Nomination of General Michael Hayden

NOMINATION OF GENERAL MICHAEL HAYDEN -- (Senate - May 26, 2006)

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 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.

http://thomas.loc.gov