[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[Senate]
[Pages 9869-9870]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  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

[[Page 9870]]

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 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.

                          ____________________