political purposes. This
politicization has damaged the credibility of the intelligence
community and undermined America's efforts to deal with critical
national security challenges. General Hayden must take steps to assert
his and the CIA's independence.
The situation in the period prior to the Iraq war must never be
repeated. Administration officials accepted without question any nugget
of intelligence, no matter how poorly sourced, if it supported the
decision to go to war with Iraq. In areas where the intelligence did
not support the administration's preconceived view, such as alleged
Iraqi ties to al-Qaida and the 9/11 attacks, the administration
badgered the intelligence community to find a link, ignored the
intelligence that showed there was none, and set up a rogue
intelligence operation at the Defense Department to aggressively push
the alleged connection.
But perhaps the most blatant abuse of the intelligence process was
and continues to be the leaking and selective declassification of
intelligence information to support particular policy goals. Many of my
colleagues have decried the unauthorized disclosures that regularly
appear in the press. I join them in condemning these damaging leaks.
But it is important to understand that most disclosures of intelligence
information are generated by executive branch officials pushing a
particular policy, and not by the rank-and-file employees of the
intelligence agencies. This has been the pattern of the current
administration, particularly related to Iraq.
Based on his past performance I am sure that General Hayden will
stand up to blatant attempts to influence intelligence judgments. I
also believe he has the character to speak out when he believes the
intelligence process is being misused by senior policymakers.
General Hayden also will need to regain the trust of the Congress.
The administration's repeated refusal to allow effective oversight of
some of the most important intelligence programs has endangered
critical intelligence capabilities and alienated the Intelligence
Committees when their support is most needed. Signals intelligence and
intelligence obtained from detainees are critical elements of our
efforts to detect and stop terrorists. But the administration's ill-
advised attempts to shield these programs from oversight have created
suspicion and undermined public support for our counterterrorism
efforts. Sustaining
[[Page S5316]]
these kinds of intelligence programs over the long term requires the
Congress to be a full partner from the beginning. Our mutual goal
should be to ensure that critical intelligence programs receive the
attention and support they need to be effective.
Some have questioned the wisdom of a military officer serving in this
position. While I want to make sure that General Hayden is outside of
the military chain of command, I am convinced that General Hayden's
military experience will enable him to successfully manage the
important and sometimes difficult relationship between the CIA and the
Department of Defense. As CIA Director he also will be the national
manager of human intelligence collection activities across all
agencies, including the Defense Department. This function is essential
to ensuring effective coordination of our sensitive intelligence
operations overseas. We cannot afford the creation of redundant
capabilities or any confusion as to who is in charge of these delicate
operations.
General Hayden will take over the helm of the CIA at a time of rapid
expansion of the workforce and following a period of dramatic decline
in employee morale. Under his predecessor's tenure the CIA lost many of
its most experienced and talented officers. He will need to move
quickly to convince the current workforce that the days of political
litmus tests are over and experienced professionals will be in charge
rather than political cronies.
I cannot overstate the importance of the job General Hayden is
undertaking. The CIA and our other intelligence agencies are the front
line of our defense. The CIA must find better ways to penetrate targets
such as Iran and North Korea while continuing to adapt to the ever
changing tactics of the international terrorist movement.
The Senate Intelligence Committee's 2004 review of Iraq intelligence
exposed some glaring problems in the collection and analysis of
intelligence. The CIA has been undergoing its own internal review and
has begun integrating the lessons it has learned. It will be General
Hayden's job to see that the CIA embraces the reforms needed to deal
with the challenges of the 21st century. I am confident he is the right
person for the task.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the CIA must at all costs avoid a repeat of
the pre-Iraq war intelligence fiasco, when CIA Director Tenet said the
case for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was a ``slam dunk,'' and
then proceeded to distort and exaggerate underlying intelligence in
order to support the administration's Iraq policy. The CIA needs an
independent Director who will speak truth to power and provide
objective assessments of a professional intelligence community, and not
try to please policymakers by telling them what they want to hear.
General Hayden not only promises to be independent and objective,
General Hayden has proven he has the backbone to do so.
