[Congressional Record: May 26, 2006 (Senate)]
[Page S5311-S5318]                  


  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to a vote on Executive Calendar No. 672, which the clerk will 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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 
  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.]


     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)



                             NOT VOTING--7

  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 
  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 
  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]


  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