[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 35 (Tuesday, March 18, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2487-S2488]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE NOMINATION OF ANTHONY LAKE
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the letter
submitted by Anthony Lake to the President involving his nomination to
be Director of Central Intelligence be printed in the Congressional
Record at this time.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
The White House,
Washington, March 17, 1997.
The President,
The White House,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. President: I am writing to ask that you withdraw
my nomination to be Director of Central Intelligence.
I do so not because of concern that the nomination would be
defeated if it ever came to a vote. In fact, there are
sufficient votes for confirmation--in both the Select
Committee and the Senate.
And not because of concern about further personal attacks.
That gauntlet has been run. Every question has been answered.
I do so because I have regretfully concluded that it is the
right thing to do.
While we have made great progress in the nomination process
over the past month and during last week's hearings. I have
learned over the weekend that the process is once again faced
by endless delay. It is a political football in a game with
constantly moving goal posts.
After more than three months, I have finally lost patience,
and the endless delays are hurting the CIA and NSC staff in
ways I can no longer tolerate.
I am told that the Chairman of the committee, having now
reviewed the positive FBI materials underlying the report on
my background investigation, may want other members of the
committee to read them. I had doubts about the precedent we
have already set in allowing him and the Vice Chairman such
access. To bend principle further would even more discourage
future nominees to this or other senior positions from
entering public service.
I am also told that his committee staff will again insist
that NSC staff meet with the committee on terms that White
House Counsel will find unacceptable, leading to a further
stalemate on that issue as well.
In addition, the story today about the activities of Mr.
Roger Tamraz is likely to lead to further delay as an
investigation proceeds.
All of this means a nomination process that has no end in
sight. We have been proceeding on the assumption that there
would be a vote this week. It now seems certain the committee
deliberations will extend past the recess until after Easter,
and probably longer. In addition, even after the nomination
receives a vote in committee, whenever that might be, there
is no prospect for a near-term vote on the floor and every
chance it will be extended as long as your political
opponents can do so.
I have gone through the past three months and more with
patience and, I hope, dignity. But I have lost the former and
could lose the latter as this political circus continues
indefinitely. As Senator Richard Lugar, perhaps the most
respected member of the Senate, has said with regard to my
nomination and its treatment, ``The whole confirmation
process has become more and more outrageous.'' It is nasty
and brutish without being short.
If this were a game, I would persist until we won. My
colleagues tell me to stay the course, lest I be perceived
the loser or scared of a further fight. I'm not.
But this is not a game. And this process is not primarily
about me. It is about the future of the Central Intelligence
Agency. The Agency, once again, is becoming politicized. The
longer this goes on, the worse the damage. The controversy
and its effects could linger on after my confirmation. The
men and women of the CIA deserve better than this.
The process is also impugning, through a new form of guilt
by association, the names of NSC staff members who have done
nothing wrong. So long as my nomination is mired in partisan
politics their reputations will be, as well. It is ironic
that the staff, which in every case took the right positions
in keeping national security decisions and domestic politics
separate, as I had encouraged them to do, is now the staff
bearing the brunt of criticism because it didn't go beyond
its own responsibilities to manage others' business as well.
This is a staff that was doing its job properly. There was
never any disguise of wrong-doing; they were consistently
doing right in the advice they offered, while concentrating
on the large daily agenda of important national security
issues before us. I am very proud of our work on these issues
and very proud of our staff members.
In unprecedented fashion the nomination is also
politicizing the Senate committee.
And I have noticed that, in numerous ways, it is poisoning
the attitude of members of the Agency towards the committee.
Most of all, the way this process has been conducted would
make it difficult for me to work with the committee in the
ways that a Director of Central Intelligence must do--and as
I had hoped to do.
I am deeply grateful to you for your strong support, for
your encouragement over these difficult months, and--most of
all--for the opportunity to serve over the past four years. I
am very proud of your foreign policy record and of whatever
contributions I made to it.