For instance, General Hayden is perhaps the only high-level official
who has criticized the Department of Defense policy office of Douglas
Feith. That office, before the war began, undertook to use a direct
pipeline to the White House for distorted intelligence assessments,
bypassing mechanisms in place which are intended to produce balanced,
objective assessments.
General Hayden has done more than speak openly of his concerns about
the Feith operation. He acted upon them by placing a cautionary
disclaimer on the reporting of his agency relative to the links that
Feith and others were trying to create between Saddam Hussein and al-
Qaida, so that his agency's reports could be misused for that purpose.
Again, speaking truth to power, General Hayden showed independence
when he stood up against the positions being urged by Secretary of
Defense Donald Rumsfeld during the recent reforms of the intelligence
community.
As to the surveillance activities of the National Security Agency,
which General Hayden formerly led, many of us have concerns. But those
concerns as to the legality and as to the decision to implement the
alleged collection of phone numbers called by millions of Americans
should be placed at the doorstep of the Attorney General and the White
House.
I am one of those being briefed on the program, and I have a number
of concerns. But my concerns are with the legality and privacy
intrusions and effectiveness of the program authorized by the
President, and given the legal imprimatur of the Attorney General. I
know of no evidence that General Hayden acted beyond the program's
guidelines as set up by the President and the Attorney General.
I will vote for General Hayden's confirmation.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
GEN Michael Hayden to be the next Director of the CIA.
I support his confirmation first because I think General Hayden's
vision for the future of the CIA is right on point.
He has pledged to make the collection of human intelligence a top
priority--a necessary move in understanding our Nation's enemies and
the threats we face.
At the same time, General Hayden understands the failures of analysis
prior to the Iraq war and is committed to making major changes.
Only time will tell, but I am hopeful that General Hayden has what it
takes to put the agency on the right path after recent collection and
analytic failures.
Secondly, I think General Hayden brings with him the overarching view
of the entire intelligence community needed to carry out the vision and
transition the CIA to deal with the new asymmetric threat posed by the
terrorist world. I think this is critically important at this time.
General Hayden served 6 years as the Director of the National
Security Agency, the largest intelligence agency in the intelligence
community.
He ably led a transformation from a Cold War institution to a key
component of our Nation's counterterrorism efforts.
Additionally, he served as Principal Deputy Director of National
Intelligence under Ambassador Negroponte for the past year.
In this role, he oversaw the day-to-day operations of the Office of
the DNI, and many of the DNI's accomplishments to date can be directly
attributed to General Hayden's service.
Third, I am pleased that General Hayden made a commitment to me to
appoint experienced intelligence professionals to serve on his direct
staff and in senior positions across the agency.
I also support the administration's intention to name Stephen Kappes
as the Deputy Director of the CIA.
Mr. Kappes brings a wealth of experience in the clandestine service
to the agency's senior leadership.
Perhaps more importantly, his return to the agency has already gone a
long way to assure operators that they are well represented in
management and that their concerns will be met.
General Hayden will come to the agency at a time of major personnel
problems.
But he has already taken steps to move the agency beyond the problems
of the past and that is good news.
There is no question that the concerns that have been raised about
General Hayden are legitimate and important.
Before my meeting with General Hayden and his appearance at the
confirmation hearings, I was concerned that he will not be sufficiently
independent of the Department of Defense. On this point, I have been
reassured.
General Hayden has shown his independence in the past, and has
committed that if he finds his uniform to be a hindrance in any way, he
will ``take it off.''
Similarly, the Intelligence Committee will need to pay close
attention to intelligence activities of the Department of Defense,
especially in the area of human intelligence.
I have concerns that the Pentagon is going too far in this area, and
I want to make sure that the CIA remains the leader and primary
provider of this type of intelligence collection.
My greatest concern about General Hayden is that he was not more
forthcoming in his answers during the open confirmation hearing.
Many members asked important questions on the NSA domestic
surveillance program and on detention, interrogation and rendition
policies.
In my view, the public deserved more forthcoming answers than those
provided by General Hayden.
For example, I felt that General Hayden should have stated clearly,
in full
[[Page S5317]]
public view, whether he believes that certain interrogation techniques
constitute torture. He could say yes or no without disclosing sources
and methods.
