Open Hearing: Nomination of Gina Haspel to be the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency

[Senate Hearing 115-302] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 115-302 OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF GINA HASPEL TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 30-119 PDF WASHINGTON : 2018 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office, http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com. SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE [Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong., 2d Sess.] RICHARD BURR, North Carolina, Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MARCO RUBIO, Florida RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico ROY BLUNT, Missouri ANGUS KING, Maine JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia TOM COTTON, Arkansas KAMALA HARRIS, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky, Ex Officio CHUCK SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio JOHN McCAIN, Arizona, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Chris Joyner, Staff Director Michael Casey, Minority Staff Director Kelsey Stroud Bailey, Chief Clerk CONTENTS ---------- MAY 9, 2018 OPENING STATEMENTS Burr, Hon. Richard, Chairman, a U.S. Senator from North Carolina. 1 Warner, Mark R., Vice Chairman, a U.S. Senator from Virginia..... 3 WITNESSES Chambliss, Saxby, former U.S. Senator from Georgia............... 5 Bayh, Evan, former U.S. Senator from Indiana..................... 7 Haspel, Gina, nominated to be Director of Central Intelligence... 9 Prepared statement........................................... 14 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees............ 50 Additional Prehearing Questions.................................. 63 Questions for the Record......................................... 128 Disciplinary Review Related to Destruction of Interrogation Tapes Memo (the Morell Memo)......................................... 204 Former CIA Officers.............................................. 212 Former Senior National Security Officials........................ 216 Former Ambassadors............................................... 221 Retired General and Flag Officers................................ 228 Human Rights Watch............................................... 232 The Center for Victims of Torture................................ 236 National Council of Churches..................................... 237 NC Stop Torture Now.............................................. 239 T'ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights....................... 240 Laura Pitter Op-Ed, Senior National Security Counsel, Human Rights Watch................................................... 249 Steven Cash...................................................... 252 National Catholic Advocacy Organizations......................... 257 September 11th Families for Peaceful Tomorrows................... 259 Human Rights Coalition........................................... 260 OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF GINA HASPEL TO BE THE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY ---------- WEDNESDAY, MAY 9, 2018 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:38 a.m. in Room SH-219, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard Burr (Chairman of the Committee) presiding. Present: Senators Burr, Warner, Risch, Rubio, Collins, Blunt, Lankford, Cotton, Cornyn, Feinstein, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Manchin, Harris, and Reed. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR, CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM NORTH CAROLINA Chairman Burr. I'd like to call this hearing to order. I'd like to say at the beginning of this hearing it is the tradition of this committee to have nominees in front of us in open and closed session. It's also incumbent on those who attend in the audience that they recognize the order that we expect. The Chair would announce now, I will not be lenient. If there are outbursts, you will be cleared from the room and it will be done immediately. So for the benefit of members and for the benefit of our witnesses, if you're going to do it, do it fast, do it early, and be gone. I'd like to welcome our witness today, Acting Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Ms. Gina Haspel. Gina, congratulations on your nomination. Our goal in conducting this hearing is to enable the committee to begin consideration of Ms. Haspel's qualifications and to allow for thoughtful deliberation by all members. She's already provided substantive written responses to more than 100 questions presented by the committee and its members. Today, of course, members will be able to ask additional questions and to hear from Ms. Haspel in open and closed session. Gina, you've been asked to lead what I believe is one of our most treasured assets in this Nation during a period of profound change. The Central Intelligence Agency is one of the principal members of the United States intelligence community and is tasked with collecting foreign intelligence through human sources and by appropriate other means. The CIA operates in the shadows. Its officers are often undercover and sometimes work in hostile and austere environments. It's not simply a job for many, but it's a lifestyle, one that you have lived honorably for more than 30 years. The clandestine nature of the Agency's work, however, is both its greatest capability and its most challenging liability, as its activities are outside the public view. We address that liability by calling upon the President to nominate individuals with unwavering integrity, and the Senate approves only those who we are assured will lead this organization lawfully, ethically, and morally. Gina Haspel was born in Kentucky, the oldest of five children, where she returned after attending high school in England. She originally told her father, who served in the United States Air Force, that she wanted to attend West Point, only to be gently reminded that West Point at the time did not admit women. That didn't dilute her sense of service and, after graduating from the University of Kentucky, Gina went on to work as a contractor with the Tenth Special Forces Group. It was in Fort Devon that Gina learned about the CIA, a place where she could serve along with other women doing clandestine work around the world. Since her departure in 1985, Gina has developed an extensive overseas experience and served as chief of station in many locations. In Washington, she's held numerous senior leadership positions, including Deputy Director, Deputy Director of National Clandestine Service. Gina, I've reviewed the material provided by you and have spoken to you personally many times. I believe your intellectual rigor, your honorable service, and outstanding judgment make you a natural fit to lead the CIA. I can assure you that this committee will continue to faithfully follow its charter and conduct vigorous and real- time oversight over CIA's operations and activities. We will ask difficult and probing questions of you and your staff, and we will expect honest, complete, and timely responses. The American people allow the CIA to operate in the shadows because they have a trust in oversight and I take that responsibility seriously. Now, some may seek to turn this nomination into a trial about a long-shuttered program. I'd like to set the record straight and make clear to those in attendance and the American people that this hearing's about--this hearing's not about programs already addressed by executive order, legislation, and a court of law. It's about the woman seated in front of us. Gina, I've reviewed your records closely. I've read your detailed and thoughtful answers to the committee's prehearing questions, and I've spoken with you many times over the years. You are without a doubt the most qualified person the President could have chosen to lead the CIA and the most prepared nominee in its 70-year history. You have acted morally, ethically, and legally over a distinguished 30-plus year career. You have operated under authorities signed and granted by the President of the United States, at the direction of the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, and according to the legal guidance provided by the Attorney General of the United States. Those who have issues with programs or operations conducted years ago should address those concerns and their questions to former Presidents, former Directors, and former Attorney Generals. This hearing is about how you will lead the Central Intelligence Agency into the future, not how you faithfully executed missions in the past. Moreover, you conducted yourself in such a way that your supervisors have uniformly praised your conduct over your lengthy career. Those supervisors commended you for frankness, firmness, and fairness, your moral courage, your integrity, your operational judgment and professional presence. They have commented on your leadership skills and success in creating a more inclusive and fair workplace, and admired your operating at great personal risk to collect intelligence necessary to keep America safe. Gina, you have the unique experience one only gains from growing up in the CIA. You have the moral strength to speak truth to power. You have learned from the past mistakes of your organization and made clear they will not be repeated. In the days after 2001, you did not just talk about what should be done, you personally volunteered to help with CIA's response to attacks. You dared to step into the arena when our country needed you, and you have done so again today. For that, I am eternally grateful. I look forward to supporting your nomination and to ensuring its consideration without delay. I want to thank you for your willingness to serve your country, for your years of service, and I look forward to your testimony. I now recognize the Vice Chairman for any comments he might make. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, VICE CHAIRMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to join you in welcoming Ms. Haspel. Gina, it's nice to see you again and congratulations on your nomination. The position of Director of the Central Intelligence Agency is one of the most important in our government. The CIA Director serves as a key figure in our intelligence community. He or she leads the premier human intelligence agency in the world, the largest all-source analysis workforce in the intelligence community. The CIA Director is responsible for providing the intelligence that informs policymakers working on every major national security and foreign policy problem facing our country. As former Director Pompeo's recent trip to North Korea demonstrated, the Director can also be tasked with unusual diplomatic missions. Directors also represent the face of the U.S. intelligence community to the entire world and they should be qualified for that task. Gina Haspel is among the most experienced people to be nominated for the position of Director of the CIA. While I remain disappointed that the Agency was not more forthcoming in providing and declassifying information about her service, she has served our Nation for 33 years in a variety of roles all over the world. I also understand that Ms. Haspel is the first operations officer in more than five decades who has been nominated to lead the Agency. And, as we see with some of the folks who are here, I know she enjoys broad support within its workforce. But many people, and I include myself in that number, have questions about the message the Senate would be sending by confirming someone for this position who served as a supervisor in the Counterterrorism Center during the time of rendition, detention, and interrogation programs. Ms. Haspel has acknowledged the history of the program. She stated that the law has changed and the RDI program is no longer legal. She is committed to upholding the law. I appreciate that, but it is not enough. The secrecy inherent in the CIA's work demands that the Director honor and follow the law, particularly in the dark spaces where the IC often operates and where the glaring light of public scrutiny is nonexistent. No one should get credit for simply agreeing to follow the law. That's the least we should expect from any nominee and certainly from the Director of the CIA. For those in the chamber who have argued that no one who participated in the RDI program should ever be promoted--I know there are some who feel that--and while I have expressed on many occasions my own objections to the RDI program, I think we have to recognize at that time, the country had just been attacked. People throughout the government were frightened of more imminent attacks and did not know what to do, and the RDI program was absolutely an outgrowth of that