I have greatly appreciated the support of Senators McCain,
Lugar, Lieberman, Kerrey, Kerry, Kennedy and many others,
like John Deutch. I have been moved by the principled
position of a large number of Republicans like John McCain,
Warren Rudman, Richard Lugar, Robert Gates and Peter King.
And I am especially grateful to the volunteers from the NSC
who have put so much into this, as well as officials of the
CIA. I am sorry that their efforts were not better rewarded.
I have believed all my life in public service. I still do.
But Washington has gone haywire.
I hope that, sooner rather than later, people of all
political views beyond our city limits will demand that
Washington give priority to policy over partisanship, to
governing over ``gotcha.'' It is time that senior officials
have more time to concentrate on dealing with very real
foreign challenges rather than with the domestic wounds that
Washington is inflicting on itself.
This is a very difficult decision. I was excited about this
new opportunity to serve. I had developed firm ideas on how
to bring further reform to the Agency and had no doubt about
my capacity to implement them. I was ready to devote four
years to a tough new challenge. I truly regret that I will
not have the opportunity to seize it.
Sincerely,
Anthony Lake.
Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I do so simply to comment on the very
unfortunate set of circumstances that led to the decision by Mr. Lake
to submit this letter.
I have had the opportunity to work with Tony Lake now for some time;
first, as a Senator; and, second, as leader. I must say that I do not
know that I have ever met anybody more decent, more committed, more
dedicated to public service than is Tony Lake. Our Nation owes him a
big debt of gratitude for his contributions, and a great level of
appreciation for the many ways in which he has already served his
country. I only hope that he will continue to choose to do so in spite
of these extraordinary circumstances.
[[Page S2488]]
Mr. Lake was asked to be the Director of Central Intelligence by the
President of the United States. It has been the prerogative of the
President to name people within his administration, going all the way
back to George Washington. Of course, there are times when the Senate
in its role as a body to serve with advise and consent that it has
disagreed with the President about a particular nomination, or about a
particular member of a given administration. But I must say in all of
history I challenge somebody to come up with more flimsy evidence with
which to destroy the character of a candidate for public office
appointed by the President as grievously as what I see has happened to
Tony Lake in the last several months.
Mr. Lake was not even given the opportunity to be voted on, never
presented an opportunity for a vote in the committee, never presented
with an opportunity to be voted on on the floor.
I was asked this morning if this is some retribution for John Tower,
or Robert Bork. My answer was that I hope our Republican colleagues are
not that cynical. I hope there is some other motivation for doing to
Tony Lake what they did over the last couple of months. It is very
unfortunate. And it is sad, Mr. President. A man of his integrity, his
character, was treated so shabbily by the committee that is supposed to
be as devoid of politics as any in this institution. I think they owe
him an apology. At least they owed him a vote.
Under these circumstances, I think he made the right decision. But I
am deeply troubled. I am troubled by the way it was handled. I am
troubled by the insinuations and allegations all printed on the front
page of every newspaper as fact. I am troubled by his inability to be
given the opportunity to defend himself adequately against this never-
ending list of additional allegations and questions going over old
material time and time again almost as if it was an inquisition.
So, Mr. President, it is a sad day for this body. It is a sad day for
the Intelligence Committee. And it certainly is a sad occasion for
those seeking to serve our country in the capacity and the level as
Director of Central Intelligence.
I don't know what recommendation I would give to some other candidate
who now may consider this particular position. What advice do you give
someone who puts himself forward knowing full well that there will be
raw FBI data available to Members, and, if the chairman of the
committee had his way, to all Members? What do you tell someone who has
laid himself out? What do you tell the next person who is expected not
to subject himself or herself to the same set of circumstances?
Mr. President, this institution needs to restore civility, needs to
come up with a way with which to take the meanness out of our process,
whether it is a legislative issue or a nomination. Civility has to be
brought back into this process. I hope we will start soon.
____________________