It is my hope that General Hayden will be more forthcoming once he is
confirmed as Director of the CIA.
The challenge ahead of General Hayden is daunting, but it is
absolutely critical to our nation's security that he succeed.
I believe General Hayden is the sound intelligence professional the
CIA needs to regain its footing as the world's premier spy service and
the hub of our nation's intelligence analysis and research and
development capabilities.
I look forward to working with him to protect the American people.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in several crucial respects, the CIA today
is in disarray, and fixing our premier intelligence agency must be a
top priority. The CIA must become as effective as we need it to be in
combating terrorism and in serving all of our national security
interests. The keys to a strong and competent CIA are the independence
and proficiency of its leadership.
I had a lengthy private discussion with General Hayden in deciding
how I would vote on his confirmation. Our discussion confirmed the
confidence that I have long had in General Hayden's professionalism and
competence. I remain outraged about the controversial domestic
surveillance initiatives that the NSA has overseen at the White House's
direction, but the fact remains that President Bush and Vice President
Cheney--not General Hayden--were the ``deciders'' in ordering this
surveillance of Americans, with then-White House Counsel Gonzales
acting in his capacity to validate a program that was structured and
operated outside the checks and balances of existing law.
The CIA right now is in desperate need of professionalism after the
debacle of the Agency's outgoing leadership, and my discussions with
General Hayden have led me to conclude that he has the competence, the
experience, and the independence to serve capably in helping to repair
the damage that has been done to the Agency. I will vote for his
confirmation.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I rise in support of the nomination of
General Hayden as the new Director of the Central Intelligence Agency.
Based on my review of his long record as a career intelligence man and
his answers to some important questions during his confirmation
hearing, I am hopeful General Hayden will provide the CIA the kind of
non-partisan leadership it has sorely lacked for the past several
years.
And I am also hopeful that this nomination signifies that the Bush
administration has recognized, finally, that professionals, not
partisans should be put in charge of national security.
General Hayden has impeccable credentials and a career in
intelligence matters that is as impressive as it is long. Anyone can
read the public record and quickly see that this man is more than
qualified for this job.
And my personal meeting with General Hayden shortly after he was
nominated only served to reinforce that impression. I met with him
privately--one on one--in my office just off this floor, for more than
45 minutes.
During the course of that meeting, we discussed General Hayden's
career in the Air Force from 1969 until today and his dedicated service
to America's intelligence community that ultimately earned him a fourth
star.
My meeting convinced me that General Hayden understands and respects
the role of Congress in national security matters. He seems to grasp
how essential it is that he consult regularly with the congressional
leadership on these critical issues. And he seems to recognize the need
to keep the congressional oversight committees fully informed about the
intelligence community's activities.
All of these are important because we are a nation at war and actions
by the Bush administration have left our intelligence community--this
Nation's eyes and ears on those who mean us harm in disarray.
As a direct result of this administration's actions, the Central
Intelligence Agency and those it placed under contract have been
directly implicated in numerous instances of abuse of detainees that
have given this nation a black eye around the world and been
counterproductive to winning the fight against terrorism.
The findings of our intelligence community are increasingly
questioned by the American people and the world.
And scores of incredibly talented and experienced career intelligence
professionals have been driven from their jobs because they insisted on
speaking the truth rather than tow the Administration's line.
Things apparently got so out of hand at CIA in recent months that the
President's intelligence advisory board finally had to intervene and
recommend change.
All of these developments have harmed national security and placed
Americans at greater risk. And it is against this difficult backdrop
that the Senate debates the nomination of General Hayden. As Senator
Levin said in the confirmation hearings, ``The next Director must right
this ship and restore the CIA to its critically important position.''
I want to briefly lay out the three major challenges that I believe
General Hayden faces in ensuring that he achieves the success the
Senate expects of his tenure.
The first challenge is independence.
General Hayden needs to speak truth to power and call the shots as he
sees them, not as he thinks his boss wants them seen. Rebuilding the
independence of intelligence also means ending its politicization.
General Hayden must stand up to an administration that has either
attempted to bully the intelligence community into saying what it
wanted or worked around it when it couldn't get the answers it needed.