fear. There are many at the Agency who participated in the program who believed that what they were doing was both legal and authorized by the then-President. What I'm not willing to do, however, is to justify this dark period in our history or to sweep away the decision to engage in torture. I believe the RDI program was wrong and we need to make sure it never happens again. Ms. Haspel, what the committee must hear and what I must hear is in your own view of the RDI program today, given the benefit of time and hindsight, should the United States ever permit detainees to be treated the way the CIA treated detainees under the program, even if you believed it was technically legal? Most importantly, in your view was that program consistent with American values? We must hear how you would react if the President asked you to carry out some morally questionable behavior that might seem to violate a law or treaty. How will you respond if a secret DOJ opinion authorizes such behavior and gives you a quote, ``Get Out of Jail Free Card''? On that day, if ordered to take such actions that are inconsistent with American values, will you say yes and follow the orders? Will you keep Congress in the dark? Ms. Haspel, I encourage you to take these issues seriously and to address them at length. My vote on your confirmation will be greatly influenced by how you address these questions today. I know the committee and I in particular would want to hear about also your interaction with respect to the 2005 decision to destroy the CIA interrogation tapes. What role did you play? And if given the chance, would you do it again? In the same vein, I would like to know your views from that time on about informing Congressional leadership. Given the necessary secrecy of the Agency's activities, it is fundamental to our system of checks and balances that you be extremely forthcoming with this committee, with the Chairman, and with me as Vice Chairman. I expect you to look for reasons to read us in rather than looking for excuses to keep us out of the loop. Ms. Haspel, you should consider carefully how you might deal with morally questionable requests in the future. If confirmed, you will face a White House and frankly, in my belief, a President who does not always seem interested in hearing, much less speaking, the truth. The President seems incapable or unwilling to accept the facts that might contradict his views or his policy preferences. Indeed, there have been some in this Administration, even some in the President's own appointees, who have been attacked for telling a truth in public that contradicts the White House narrative. You simply cannot allow the prospects of such attacks from dissuading you of speaking truth to power. I am interested to know how you view your relationship with the President and how you will approach encouraging him and engaging with him. We have seen on many occasions that this President has no qualms about completely circumventing members of his own Administration, even when making policy that falls within their agencies' jurisdictions. At the end of the day, do you believe you'll be in the room when it matters? And if you're in the room, will the President listen to you when you tell him something is a bad idea? Finally, Ms. Haspel, I will end with what I hope is an easy, but critical, request. As you know, this committee continues its investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. I will expect your commitment to continuing cooperation with us and with the Mueller investigation in the future. I hope you will agree that it is critical that both of these investigations be permitted to proceed independently and completely towards their own conclusions without White House interference. Gina, again congratulations on your nomination and for your very important work on behalf of our country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. Chairman Burr. I thank the Vice Chairman. It's now an honor to recognize two of our former colleagues. Welcome to each of you, and I will recognize Senator Chambliss and then Senator Bayh for their introductions. Senator Chambliss. STATEMENT OF SAXBY CHAMBLISS, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM GEORGIA Senator Chambliss. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to you, Vice Chairman Warner, distinguished members of the committee. It's an honor for me to be here with you today along with my dear friend and former colleague Senator Bayh and also with our mutual friend Gina Haspel, obviously President Trump's nominee to be the leader at the CIA. It's hard to believe it's been a little over three years since I sat on your side of the dais and, while I miss my personal relationship with each one of you, I do not miss the daily decisions that you're having to make. But thank goodness all of you are here to do that. I've known and admired Gina Haspel for many years. In fact, I met her as a member of this committee, no doubt traveling to one of the many garden spots that CIA officers have been deployed around the globe. Gina is a consummate intelligence professional who is unwaveringly honest and objective, which is exactly the type of person we need leading the men and women of the CIA today. The world in which we live gets more complex each and every day. Today we're fighting terrorism on several different continents, major world powers like China and Russia are becoming increasingly more aggressive, the threats from rogue regimes, cyber attacks and weapons of mass destruction are increasing. All the while, the international cooperation and stability continue to deteriorate. The world in which we live needs experience at the helm of the CIA. Gina Haspel joined the CIA during the Cold War and has played a part in keeping our country safe ever since. She has served with distinction for over 30 years, working at almost every level of the National Clandestine Service. For her contribution, she's been awarded the Intelligence Medal of Merit, the George H.W. Bush Award for Excellence for Counterterrorism, the Donovan Award, and a Presidential Rank Award. Gina's nomination is also significant because, if confirmed, she would be the first female Director of the CIA in the Agency's history, an achievement that is long overdue considering the incredible contribution over the years that women have made to the mission at the CIA. Throughout her career at the CIA, Gina has held many leadership positions, but also taken on some of the most demanding and least rewarding assignments that the Agency has to offer. Gina joined the CIA's Counterterrorism Center in the wake of 9-11, putting herself at risk when her country needed her the most. As the committee well knows, these jobs require long hours, are nerve-racking, and come with great personal risk. It's difficult to talk about all of Gina's accomplishments over her 30-plus year career at the CIA in an open setting, but I know that each of you has reviewed her extensive record. Gina has been criticized in the press for some of her work done at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Frankly, I find this criticism very troubling. In 2011, as you all know, Mike Morell reviewed Ms. Haspel's conduct related to the CIA's destruction of the interrogation tapes and determined her actions to be appropriate and found no fault in the performance of her duties. We all have very strong feelings about the counterterrorism programs that the CIA carried out following 9-11. However, responsibility for these programs rests with the Commander in Chief and the senior leadership at the CIA, not Gina Haspel. When a CIA officer is carrying out authorities granted to them by the President, at the direction of their superiors, in a way that is determined to be lawful by the Attorney General, they should not be punished, period. I hope I've made the case for Gina, but I also hope you won't just take my word for it. Gina's nomination is being supported by a broad spectrum of national security professionals who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations. Intelligence community leaders like Henry Kissinger, Jim Clapper, Bob Kerry, Mike McConnell, Mike Hayden, Leon Panetta, John Brennan, and many others. In today's political climate, I cannot name the last time that so many former intelligence professionals agreed on a single nominee. Everything I've said to this point is part of the public record and I now want to close by putting a personal touch on this nomination. During my 2 years on the HPSCI and 12 years on this committee, I traveled overseas extensively for the purpose of conducting oversight of the intelligence community. A lot of that travel was with Chairman Burr and with Senator Feinstein. With only a couple of obvious exceptions, we visited with the intelligence community personnel in every hot spot in the world. On several of those stops, we visited with Gina Haspel. Never were we less than significantly impressed by the leadership that Gina was giving to the Agency. Every member here knows the mission of the CIA, but I'd just like to say to the general public the written stated mission at the CIA, which is: to preempt threats and further U.S. national security objectives by collecting intelligence that matters; producing objective all-source analysis; conducting effective covert action as directed by the President; and safeguarding the secrets that help keep our Nation safe. No one is better prepared, more focused, or more capable to carry out that mission than is Gina Haspel. Mr. Chairman, Gina is a proven leader who knows the Agency and the threats we face. She is ideally suited to become the next and first female Director of the CIA. Everybody on this committee has an obligation to vet her nomination thoroughly and I know you will. But at the end of the day, I urge you to support her nomination and send it to the floor so that her nomination can be confirmed by the Senate of the United States. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Senator Chambliss. Senator Bayh. STATEMENT OF EVAN BAYH, FORMER U.S. SENATOR FROM INDIANA Senator Bayh. Thank you, Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, members of the committee, former colleagues, and current friends. Let me begin by thanking each of you for your service and vital work performed in the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Senator Chambliss and I know firsthand the important responsibility each of you bears, and I'm sure I speak for millions of our fellow citizens when I thank you for carrying it out in such an exemplary manner. It's a pleasure to be with you again to introduce Gina Haspel. My connection to this committee, Mr. Chairman, is longstanding. In fact, my father Birch Bayh served on this panel when it was first created in the aftermath of the Church hearings, which documented the essential need for Congressional oversight of our intelligence community, a role this nominee strongly supports. My own decade of service on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, including with many of you, was, to say the least, eventful. Like today, we faced Russian hostility, Iranian regional ambitions, an expansionist China, an erratic North Korea, cyber threats, and much, much more. But unlike today, and thank God for that, on September 11, 2001, we experienced a tragedy that indelibly defined those years when a group of suicidal fanatics killed almost 3,000 innocent men, women, and children. It was the deadliest attack on our homeland in half a century. Who can forget the image of the Twin Towers falling? Who can forget the images of people leaping to their deaths to escape the flames? When would the next attack come? How many more Americans would die? Throughout it all, this committee was an oasis of bipartisanship--no Democrats, no Republicans, just Americans working together to protect our country. Gina Haspel has done and if confirmed, will do likewise. She is a lifelong intelligence professional, does not come from the world of politics, and may be the most nonpartisan individual ever nominated for Director of Central Intelligence. It is instructive that former DCIs of both parties endorse her nomination, including Leon Panetta, John Brennan, and Michael Hayden. Each of these men has been blunt in their criticism of some aspects of the current Administration, but all support Gina Haspel. Ms. Haspel, as has been noted, is without question the most qualified person ever nominated for this position. For 33 years, she has worked to defend America from those who would harm us. She has served on the front lines and she has served with some who now are memorialized with gold stars on the wall in Langley, in tribute to their ultimate sacrifice. She knows the cost of freedom. She is a clear-eyed, hard-nosed expert on Russia at a time of mounting threats from that nation. And if confirmed, as Senator Chambliss noted, she would be the first woman to serve as DCIA, sending a clear message that advancement in the intelligence community is based on merit, not impeded by prejudice. Finally, she had the unenviable, weighty responsibility of protecting American lives during times of maximum danger, while also remaining true to our core values. As Senator Warner indicated, questions will be asked today, and they should be asked today, about whether the right decisions were always made. And you should probe deeply to determine whether, if mistakes occurred during that difficult time, were lessons learned, and whether the hard-won wisdom will inform our future conduct. Under a Director Haspel, I am confident it will. If approved by this panel and confirmed by the Senate, Gina Haspel will obey the rule of law. She has the experience and strength to speak truth to power. She's devoted to protecting Americans from those who would harm us and doing so consistent with our fundamental values, because she knows that it is those ideals that are our ultimate source of strength and those principles that make America the exceptional Nation she has sworn to defend. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Senator Bayh. On behalf of the committee, I thank both of you for your service to the country and to your willingness to be here for the introduction. I would now excuse you from that table. Ms. Haspel, I'd ask you to stand and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear to give the committee the truth, the full truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ms. Haspel. I do. Chairman Burr. Thank you. Please be seated. TESTIMONY OF GINA HASPEL, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE Chairman Burr. Ms. Haspel, before we move to your statement, I'll ask you to answer five standard questions the committee poses to each nominee who appears before us. They just require a simple yes or no answer for the record. One: Do you agree to appear before the committee here or in any other venue when invited? Ms. Haspel. I do. Chairman Burr. Two: If confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the committee and designated staff when invited? Ms. Haspel. I do. Chairman Burr. Three: Do you agree to provide documents or any other materials requested by the committee in order to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? Ms. Haspel. I do. Chairman Burr. Four: Will you both ensure that your office and your staff provide such materials to the committee when requested? Ms. Haspel. I will. Chairman Burr. And five: Do you agree to inform and fully brief to the fullest extent possible all members of the committee of intelligence activities and covert action, rather than only the Chair and the Vice Chairman? Ms. Haspel. I do. Chairman Burr. Thank you very much. We'll now proceed to your opening statement. Ms. Haspel, the floor is yours. Ms. Haspel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr, Vice Chairman Warner, and members of the committee: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to thank Senators Chambliss and Bayh for the kind words and support. I would also like to take just a moment to recognize a few guests who have come today, including: Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence and my good friend, Sue Gordon; CIA Chief Operating Officer, Brian Bulatao; Mrs. Susan Pompeo--thank you for coming--the best ambassador I ever worked for, Ambassador Louis Susman; and two dear mentors of mine, senior CIA officers and then later senior IC officials, Mary Margaret Graham and Charlie Allen. I am here because I have been nominated to lead the extraordinary men and women at the Central Intelligence Agency. Men and women who are our country's silent warriors. These dedicated professionals spend much of their careers in difficult far-flung outposts of the globe, striving to make our fellow Americans more secure at home. It has been the privilege of my professional life to be one of those CIA officers. Now, I have been asked by President Trump to lead this workforce and to continue the work that Mike Pompeo and I began a little more than a year ago, ensuring that CIA is postured to meet the complex challenges our Nation faces. Those challenges include: a changing, but still lethal, threat from terrorist groups; a nuclear threat against the continental United States from a rogue state; destabilizing Iranian adventurism; an aggressive and sometimes brutal Russia; and the long-term implications of China's ambitions on the global stage. While these challenges are daunting and offer few easy answers, I am confident the United States and the American people have the resolve to meet them head-on. If I am confirmed as Director, you have my solemn commitment that I will position this Agency to provide the intelligence support our country needs to meet the challenges of today and those of tomorrow. I welcome the opportunity to introduce myself to the American people for the first time. It is a new experience for me, as I spent over 30 years undercover and in the shadows. I don't have any social media accounts, but otherwise I think you will find me to be a typical middle class American, one with a strong sense of right and wrong and one who loves this country. I was born in Kentucky and, while my family has deep roots there, I was an Air Force brat, and we followed my father to postings all over the world. My childhood overseas instilled in me a deep love for foreign languages and cultures, but also a deep understanding of the vital role of American leadership in combating aggression abroad. I joined CIA in 1985 as a case officer in the Clandestine Service. From my first days in training, I had a knack for the nuts and bolts of my profession. I excelled in finding and acquiring secret information that I obtained in brush passes, dead drops, or in meetings in dusty alleys of third world capitals. I recall very well my first meeting with a foreign agent. It was on a dark, moonless night, with an agent I'd never met before. When I picked him up, he passed me the intelligence and I passed him an extra $500 for the men he led. It was the beginning of an adventure I had only dreamed of. The men who ran CIA in those days leaned forward in giving me the right opportunities to succeed or fail. When a very tough, old-school leader announced that I was his pick to be chief of station in a small but important frontier post, a few competitors complained to me directly: Why would they send you? I owe that leader much for believing in me at a time when few women were given these opportunities. While I could have done without some of the long nights sleeping on the floor of my station, I was proud of the work we did there, including the successful capture of two major terrorists in the wake of the Africa embassy bombings, a counter-proliferation operation that went our way, and the dismantlement of a local terrorist cell. Altogether, I have served seven tours in the field, four as chief of station, including hardship assignments in distant posts and more recently in the capital of a major U.S. ally. By any standard, my life at the Agency--and it has been my life-- has exceeded all of my expectations from that January day when I first took the oath to today. There were few senior women leading at CIA in those days, and we are stronger now as an organization because that picture is changing. I did my part, quietly and through hard work, to break down some of those barriers. And I was proud to be the first woman to serve as the number two in the Clandestine Service. It is not my way to trumpet the fact that I am a woman up for the top job at CIA, but I would be remiss in not remarking on it, not least because of the outpouring of support from young women at CIA and indeed across the IC, because they consider it a good sign for their own prospects. My experience and success as an operations officer led to three leadership positions in the Clandestine Service, and one year ago I was asked to serve as Deputy Director of CIA. The reaction of the workforce to a rare nomination of one of their own to be Director, someone who has been in the trenches with them, has been overwhelming. I am humbled by their confidence that I can successfully lead this Agency and inspired to work harder than ever to maintain that trust. They know that I don't need time to learn the business of how CIA works. I know CIA like the back of my hand. I know them, I know the threats we face, and I know what we need to be successful in our mission. I have played a leading role this past year in setting us on the right path, and I intend on continuing on that path if I am confirmed as Director. Our strategy starts with strengthening our core business, collecting intelligence that helps policymakers protect our country, and advance American interests across the globe. It includes raising our investment against the most difficult intelligence gaps, putting more officers in the foreign field where our adversaries are, and emphasizing foreign language excellence. Finally, it involves investing in our partnerships, both within the U.S. Government and around the globe. We must do everything we can to follow through on these investments and to make CIA as effective as it can possibly be, because the American people deserve no less than CIA's best effort. This is especially true when it comes to confronting threats from North Korea, Iran, Russia and China. Today CIA officers are deployed across the globe, sometimes at significant personal risk, collecting critical human and technical intelligence. I have spent my entire career driving operations and if confirmed, I will be able to leverage that experience beginning on day one. I knew that accepting the President's nomination would raise questions about CIA classified activities and my career at the Agency. I also understand that it is important for the American people to get to know me so they are able to judge my fitness for this position. So over the last few weeks we have leaned forward to make more information about my record public. We have also shared details on every aspect of my career through classified channels with this committee, as well as with the rest of the Senate. I think it is important to recall the context of those challenging times immediately following 9/11. For me, I had just returned to Washington from an overseas posting and I reported for duty on the morning of 9/11. I knew in my gut when I saw the video of the first plane hitting the tower in Manhattan that it was bin Laden. I got up and I walked over to the Counterterrorism Center as the CIA compound was evacuated and I volunteered to help. I didn't leave for three years. We worked seven days a week and I even had friends who postponed weddings and having babies. The men and women of CIA were driven and charged with preventing another attack. The first boots on the ground in Afghanistan were my colleagues'. The first casualty in Afghanistan was a CIA officer and colleague. And it was CIA who identified and captured the mastermind of 9/11 in a brilliant operation. I am proud of our work during that time. The hard lessons we learned from that experience inform my leadership of CIA today. In light of my counterterrorism experience, I understand that what many people want to know about are my views on CIA's former detention and interrogation program. I have views on this issue and I want to be clear. Having served in that tumultuous time, I can offer you my personal commitment clearly and without reservation, that under my leadership, on my watch, CIA will not restart a detention and interrogation program. CIA has learned some tough lessons from that experience. We were asked to tackle a mission that fell outside our expertise. For me, there is no better example of implementing lessons learned than what the Agency took away from that program. In retrospect, it is clear, as the SSCI Majority report concluded, that CIA was not prepared to conduct a detention and interrogation program. Today, the U.S. government has a clear legal and policy framework that governs detentions and interrogations. Specifically, the law provides that no individual in U.S. custody may be subjected to any interrogation technique or approach that is not authorized by and listed in the Army Field Manual. I fully support the detainee treatment required by law and, just as importantly, I will keep CIA focused on our collection and analysis missions that can best leverage the expertise we have at the Agency. Like I said, we learned important lessons following 9/11. As both a career intelligence officer and as an American citizen, I am a strong believer in the importance of oversight. Simply put, experience has taught us that CIA cannot be effective without the people's trust, and we cannot hope to earn that trust without the accountability that comes with Congressional oversight. If we cannot share aspects of our secret work with the public, we should do so with their elected representatives. For CIA oversight is a vital link to the open society we defend. It's a defining feature of the U.S. intelligence community and one of the many things that distinguishes us from the hostile services we face in the field. If confirmed as Director, I will uphold the Agency's obligations to Congress and ensure that oversight works on behalf of the American people. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for the hard work that is put into the oversight process and for the vital support that this committee provides the officers at CIA. CIA has given me a lot over the past three decades: a calling and service to my country; some real-life adventures; and the profound satisfaction of serving with some of the most talented and honorable men and women in our government. If confirmed, I hope to repay the debt I owe to this remarkable Agency by drawing on my experience. I know what my fellow officers need from me and I know what our Nation needs from CIA, and that is truth, integrity, and courage. Again thank you for allowing me the opportunity to appear before you today and I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Haspel follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Burr. Ms. Haspel, thank you for that testimony. Let me inform members that we will have a five-minute round of questions. We will recognize members based upon seniority. I would ask all members to adhere to the five-minute timeframe and I would remind members that we are in an open session; therefore, classified questions and/or answers would not be appropriate for this period. When we have completed the open session, we will immediately move to a closed session where every question will be answered, I am certain. The Chair recognizes himself for up to five minutes. Ms. Haspel, let's just dig right into it. There's been much debate and much news coverage about Jose Rodriguez, the former Director of the National Clandestine Service, and his decision to direct the destruction of the detainee interrogation videotapes. Can you describe for members your role in those events? Ms. Haspel. Senator, yes I can. In 2005--I believe it was fall of 2005--I was chief of staff to the Deputy Director for Operations, that is head of the Clandestine Service. The tape issue had lingered at CIA for a period of about three years. I believe the tapes were made in 2002, and over time, there was a great deal of concern about the security risks posed to CIA officers who were depicted on the tapes. Those security issues centered on the threat from Al-Qaeda should those tapes be irresponsibly leaked. Mr. Rodriguez, who was the DDO at the time, the Deputy Director for Operations, has been very up-front and has made it clear on a number of occasions publicly that he and he alone made the decision to destroy the tapes. I would also make it clear that I did not appear on the tapes, as has been mischaracterized in the press. However, as chief of staff, and I believe like everyone at the Agency at that time, we were extremely concerned about the security risk that was posed to our officers. We were aiming to do two things: to adhere to U.S. law, but at the same time reach a resolution that would protect our officers. There were numerous legal consultations over a period of years at the Agency. Our lawyers were very consistent in saying to us that there was no legal requirement to retain the tapes, no legal impediment to disposing of the tapes. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe the basis for that judgment was the fact that there was a complete and written detailed record of the interrogations; and at CIA, the official record is the cable record. We use that for all of our operations. There were two reviews done of the tapes to compare them to the written record. One of those was undertaken by the Office of General Counsel. The second was undertaken by the Office of the Inspector General. In both cases, they found that the written record was detailed, accurate and complete. So the consistent legal advice--it never changed--was that there was no legal requirement to retain the tapes. But, there were some policy objections to disposing of the tapes. So, our job in the Office of the Deputy Director for Operations was to arrange consultations with senior leaders at the Agency. At the time the tapes were destroyed, Mr. Rodriguez asked me to prepare a cable because he was going to have another conversation with then Director of the Agency to talk about this issue again. I did so. A couple of days later, he released the order, he believed on his own authority. He took the decision himself and he said it was based on his own authority. I asked him if he had had the consultation with the Director at the time as planned and he said he decided to take the decision on his own authority. There were three investigations, three looks at the tapes, inquiries, that I know about. One was undertaken by HPSCI, the House Oversight Committee. I never saw a report on that, but the chairman at the time said that he found no fault with my actions. There was a Department of Justice investigation that was closed without charges after, I think, more than two years. And then, there was an internal investigation of the issue conducted by one of my predecessors, Mr. Morell, who found no fault with my actions and that my decisions were consistent with my obligations as an Agency officer. Chairman Burr. Thank you for that answer. Recognizing my five minutes is now up, I recognize the Vice Chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-up on the question around the tapes, Ms. Haspel. November 4 of 2005, then Senator Levin introduced legislation to create a commission modeled on the 9/11 Commission, to look into the Agency's treatment of detainees. Three days later, you drafted the cable. Four days later, the tapes were destroyed. Were you aware of Senator Levin's actions? The timing seems very close to acting on behalf of potential Congressional action. And in Mr. Morell's statements, there were comments that your superior, Mr. Rodriguez, was aware that two White House counsels, the counsel to the Vice President, the DNI and the DCIA and the HPSCI ranking member had all expressed opposition or reservations about the destruction of the tapes. So were you aware of those facts that Mr. Rodriguez was at least aware of, and were you aware of the actions of Senator Levin when you drafted your memo and then had the tapes subsequently destroyed? Ms. Haspel. Senator Warner, what I recall were the security issues surrounding the tapes. I don't recall pending legislation. I just don't recall that. Vice Chairman Warner. What about the issue of all of the counsel, the counsel to the Vice President, DNI, HPSCI ranking member, the fact that there was---- Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't know if I was aware of all of those, but I knew there were--there was disagreement about the issue of the tapes outside the Agency, and that is why we were working toward a meeting with the then Director, to talk about those issues and how we addressed those concerns of people outside the Agency. So I was working toward resolution within a process. Vice Chairman Warner. Well, with that overhang--and I know other members will raise this--the timing seems--I hope I can get some more clarity on the timing. I want to make sure I take my time, though. I heard your statement about the fact that if you're confirmed there will never be an interrogation program under your leadership. And you addressed the issue of the fact that it is against the law. The question I have: With the benefit of hindsight, do you believe the program in terms the interrogation program was consistent with American values? Ms. Haspel. Senator, as we sit here today and with some distance between us and the events of 9/11, the Congress, and indeed our Nation, have had an opportunity to have a debate about the interrogation standards we want to use as the United States of America. We had decided to hold ourselves to a stricter moral standard. For DOD, that is defined in the Army Field Manual. I support the United States holding itself to that stricter moral standard and I support the Army Field Manual. Vice Chairman Warner. But, Ms. Haspel, that is answering on a legalistic--we're asking you to take on a position. I understand with RDI you were downstream, not part of the policymaking. But if you're entrusted with this responsibility, we need, I need, to at least get a sense of what your moral code says about those kind of actions. Because there is the potential that this President could ask you to do something--he obviously believes in these procedures--but even if he asked you to do something that is not directly related to detention interrogation. But if he asked you to do something that you believe is morally questionable, even if there is an OLC opinion that in effect gives you a ``Get Out of Jail Free'' card, what will you do in that action when you are the Director of the CIA? Ms. Haspel. Senator, my father is watching today. He served 33 years in the Air Force. My parents gave me a very strong moral compass. I support the higher moral standard that this country has decided to hold itself to. I would never ever take CIA back to an interrogation program. First of all, CIA follows the law. We followed the law then. We follow the law today. I support the law. I wouldn't support a change in the law. But I'll tell you this: I would not put CIA officers at risk by asking them to undertake risky, controversial activity again. Vice Chairman Warner. Ms. Haspel, my question is this: On a going-forward basis, if this President asked you to do something that you find morally objectionable, even if there is an OLC opinion, what will you do? Will you carry that out, that order, or not? I mean, we're entrusting you in a very different position if you're confirmed. I just need to know what your response to that would be. Ms. Haspel. Senator, my moral compass is strong. I would not allow CIA to undertake activity that I felt was immoral even if it was technically legal. I would absolutely not permit it. Vice Chairman Warner. So you would not follow the order if you felt it was---- Ms. Haspel. No. I believe that CIA must undertake activities that are consistent with American values. America is looked at all over the world as an example to everyone else in the world and we have to uphold that, and CIA is included in that. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Risch. Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Haspel, thank you for undertaking this and thank you for your many years of service with the CIA. For my colleagues, I'm going to tell you right at the outset: I'm going to support this nomination. I don't take that lightly. I've had the opportunity to review all the materials that have been provided. But more importantly than that, I've known Ms. Haspel for the ten years I've been on this committee and had the opportunity to work with her over those years and even visit you out in the field when you were at the garden spots that---- Ms. Haspel. I remember. Senator Risch. Right. In any event, for my colleagues, I can report to you that during this time I have always found Ms. Haspel to be open, to be forthcoming, and to be truthful. And that is incredibly important as we exercise the things that we have to do as far as authorizing, as far as financing, and as far as oversight of what this really, really important work is that the CIA does. So for that, Ms. Haspel, you will be rewarded with my vote, and I feel very comfortable about that, and I sincerely appreciate your openness as we've met over the years and I've had the opportunity to ask you about the things that I needed to know as I discharge my obligations. I'm also persuaded greatly by the former directors, both Republicans and Democrats, who are enthusiastically supporting your appointment to this. I think that is very important. I'm also persuaded by something that I think other members of this committee have probably run across, and that is we all from this committee deal regularly with our partners in intel from foreign countries. As you know, that's critically important to the job of the CIA and the other 16 intelligence agencies. Those relationships, those contacts, those dealings we have with those foreign agencies, are very important. And I have to tell you that uniformly people who I have discussed your taking on this job have been very enthusiastic about it. They know you. They trust you. The trust of this Agency is so important when we deal with the Five Eyes or amongst the Five Eyes or with other intelligence partners. So thank you for that. Also, I deal with a lot of the employees