General Hayden must provide assurances to Congress that intelligence
assessments, and professional intelligence civil servants, will be
protected from outside interference, not politicized.
The second challenge is openness to oversight.
This administration has refused to follow the law and Senate rules
that require keeping the intelligence committees fully and currently
informed of important intelligence practices. Administration ideologues
have apparently authorized detention and interrogation practices that
have backfired in our efforts in the war on terror, and concocted
controversial legal arguments for presidential powers backing a
warrantless surveillance program that circumvents the law--all without
keeping Congress properly informed as required under the law. General
Hayden must ensure that Congress is able to carry out its
constitutional obligations on critical national security matters.
The third challenge is fixing our strategy in the war on terror.
After more than 4 years of the war on terror, Osama bin Laden remains
at large and al-Qaida and other radical fundamentalist terrorist
organizations pose a grave threat to our security. Terrorist attacks
have increased not decreased on this administration's watch. Two of the
three so-called axes of evil are more dangerous today than they were
when President Bush first uttered that memorable phrase and the third,
Iraq, is on the verge of becoming what it was not before the war--a
haven and launching pad for international terrorists. And America's
standing in the world has reached record lows in critical regions of
the world.
In the short run, General Hayden must insist that the Bush
administration redouble and refocus its efforts that go after ``high
value targets''. It is a travesty--a travesty--that nearly 5 years
after 9/11, the Bush administration has not captured or killed Osama
bin Laden. The CIA must lead efforts to understand the challenge posed
by Iran and North Korea and their nuclear ambitions.
General Hayden must also build a global human intelligence capability
over the next several years with diverse officers who understand the
cultures and speak the languages of every key target across the entire
globe. The CIA must play a leading role in understanding how to help
win the battle of ideas going on within the Islamic world, and how to
change the calculus of the young so that new generations of terrorists
are not created.
These are all large and important challenges, with grave consequences
for America and the world. Based on
[[Page S5318]]
everything I have seen I am hopeful he is up to the task. And I am
hopeful this administration will let him do the job for which it
nominated him.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The question is, Will the Senate advise and
consent to the nomination of General Michael V. Hayden, United States
Air Force, to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency?
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
There is a sufficient second.
The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk called the roll.
Mr. McCONNELL. The following Senators were necessarily absent: the
Senator from North Carolina (Mrs. Dole) and the Senator from South
Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Further, if present and voting, the Senator from North Carolina (Mrs.
Dole) and the Senator from South Dakota (Mr. Thune) would have voted
``yea.''
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from California (Mrs. Boxer),
the Senator from North Dakota (Mr. Conrad), the Senator from Hawaii
(Mr. Inouye), the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Rockefeller), and the
Senator from Colorado (Mr. Salazar) are necessarily absent.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
The result was announced--yeas 78, nays 15, as follows:
[Rollcall Vote No. 160 Ex.]
YEAS--78
Akaka
Alexander
Allard
Allen
Baucus
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burns
Burr
Byrd
Carper
Chafee
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Coleman
Collins
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
DeWine
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Feinstein
Frist
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hatch
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Jeffords
Johnson
Kohl
Kyl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lott
Lugar
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Mikulski
Murkowski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Roberts
Santorum
Sarbanes
Schumer
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Snowe
Stabenow
Stevens
Sununu
Talent
Thomas
Vitter
Voinovich
Warner
NAYS--15
Bayh
Cantwell
Clinton
Dayton
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Harkin
Kennedy
Kerry
Menendez
Obama
Specter
Wyden
NOT VOTING--7
Boxer
Conrad
Dole
Inouye
Rockefeller
Salazar
Thune
The nomination was confirmed.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I would like to say a few words about the
nomination of General Michael V. Hayden to be Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. I regret that I was not able to vote to confirm
his nomination at this time, and I would like to take a few minutes to
explain my vote.
As my colleagues may know, I voted to confirm General Hayden when he
was nominated to be the Deputy Director of National Intelligence, DNI.
I stand by that vote for two reasons. First, General Hayden is
obviously qualified on paper to fill the position. Second, he was
serving as Deputy to the current DNI, John Negroponte. So there was a
clear line of authority.
But today when the Senate voted on his nomination to be Director of
the CIA, these two circumstances were significantly different. First,
issues like the potentially illegal wiretapping of American citizens'
phone lines by the National Security Agency--a program which General
Hayden reportedly designed and ran--have come to light. And second, he
will no longer be serving as a deputy but as head of one of our
Nation's premier intelligence agencies--yet he is not resigning his
commission as a uniformed officer. That raises the question of whether
and to what degree he will be independent from decisions made at the
Pentagon.
Some of my colleagues have insisted that Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld will no longer be in the chain of command overseeing General
Hayden in his position at the CIA. Certainly, there is precedent for
uniformed officers serving as head of the CIA. However, when we look at
this precedent we also have to realize that circumstances have changed.
A not insignificant part of the reason that we invaded Iraq is because
our Nation's intelligence was politicized, and because intelligence
activities were manipulated to justify a predetermined conclusion--that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Much of this intelligence manipulation was performed by intelligence
bureaus within the Pentagon, under the supervision of Secretary
Rumsfeld, who has been steadily expanding the Pentagon's role in U.S.
intelligence activities. It would seem to this Senator that given
Secretary Rumsfeld's track record, concentrating intelligence in his
hands would be unwise to say the least.
The truth is that we don't really know how much independence General
Hayden will show with respect to the Secretary of Defense. After all,
he is a military officer, with an active commission. And the record is
mixed with respect to predicting how the cards will fall. On one hand,
there are reports that he stood up to Secretary Rumsfeld and other
political appointees in the President's Cabinet on certain occasions.
On the other hand, he reportedly designed and strongly supported a
program to wiretap the homes of American citizens, whose legality is in
question.
If he was just following orders, these circumstances raise serious
questions about his ability to exercise independence as Director of the
CIA. If, as is widely believed, he was the driving force behind the
NSA's wiretapping program, then I question his ability to balance the
important need to defend our Nation from threats with the equally
important need to protect constitutional rights of all Americans.
I frankly think it is a shame that Congress didn't take a few more
days, or even a couple of weeks, to more deeply probe these fundamental
issues of security and liberty. Indeed, if this body had taken
sufficient steps to get answers about the NSA's wiretapping program,
and if General Hayden had considered leaving his role as an active
military officer during his tenure as CIA Director, then it is possible
that the concerns I mentioned might have been alleviated.
I also regret the fact, however, that President Bush didn't pick
somebody who was equally qualified but not tied in to controversial
programs such as collecting telephone information and listening in to
conversations between American citizens. Because in this time of
difficulty for the CIA, we don't just need someone who is qualified, we
also need someone who is credible. While the extent of General Hayden's
involvement in these activities is as yet unclear, I am concerned that
his role could potentially undermine his ability to carry out his
duties as head of the CIA.
Mr. President, despite some opposition, General Hayden was confirmed
earlier this morning by the Senate. At this juncture, I can only hope
that he proves my concerns to be unfounded. I wish him only the best in
pursuing a goal that I know we all share--the safety and well-being of
American citizens in this time of war.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The President will be immediately notified.
[...]
___________________________________________________________
[Congressional Record: May 26, 2006 (Senate)]
[Page S5323-S5324]
NOMINATION OF GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN
Mr. REED. Mr. President, a short time ago the Senate approved the
nomination of GEN Michael Hayden to be the Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency. I think it was an appropriate confirmation by this
body, but I do think it is also appropriate to comment on the
nomination of General Hayden.
Twenty months ago, I came to the Senate floor to oppose the
nomination of Porter Goss for the same position, as Director of the
Central Intelligence Agency. At that time, I stated that the Director
of Central Intelligence is a unique position. It should stand above
politics. The citizens of the United States have the right to assume
that the Director of Central Intelligence is providing objective
information and analysis to allow the President to make the best
possible decisions.
I didn't believe that a partisan choice was the proper choice then,
and it seems in fact that was the case. Mr. Goss is an example of where
this administration believed that its political agenda was more
important than the security of our country. The CIA was in turmoil
then, and it is in turmoil now. The Agency's assessments were
distrusted then and are still subject to skepticism now. Many more
experienced operatives have resigned. Mr. Goss, a political operative
chosen by President Bush to lead the Central Intelligence Agency
through a difficult period while engaged in a war, failed in this
mission. So the administration is trying again.
This time, the President has chosen an intelligence veteran. General
Hayden has served our Nation for the past 37 years as a distinguished
intelligence officer in the U.S. Air Force. He has most recently held
positions as Director of the National Security Agency and the Principal
Deputy Director of National Intelligence. General Hayden is well versed
in intelligence matters, he is well known in the community, and I do
not believe he is a partisan political operative. There is evidence
that General Hayden has been and can be independent and objective.
General Hayden is a better choice, a much better choice, than Mr. Goss.
However, I still have some concerns.
First, there has been much discussion about General Hayden's position
in the military and his ability to be independent from the Defense
Department in his assessments and in his operations. While the law has
always allowed a military officer to serve in this position, I believe
there is a valid reason for concern. The fiscal year 2007 national
Defense authorization bill addresses this issue. It states that flag
and general officers assigned to certain positions in the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence and the CIA shall not be subject to
the supervision or control of the Secretary of Defense or exercise any
supervision or control of military or civilian personnel in the
Department of Defense, except as authorized by law. I believe this is
an important provision and only one reason the Defense authorization
bill should be considered as soon as possible, to get this position on
the books of law.
However, I also believe we have to go a step further. I think if a
military officer is chosen as the Director of National Intelligence or
Director of Central Intelligence, that position should be a terminal
assignment. That position should be recognized by the officer and by
other members in the Department of Defense and the administration as
the final assignment of that particular officer. I believe it best for
our national security if an officer who takes one of these top
intelligence positions is free from considerations about his future
military career--what
[[Page S5324]]
assignments he might be given, who he might be angering in the
Department of Defense, who he might be pleasing within the Department
of Defense, either consciously or subconsciously.
As I said earlier, intelligence should be above politics, and it also
should be above the politics within the Pentagon of assignments and of
budgets and of other considerations. A law stating that the position as
Director of Central Intelligence or National Intelligence is a final
military assignment would help clarify this position in detail. It is
an issue I will raise again during the consideration of the Defense
authorization bill.
General Hayden has agreed, in consultation with Senator Warner and
also in consultation with his family, that it is his intent to make
this his final military assignment. I have no doubt that he will do
that, but I believe it is important to formalize this provision in the
law. That is why I will bring this to the attention of our colleagues
when the Defense authorization bill comes to the floor.
There is another issue, of course, that is of concern. That issue is
the administration's terrorist surveillance program. General Hayden
headed the National Security Agency when the program was proposed and
implemented. From what we know today, that program conducted electronic
surveillance of international telephone calls and collected millions of
domestic phone records. Let me be clear. A vote in support of General
Hayden should not be construed as an endorsement of this
administration's surveillance program. Nor should concerns about the
administration's programs be viewed as an unwillingness to adopt
aggressive intelligence activities against those who truly threaten
this country. I believe we still do not know enough of the facts about
these programs. From what I do know, however, I have grave concerns.
A thorough investigation must be conducted and must be conducted in a
timely manner, but General Hayden was not the creator of the program,
nor was he the one to provide the legal authority for the program. He
stated he needed authority to implement such a surveillance program and
the administration provided him with the authority he felt was
sufficient. On this issue, at this time I will give General Hayden the
benefit of the doubt.
I did support the nomination of General Hayden. I am certain he knows
he is taking a very difficult job at a very difficult moment.
Many other honorable men and women have joined this administration.
They have come to this administration with years of experience and
expertise, and they have found themselves in very difficult dilemmas,
where their experience and their expertise was challenged by this
administration. Their objectivity, their sense of duty--not to a
particular President but to the country overall--has been seriously
challenged. In certain cases, the only remedy for these individuals is
to resign rather than continue to support policies that they feel in
their hearts and in their minds are not serving the best interests of
this country. General Hayden might come to such a decision point, and I
hope, given his skill, his experience, and his dedication to duty, that
he would take the harder right than the easier wrong.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair recognizes the Senator from
Pennsylvania.
____________________