at the CIA. They are incredibly enthusiastic about your appointment to this, so thank you for that. For the American people who are watching this, I can tell you that everybody sitting on this side of the table regularly hears things that cause us to not sleep very well at night. As the head of this Agency, I can tell you I will sleep better at night knowing you're directing these efforts, so thank you for that. Thank you for undertaking what you are undertaking. I know that you have thought about this carefully. If the press reports are right, you've been up and down a little bit on this. But the American people will be very grateful for your service. Let me ask a question as we close here. You know, over the ten years--I came here just as the investigation on the interrogation thing was starting, and I participated, other members of the committee here participated, in that. And there was a real tension between not just the CIA, but the other intelligence agencies, because of the way the oversight was being done by this committee. My impression is, and it's a clear impression, that the relationship between the Agency, CIA, and the other intelligence agencies, has evolved to a very different place than where it was when I first got here. Could you talk about that a little bit, please? Ms. Haspel. Thank you for that question, Senator. I think it's a very important question. When Mike Pompeo and I took the reins at Langley about 15 months ago, we decided to concentrate on four initiatives. And one of those is partnerships, and it involves two areas: first, our partnerships with our other IC partners in the U.S. Government, but even more broadly than that. There are many important partnerships for CIA and, as you say, those partnerships are critical because it's a complex world. There is no more important partnership than the one between CIA and DOD. I have had the absolute honor and privilege to sit at the table with Secretary Mattis and General Dunford these last 15 months, to work with the JSOC commander and the other combatant commanders. I don't think that very important relationship has ever been in a better place. Likewise, NSA is our sister agency. We're very close. And of course, our relationship with the Federal Bureau of Investigation is critical to the national security of this country. But you mentioned something else that's important and it's a bit of an unheralded story. But the intelligence services of our closest allies do amazing things for the national security of this country each and every day. And I can't talk very much about it in this open session, but they do incredible things that advance our national security on the terrorism and proliferation fronts in particular, and we owe a great deal of gratitude to those allies. Senator Risch. Thank you for that. Chairman Burr. The gentleman's time has expired. Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Ms. Haspel. Ms. Haspel. Good morning, Senator Feinstein. Senator Feinstein. While many nominees have classified backgrounds, you are very unique. You have 30 years of undercover experience. Accordingly, we asked the Agency that your records be declassified--I think I signed three letters in that regard--to make an informed decision and because the public should be aware of the background of its leaders. Instead, the CIA selectively declassified only small pieces of information to bolster your nomination, while keeping damaging information under wraps. Given the CIA's refusal to make your record public, I'm very limited in what I can say. I think as you know, I like you personally very much. This is probably the most difficult hearing in my more than two decades I have ever sat in, but let me begin. In his memoir, Former CIA Counsel General John Rizzo described how in 2005 Jose Rodriguez was promoted to be Deputy CIA Director for Operations and installed as his chief of staff an officer from the Counterterrorism Center who had previously run the interrogation program. Is that you? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I'm so pleased you asked me that question. Senator Feinstein. Yes or no will do. Ms. Haspel. No. And for the record, if you have your staff check, Mr. Rizzo has issued a correction. It is true that it is hard in a secret---- Senator Feinstein. Excuse me. My understanding is that he-- -- Ms. Haspel. That is not accurate. Senator Feinstein [continuing]. Has recently confirmed that it was you. Ms. Haspel. No. He issued a correction. When people write books--I didn't read Mr. Rizzo's book, so I didn't even know that was out there. Mr. Rizzo--and actually I read about it in the ``Washington Post'' last night. Erik Wemple I believe wrote a story talking about the failure of certain organizations to correct their facts, and that was one of them; and he noted that Mr. Rizzo, about ten days ago--he was wrong. He didn't fact-check. And that has been corrected. I never even served in that department, nor was I the head of it. Senator Feinstein. Let me read directly his quote from the book: ``Several weeks later, Porter promoted Jose Rodriguez to the position of Deputy Director for Operations, Jim Pavitt's former job. Once more, Jose installed as his chief of staff an officer from the Counterterrorism Center who had previously run the interrogation program. Between them, they were the staunchest advocates inside the building for destroying the tapes.'' Ms. Haspel. Senator, I did not run the interrogation department. In fact, I was not even read into the interrogation program until it had been up and running for a year. I never served---- Senator Feinstein. Were you an advocate for destroying the tapes? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I absolutely was an advocate if we could within and conforming to U.S. law and if we could get policy concurrence to eliminate the security risk posed to our officers by those tapes and the consistent legal---- Senator Feinstein. Were you aware of what those tapes contained? Ms. Haspel. No, I never watched the tapes. But I understood that our officers' faces were on them and that that was very dangerous at a time when there were unauthorized disclosures that were exposing the program. Senator Feinstein. But it also exposed how the program was conducted, because they were tapes of the actual interrogation of certain--of 92 detainees, as I understand it. Ms. Haspel. No, the tapes were recordings of only one detainee. It was 92 tapes of one detainee. Senator Feinstein. All right. Well, thank you for that. Let me--in November and December of 2002, did you oversee the enhanced interrogation of al-Nashiri, which included the use of the waterboard as publicly reported? Yes or no? Ms. Haspel. Senator, anything about my classified assignment history throughout my 33 years we can talk about in this afternoon's classified session. There are guidelines on, as you know, existing classification guidelines. And I should go back to your first point, which is very, very important, about why we haven't declassified more about my history. There are existing classification guidelines that apply to operational activity of any officer. It has been suggested to me by my team that if we tried to declassify some of my operational history, it would help my nomination. I said that we could not do that. It is very important that the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency adhere to the same classification guidelines that all employees must adhere to, because there are very good reasons for those classification guidelines. Exposing operational information can be damaging to sources and methods, as you know, but there is also a physical risk to officers who go out to the far ends of the globe and conduct dangerous missions and they believe that their participation in those dangerous missions will be protected. It would be a security risk if we started declassifying associations between CIA officers and particular terrorist or terrorist operations. So I am adhering to the existing guidelines and I believe that it is important and that I could not stand before the CIA if I sought for short-term gain to declassify my operational history. Senator Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time has expired. Senator Rubio. Senator Rubio. Thank you. Ms. Haspel, when I joined this committee seven years ago I knew as much about the CIA as the average American. Obviously, I know a lot more these days. Much of it can't be shared, but there's two things that I can. The first is that it's very easy to sit back and criticize the work of the Agency with the benefit of hindsight. And the second, is that the Agency is made up of some of the smartest, most talented professionals that I've ever encountered in any field in my time in public service or beyond. These are men and women that could be making a lot of money in the private sector, but instead they've chosen to serve our country, many in the shadows, many at the risk of their own lives, all to keep us safe. By the way, they sacrifice this money, this time with their family, this normal life in many cases, in defense of the freedoms, including the freedoms of the protesters who often smear them and the activists who often slander them. Ms. Haspel, you embody everything that I respect and admire about the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency and I support you, not just because of your qualifications, but because I want a young CIA trainee or case officer, I want today's operational officers, I want today's station chiefs, I want today's--all of these professionals, to know that they too can one day be sitting where you are sitting today and have the opportunity to lead this Agency. And I would ask, if someone like you, with your history, with your record of service and sacrifice and excellence, if someone like you cannot be confirmed to head this Agency, than who can? And if someone like you is smeared in this process, what message are we sending to the young men and women who today are serving our country in the same roles in which you have served our country over the last 30 years. And I thought it was important for that to be part of the record today because as much as anything else, this hearing is not just about your nomination. For me, it is also about the men and women who serve us, of which I said at the outset, you embody the best of the men and women of the Central Intelligence Agency. On a policy front, I want to ask you about U.S.-China relations. For decades, American foreign policy towards China has been rooted in the belief that as they prospered economically they would embrace democracy, they would embrace the global rule of law. That consensus I think by all accounts has been catastrophically wrong. Today China is undertaking a comprehensive effort to supplant the United States and to undermine us. And they've benefited from the greatest transfer of wealth in history, through the theft and the forced transfer of intellectual property. They use unfair trade and other practices to undermine our industrial and technical base. They gather and exploit data at an unrivaled scale. They're building the most capable and well-funded military in the world second to ours. So my question, first and foremost: Is the Agency, as it stands today, equipped and structured to meet this multifaceted challenge? Ms. Haspel. Senator, thank you for that question. One of the first things Mike Pompeo and I looked at when I returned to the Agency from overseas in early 2017 is how we're doing on the hard targets--that's what you're talking about--China, Iran, Russia and North Korea. Of course, our investment in counterterrorism has to be very significant. We have to be vigilant and we can't take our eyes off that ball. But there are more strategic threats and you talked about one them, China, China's rise as a global power. CIA has a very important role in monitoring China's rise as a global power. China's efforts to diminish U.S. influence, not only in the Pacific, but all around the world; China's unfair trade practices, and China's overt and illicit efforts to steal U.S. technology and know how and intellectual property. We, with the support of this committee, are raising our investment on each of these hard targets. We have incredible expertise on China at the Agency. It is a very strong team. I'm very proud of our analysts. It is a subject that a week doesn't go by that either the President asks for an expert briefing or Secretary Mattis asks for someone to come over and brief him on China issues. We have a good program, but your more general point is that we have to do more and we have to invest more on each of these hard targets. Senator Rubio. Well, I recently introduced legislation with Senator Cotton that would block the U.S. government from buying or leasing telecommunication equipment from Huawei or ZTE Corporation. Beyond government purchase, I would ask you, just for the citizens that are watching; if you were just an everyday American or even someone involved in any sort of sensitive work, would you purchase a Huawei phone or connect your phone or computer to a Huawei or ZTE network? Ms. Haspel. Well, Senator, as I mentioned, I don't even have a social media account, but I wouldn't use Huawei products. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time has expired. Senator Rubio. Thank you. Chairman Burr. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Haspel, thank you very much for your courtesy in meeting with me yesterday. However, I regret to have to say there is no greater indictment of this nomination process than the fact that you are deciding what the country gets to know about you and what it doesn't. And so far, the American people have only been given information that is designed to help you get confirmed. Everything else has been classified. So I've got some questions. I think they're fairly short and some I hope we can do yes or no. Now, you publicly released the Morell report, which some have cited as reflecting favorably about your involvement in the destruction of interrogation tapes. Do you have any objection this morning to the public release of the Durham investigation, which would give the American people more information on the same topic, in which, does not come from the CIA? Ms. Haspel. Senator, just to be clear, the request for the declassification of the Morell memo was in response to a member on this committee. I have not read the Durham report and I don't know the classification. So let me take that for the record if I may? Senator Wyden. But do you have any objection? Ms. Haspel. Well, I haven't seen it, so I haven't read it. So I don't know. Senator Wyden. Well, I'm going to ask you about this in the classified session. But I think in the name of fairness with respect to your role on these issues, this ought to be made public just the way the Morell report was. Now, on Sunday the ``Washington Post'' reported that unnamed officials were pushing back against accusations that you supported torture, in one of our biggest papers in the country. Between 2005 and 2007 the program was winding down. The CIA was capturing fewer detainees and waterboarding was no longer approved. During that time, did you ever call for the program to be continued or expanded? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I think, like all of us who were in the Counterterrorism Center and working at CIA in those years after 9/11, we all believed in our work. We were committed. We had been charged with making sure the country wasn't attacked again. And we had been informed that the techniques in CIA's program were legal and authorized by the highest legal authority in our country and also the President. So I believe I and my colleagues in the Counterterrorism Center were working as hard as we could, with the tools that we were given---- Senator Wyden. Ma'am---- Ms. Haspel [continuing]. To make sure that we were successful in our mission. Senator Wyden. My time is short and that, respectfully, is not responsive to the question. That was a period where the Agency was capturing fewer detainees, waterboarding was no longer approved and especially in light of that ``Washington Post'' story, I would really like to have on the record whether you ever called for the program to be continued, which it sure sounds to me like your answer suggested. You said: Well, we were doing our job; it ought to be continued. That troubles me very much, because you were the chief of staff to the Deputy Director for Operations. It's a senior position. So I'm quite troubled by that response. Ms. Haspel. Senator, may I just say that---- Senator Wyden. Of course. Ms. Haspel [continuing]. I don't know which ``Washington Post'' story you're referring to, but let me say this about myself. After 9/11, I didn't look to go sit on the Swiss desk. I stepped up. I was not on the sidelines. I was on the frontlines in the Cold War and I was on the frontlines in the fight against Al-Qaeda. Senator Wyden. I respect that. Ms. Haspel. I'm very proud of the fact that we captured the perpetrator of 9/11, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. I think we did extraordinary work. To me, the tragedy is that the controversy surrounding the interrogation program, which as I've already indicated to Senator Warner I fully understand that, but it has cast a shadow over what has been a major contribution to protecting this country. Senator Wyden. I respect a number of those points. I just am trying to get some answers here to questions that I think are particularly relevant. According to a press story today about the destruction of the interrogation videotapes, Jose Rodriguez told you in advance that he was going to take matters into his own hands. Did that conversation happen? Ms. Haspel. Senator, no, it did not. Mr. Rodriguez indicated to me that he planned to discuss it with the then Director Goss. Senator Wyden. Let me see if I can get one last question in on it. When did you become aware that the cable authorizing the destruction of the interrogation videotapes had been sent? Ms. Haspel. Senator, as chief of staff, it's a desk-bound job, so I was at my desk at least 12 hours every day, and I could see my computer screen. So it was shortly after Mr. Rodriguez, who sat right across the hall from me, had released the cable. Senator Wyden. I'm over my time. I'll ask some more about this in the classified session. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Jack Reed and I co-sponsored the McCain-Feinstein bill that banned waterboarding and other enhanced interrogation techniques because we viewed them as contrary to American values and tantamount to torture. So let me ask you a series of questions. First, were you involved in any way in the creation of the enhanced interrogation program? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I was not, and I was not read into the program until about a year into its existence. Senator Collins. Were you a senior manager at the CIA at the time that the program was created? Ms. Haspel. No. I had just returned from an overseas posting. I was a GS-15. I was not yet a member of the Senior Executive Service. I was assigned as a deputy group chief-- that's pretty far down the totem pole--in a program that had nothing to do with the detention and interrogation program. Senator Collins. You said that the program had already been in effect for some time before you were read into it. What was your reaction when you learned of the program? Ms. Haspel. Senator, it was a new subject for me. As I said, we lacked interrogation expertise at the Agency. We didn't have interrogators. I was told that interrogation experts had designed the program, that the highest legal authority in the United States had approved it, and that the President of the United States had approved it, as well as a trusted leadership at the Central Intelligence Agency. Senator Collins. Have your views of the program evolved in the years following the attacks on our country on 9/11? Ms. Haspel. Senator, they have. I think it's very important. I think for any leader as you go through a career, you have to learn the leadership lessons. I'm not going to sit here with the benefit of hindsight and judge the very good people who made hard decisions who were running the Agency in very extraordinary circumstances at the time. But, as I mentioned to Senator Warner, this country has had the opportunity to reflect because we have some space. We're not fearing another attack, and we have deliberated about the standard we want to use in interrogations, and that is the Army Field Manual. The very important thing to know about CIA is we follow the law. We followed the law then and we follow the law now. But I would never permit CIA to resume an interrogation program. Senator Collins. So that's a very good segue into a very important question. As a candidate, President Trump repeatedly expressed his support for waterboarding. In fact, he said we should go beyond waterboarding. So if the CIA has a high-value terrorism suspect in its custody and the President gave you a direct order to waterboard that suspect, what would you do? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I would advise, I do not believe the President would ask me to do that. But we have today in the U.S. government other U.S. government entities that conduct interrogations. DOD uses the Army Field Manual and they conduct battlefield interrogations, and CIA has incredible expertise it can bring to the table in support of those interrogations. The FBI has its authorities to conduct interrogations. And, as you know, we have the High-value Interrogation Group. So I would advise anyone who asks me about it that CIA is not the right place to conduct interrogations. We don't have interrogators and we don't have interrogation expertise. So I believe that that would be my--the reason I have been nominated is that people have some respect for my views on these issues. My experiences during those days after 9/11 inform my views. I'm extremely knowledgeable and I'm also extremely knowledgeable about the price CIA working level men and women out in the trenches paid for decisions made after 9/ 11. Senator Collins. So debriefing a source is very different from interrogating a detainee. Should the CIA even be in the business of interrogating detainees? Ms. Haspel. We don't--we're not in the business of interrogating---- Senator Collins. That's for the HIG, is what you're saying? Ms. Haspel. Well, we're not in the business of interrogating detainees. As you said, there's a big difference between interrogation and simple question and answer. Having access, direct access to a terrorist, is extremely valuable for intelligence collection and we do that. But CIA does not today conduct interrogations. We never did historically and we're not getting back in that business. Senator Collins. Thank you. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time has expired. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Ms. Haspel, you didn't actually answer the question. What would you do if the President ordered you to get back in that business? Ms. Haspel. Senator, the President has selected me to give him---- Senator Heinrich. That's a yes---- Ms. Haspel [continuing]. Advice. I would not restart under any circumstances an interrogation program at CIA, under any circumstances. Senator Heinrich. Thank you. You have repeatedly said that at the time the CIA's use of interrogation techniques like waterboarding were determined to be legal. Now, there was an opinion written by the Office of Legal Counsel. I don't believe those actions were ever legal. They certainly didn't meet the bar set by either the Geneva Conventions or our own Army Field Manual, and I'm not aware of a single court ruling that affirmed that opinion. Today I'm not really interested in whether you believe those techniques were legal, but I am interested in the question that Senator Warner asked you. We got a very legalistic answer to that question. Let me ask you again: Were these the right thing to do? Are they consistent with American values fundamentally? What do you believe? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I believe very strongly in American values and America being an example to the rest of the world. That is why I support the fact that we have chosen to hold ourselves to a stricter moral standard. Senator Heinrich. But that's about Congress and all of us. I want to know what you think. Ms. Haspel. I think that we should hold ourselves to a stricter moral standard and I would never allow CIA to be involved in coercive interrogations. Senator Heinrich. Where was that moral compass at the time? Ms. Haspel. Senator, that was 17 years ago. You know, CIA, like the U.S. Army and the U.S. Marine Corps, is an organization, it's a large bureaucracy. And when you're out in the trenches at far-flung outposts in the globe and Washington says, here's what we need you to do, this is legal, the Attorney General has deemed it so, the President of the United States is counting on you---- Senator Heinrich. No, I know you believed it was legal. Ms. Haspel [continuing]. To prevent another attack--I'm sorry? Senator Heinrich. I know you believed it was legal. I want to see, I want to feel, I want to trust that you have the moral compass that you said you have. You're giving very legalistic answers to very fundamentally moral questions. Ms. Haspel. Senator, you know, we've provided the committee every evaluation since my training report when I first joined in 1985. In all of my assignments, I have conducted myself honorably and in accordance with U.S. law. My parents raised me right. I know the difference between right and wrong. Senator Heinrich. Let's move on to the videotapes. You told me earlier this week that you supported the decision of the CIA's Deputy Director of Operations to order the destruction of those videotapes depicting the use of EIT's. Would you still support that order today? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I would not. I think it's--as I said, it's very important that people learn. Experience is a good teacher and the piece that was missing from the tapes was making sure that we had all the stakeholders' concurrence. There's also another very important leadership lesson; and as Director of CIA, when your officers are concerned about their physical security, you can't let it languish in your inbox---- Senator Heinrich. Absolutely, I agree. Ms. Haspel [continuing]. For three years with no action. Senator Heinrich. We should support that security. Why couldn't the Agency have simply digitized that video and then blacked out the faces of any agents in those videos? Why actually destroy the videotapes? Doesn't that feel like a cover up, even if it isn't? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't think we were worried about official release. This was at a time when the entire program was the subject of unauthorized leaks and someone was found guilty of those unauthorized leaks. So the concern was an irresponsible leak of our officers' faces to the world, not an official release. Senator Heinrich. No, I understand that. But if you would blacked out the agents' faces, destroyed the videotapes, and then kept a digital record, that would've addressed those security concerns. Ms. Haspel. Senator, I'm just not a technical person, so I don't---- Senator Heinrich. It's not that complicated. Ms. Haspel. Well, Senator, I don't know if that was considered or not. Senator Heinrich. Do you think that a transcript that says ``the detainee continued to scream'' or ``the detainee appeared to be drowning'' has the same gravity, the same reality, as an actual video? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I never saw the videos. I do know that we keep very complete and almost verbatim records in our cable traffic. But I think that the issue was the security risk posed our officers. Senator Heinrich. Thank you. Chairman Burr. The gentleman's time's expired. Senator Blunt. Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Ms. Haspel, you know, we haven't really mentioned the broad support that you have had publicly from Democrats, Republicans, people who've run this Agency in the past, people you have associated with. Frankly, people that this committee has, members on this committee have shown great respect and regard for, have shown that same respect and regard for you. I heard General Hayden, the former CIA Director, say the other day that he would be incredibly comfortable when the President was making decisions--he may have said maybe even more than comfortable. He said he would feel more secure, or something like that, if you were the person in the room. That's really what we're talking about right now. We're not talking about what happened 17 years ago. We should be talking about what might happen 17 days or 17 weeks from now. I thought General Hayden actually captured my exact feelings on this topic: the importance of you being in the room, your mastery of the facts, your broad understanding of what has happened during your career all over the world, the cause, the result, the relationships, all of those things. This is a term I think is often overused and I try not to use it very often, but it is ``truth to power.'' You're in the room; you understand the facts. Talk about your sense of obligation to present those facts and to speak truth to power at a moment when it matters. Ms. Haspel. Senator, thank you. Truth to power is one of CIA's most important missions. Like with any new administration, CIA has to demonstrate to the new team what we can bring to the table. I'm incredibly proud--even though I come from the operational side, I'm incredibly proud of the analysts at CIA. That's really our face with policymakers, including the Congress. They do an incredible job on the President's Daily Brief each day. They do an incredible job on the expert briefings they provide to inform the important decisions our policymakers must consider. As I mentioned, there isn't a week that doesn't go by that I am not the subject of a request to have an analyst by name come over and talk about some of the big issues. Our North Korea team has a superb reputation. Our China team is running all over this town, they're so busy providing briefings. We are all about bringing the most sophisticated, objective, all- source analysis we can to make sure that the President and his team have the best intelligence that we can deliver. It's hugely important---- [Interruption.] Chairman Burr. Capitol Police, please remove her. Senator Blunt. So let's go back. As a leader of the team, I appreciate that. I appreciate your respect for the team. Let's be sure we talk specifically about you. You're in the room. There is a fact that either hasn't appropriately been looked at or considered or appreciated in your view. What do you do at that moment? Ms. Haspel. Senator, thank you. I've already worked with this President and his team for 15 months. I think I have a great reputation with them. I'm at the table with Secretary Mattis and General Dunford and Secretary Mnuchin. I'm at many of the principals meetings. I back up the former Director in the Oval Office, where I'm part of Director Coats' team. Sometimes Sue Gordon is with me. I think we're bringing a very high-quality product. As a senior intelligence officer, someone who spent a lot of time overseas in some of these places, the President does turn to me for my view on certain countries and certain experiences. I give him my best advice. But I always separate my view, as someone who's been out in the field, from the view of our analysts, because we're really there to deliver the objective all-source analysis that they write to support the President. Senator Blunt. So you would see yourself as the master of the facts, to be sure the President knows all the facts the President needs to know? Ms. Haspel. I think that's incredibly important, Senator. Senator Blunt. Thank you. Thank you Chairman. Chairman Burr. Thank you Senator. Senator King. Senator King. Thank you Mr. Chairman. First, I've been to some of those garden spots with the committee and I have the greatest admiration and respect for what you and your colleagues have done over the years and do now. That's one of the great responses I have when I come back from one of those trips, that the stations are, the people in those places are brave and loyal and patriotic Americans. A quick yes or no question, not having to do with what we've been talking about. In January of 2017, the IC issued a joint report on the Russia involvement in the 2016 elections. Do you agree with the findings of that report? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I do. Senator King. Thank you. We've talked a bit about the statement in Mr. Rizzo's book that you had previously run the interrogation program. I understand he has changed his view on that. Your career timeline: 2001 to 2003, Deputy Group Chief, Counterterrorism Center; 2003 to 2004, Senior Level Supervisor, Counterterrorism Center; 2004 to 2005, Deputy Chief, National Resources Division. In any of those jobs, were you in a supervisory or management capacity in connection with the rendition and interrogation program? Ms. Haspel. Senator, we'll be able to go over--and I know you have some of this information. But we'll be able to go over any of my classified assignments in this afternoon session and I can talk about that. Just to be clear, Mr. Rizzo didn't change his view; he was wrong and he issued a correction. Senator King. Who's deciding what's classified and what isn't in terms of what's released to this committee? Ms. Haspel. Senator, we are following the existing guidelines. There are very---- Senator King. Who's deciding? Ms. Haspel. We are following the existing guide---- Senator King. Who's ``we''? Ms. Haspel. Well, I have chosen to follow the guidelines that exist for the RDI---- Senator King. So you are making the classification decisions about what material should be released to this committee? Ms. Haspel. I am electing not to make an exception for myself, but I am adhering to existing RDI guidelines. If I may just---- Senator King. That's fine. I just wanted to understand that. With regard to the cable, Mr. Rodriguez said that he asked you to ask two questions of the lawyers the day before the drafting of the cable. One was: Was it legal to destroy the tapes? Second, did he have the authority? Did you mention to those lawyers the intention to issue a cable that would destroy the tapes when you asked those two questions or were those the only questions you asked? Ms. Haspel. No, Senator, I explained that Mr. Rodriguez wanted to get resolution on this issue and that he was planning to have a conversation with the Director about it and he needed to have revalidation of those two points. Senator King. And you drafted the cable, is that correct? Ms. Haspel. Yes at his request. Senator King. Isn't it common practice in the CIA when a cable, particularly of this importance, is drafted that it be copied to various parts of the legal establishment within the CIA? And was that done in this case? Was that cable copied to Mr. Rizzo or other lawyers within the Agency? Ms. Haspel. Senator, there was--there was robust coordination with the lawyers at CIA on this issue---- Senator King. Were they copied on the cable? Ms. Haspel. Mr. Rodriguez chose not to copy the lawyers on the cable because he took the decision on his own authority and he wanted to take responsibility for it. He's been very clear and up front about that. Senator King. And you were aware, because you drafted the cable, that the lawyers weren't copied on the cable? Ms. Haspel. But I knew that the lawyers had been consulted in a meeting and consulted over many times over three years. Senator King. In May 2005, Mr. Rizzo reports, ``I told Jose and his chief of staff.'' That was you, is that correct? ``I can't recall if I talked to them separately or together. They were crestfallen because they were now on notice that the DNI, two successive White House counsels, and the Vice President's top lawyer had weighed in strongly against destroying the tapes.'' Do you recall that conversation? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't recall that specific conversation. However, I was aware that there were some objections and that is why that Jose was going to go back to the Director. Senator King. With all respect, those aren't ``some objections.'' Those are very straightforward prohibitions by your superiors to not destroy the tapes, were they not? Ms. Haspel. Senator I don't recall that specific conversation. Senator King. But you do know--Mr. Morell in the report which has been released says something similar. He said: ``The record is clear that Mr. Rodriguez,'' and I presume you, ``was aware that two White House counsels, the counsel to the Vice President, the DNI, the DCIA, and the HPSCI ranking member had either expressed opposition or reservation about the destruction of tapes.'' Did you know that at the time you drafted that cable? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't believe I knew that entire list, but I knew there were some objections, and that is why we were going back to the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Senator King. Final question. Was it a matter of coincidence that this decision was made to destroy the tapes in the same week that two major stories appeared in American newspapers, the Levin Amendment was being considered, and the McCain Amendment was on the floor of the U.S. Senate? Was it a mere coincidence that that was after three years of delay, the decision was taken to destroy the tapes? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't believe in the Directorate of Operations front office we were aware of legislation. The lawyers may have been aware. I do not believe we were aware. Senator King. There's a broader question, not legislation. I'm talking about stories in the newspapers. There was a great deal of public interest just that week in the whole interrogation question. Were you aware of that when you made this decision? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I do not recall being aware of that. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time expired. The Chair would note at this time, since there has been a reference to declassification, I just want to draw a distinction that the Durham investigation done by the Department of Justice is not in the purview of the Central Intelligence Agency. Any decision to declassify or keep classified is a Department of Justice decision and I just wanted to separate that from the discussions about Ms. Haspel's background at the Agency. With that, the Chair recognizes Senator Lankford. Senator Lankford. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Ms. Haspel, thank you for your over three decades of work for our Nation. The lack of recognition that you've had for three decades from our Nation because you've served in a way that no one has seen. So this is an opportunity we get to be able to say ``thank you'' to you for a lot of years of a lot of service, being able to protect our Nation. It's also pretty remarkable, in some of the dialogue today, as I go through the very long list of people that have recommended you and that are both Republican and Democrat; and to be able to see the reports that have been by the Inspectors General about you, about previous DOJ about you, that have cleared you of any concerns and that have reaffirmed you. And whether it is President Obama's Director of the CIA John Brennan, or whether it was Jim Clapper, Director of National Intelligence for President Obama, Henry Kissinger, John McLaughlin, Mike Morrell, Mike Mukasey, John Negroponte, Leon Panetta, George Tenet--the list goes on and on of people that have looked at your record and that have examined it and said you'd be a qualified leader for that. That speaks well of your history and of your leadership and we appreciate that very much. Let me ask you a little bit about some ongoing threats that are coming at us we haven't had much time to talk about today. Let's talk about the very serious counter-narcotics threat that's coming at us and some of the changing situations that's happening in our hemisphere dealing with drug trafficking organizations, international drug trafficking in particular. What do you sense is a role that CIA should have in the ongoing work to be able to do counter-narcotics work in our hemisphere? Ms. Haspel. Senator, thank you very much for that question, and you've been a big supporter of CIA's counter-narcotics work. But, when I returned from my overseas posting in early 2017, I was, frankly, shocked at what I saw was happening in our country, particularly in places like my home State of Kentucky, where there's a real crisis. I think the number is 63,000 Americans we lost last year. We're losing 115 Americans a day. That seems to me to be an extraordinary crisis for our country. I would like to talk about this, if we could, some this afternoon. But, as you know, CIA does have a fairly modest program to try and stop the flow of drugs from coming across our southern border: heroin, cocaine and fentanyl. We work very closely in Central America and Latin America to try and stop that flow. I've been talking to our team at CIA Headquarters about this for several months. I've asked them to come up with some options to grow that program. We have extraordinary support for that program on this committee. But I think, in light of the fact that we're losing 115 Americans a day, that we're losing almost a generation in some places, that we have to do more. CIA is not the primary agency, but we can do a lot. But it has to be a whole of government effort. Senator Lankford. All right, so flip on that into the cyber activities and some of the cyber threats we have. Some of the cyber threats are changing internationally. There were criminal gangs in other countries that were trying to steal credit cards, steal information and to be able to sell that out there. Now there are some governments that are using the criminal gangs in their own country and have become this strange hybrid that's out there between a criminal gang sometimes and a government entity at other times. And we are very dependent on trying to be able to identify where these threats are coming from and who those threats are coming from. What is needed with CIA and what do you anticipate would be the need to be able to help our Nation be able to determine what the threats are and where they're coming from? Ms. Haspel. Senator, you're quite right that it's a growing threat and it's another area where you have to have a whole of government effort; and it's a very murky world, as you point out. But China, Russia, Iran and North Korea have very aggressive offensive cyber programs, both to steal secrets, but also in some cases to earn illicit money. CIA can probably make the biggest contribution in collection about these other countries' activities and various groups activities, so that we can inform the U.S. government agencies that have to mount our defense. Everyone in the U.S. government has been struggling, as all western governments are, on what is the most effective way to organize yourself for cyber defense. We're still working on that, but CIA has a big role. It's another area that I'd like to amplify on a bit this afternoon if I have the opportunity. Senator Lankford. I will look forward to that. I yield back. Chairman Burr. Senator Manchin. Senator Manchin. Ms. Haspel, I want to thank you first of all for your service to our country; and also I thank you for your efforts on drugs. We are ground zero in West Virginia and we appreciate--we need everybody in this fight because it is a war and we must win it. Let me ask the first. What were your thoughts and greatest concerns for the United States of America after the 9/11 attack? Ms. Haspel. I think for probably every American it was all so surreal. But what I was very worried about--and we weren't wrong about this--is that other attacks were being planned. So I think everyone in the U.S. government, probably across the board, but certainly in the intelligence community and FBI, we all felt that we had let the American people down somehow. We didn't know these attacks were coming. And it was very important to identify who headed, who was behind these attacks and stop future attacks. Senator Manchin. I think back on that day and I remember it very vividly as if it was just happening this morning. But I remember that the only thing I cared about--first of all, my first thought, was anybody in my family harmed that day? Next, anyone that I might have known or related to or thought about or had acquaintances with? Next of all, my final thought was, were any other Americans harmed? That's all I cared about. What was this doing? I thought about the history of Pearl Harbor. How did we react as a Nation after Pearl Harbor? I remember the cruel and unusual internment of Japanese-Americans, and we've never gone down that road again, and our thought process would have been there. But let me go another step further. After 9/11, had any laws or rules for procedure changed because of the attacks, those attacks? Did we change any procedures after that? You're saying you would never do it now. You said you would say no to the President, because that's not where we're going, that's not where you want the CIA to be. Were those changed after that? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I'm not sure I understand exactly. But CIA does not do interrogations. We historically have not done interrogations and we don't do interrogations today. Senator Manchin. Let me go this direction. Are there any other tapes that would reveal agents' identities that have been destroyed and is that the standard procedure? Or are there any tapes of interrogation that haven't been destroyed of your knowledge? Ms. Haspel. Senator, probably, I don't know. I don't know if there are any other tapes. I don't believe there are any other tapes associated with the particular interrogation activity that was on the 92 tapes, but I simply don't know if there are any other video tapes of any other activity. Senator Manchin. And then we'll go into this. Explain why you feel so strongly today that CIA should not be in the interrogation business? And would it have anything to do with basically the makeup of the CIA with the appointments, your appointment now for that, versus the code of conduct for the military? Is there a difference of why you think that the CIA should not be in that business and why it should be done in the military? Ms. Haspel. That's a great question. CIA historically has not done interrogations. We don't have interrogators, so we just don't have any expertise. Senator Manchin. Most of the questions that have been directed to you have been because of that. Ms. Haspel. Yes, that's right. And DOD of course does do battlefield interrogations, and that is why we have the Army Field Manual. We have very clear legal and policy guidance for those DOD interrogations, which I support. And then of course the FBI has its own authorities for interviewing terrorist suspects. And then, as we mentioned, we have the High-value Interrogation Group and CIA is part of that. We support that with substantive expertise about a particular group or an individual, but we don't conduct interrogations. Senator Manchin. And I know you stated strongly that's why you would feel very compelled to tell the President, no, this is not something we do and it's not our line of work. Ms. Haspel. I just think there are other U.S. government entities that are suited to holding detainees, and that isn't CIA. Senator Manchin. Let me say this about the CIA, being on this committee for one year and on Armed Services for six years prior to that. When I speak to the West Virginia citizens today, I brag about what you all do in the clandestine services and the people they provide to serve for our country to keep us safe. I have never, ever seen the quality of people at that level to make the sacrifices they make. And to make sure that they understand the importance and how successful and how good they are is that, for a country that has a target on its back the way the United States has had since 9/11 and probably will for long time, to be as safe as we have in the most troubled world, in the most dangerous world, with the terrorist mentality, I want to thank you on behalf of every West Virginian in this country for the job you all do. Ms. Haspel. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Burr. Thank you, Senator. Senator Cotton. Senator Cotton. Thank you, Ms. Haspel for your many decades of service to our country and for taking on this new role, despite the accusations, entirely false, you know that you would face from some of my colleagues in the Senate and from the media, some of these protesters we've seen here today. I'm very grateful to you, as I know that all the men and women of the CIA are grateful. I have to clear up some of the things that have been said here before. Senator Warner said that he worried about the message we would be sending if we confirmed you to the Director of CIA. Well, let's look at that from the other direction. What message would we be sending if we didn't confirm you to the CIA to the men and women of the CIA, to the GS-15s who may be asked to take on a controversial position that a future administration with new lawyers might not like? And for that matter, what message does overwhelming Democratic opposition to your nomination send? In fact, if you had been nominated by President Obama or if Hillary Clinton had won and nominated you to be the CIA Director, how many votes do you think you would have gotten to be confirmed as the CIA Director? [Pause.] You don't have to answer. [Laughter.] I also have to take exception to what Senator Warner said when he called an opinion of the Office of Legal Counsel that was signed off by the Attorney General of the United States as a ``Get Out of Jail Free'' card. Do you believe, acting under the legal approval of the Attorney General, that you or any other CIA officer should have gone to jail and you needed a ``Get Out of Jail Free'' card? You can answer that one, please. Ms. Haspel. Senator, CIA follows the law. Senator Cotton. Exactly what I thought. Let's turn to the circumstances of what the Counterterrorism Center was doing the days you were there. I think Senator Collins asked an excellent sequence of questions that got at many of these points. I just want to tie a bow on some of them. These programs were, to the best of your understanding, approved by the Commander in Chief, legally approved by the Attorney General, and supported by the Director of the CIA, who I point out at the time was the former Democratic staff director of this committee; is that correct? Ms. Haspel. That's correct, Senator. Senator Cotton. You said that you were not a senior manager when those programs were created, is that correct? Ms. Haspel. That's correct. Senator Cotton. Was John Brennan a member of the Senior Intelligence Service and the Deputy Executive Director, at the time a senior manager in your opinion? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I believe Mr. Brennan was the Deputy EXDIR of the Agency at that time. Senator Cotton. And you'd consider that a senior manager position at the CIA? Ms. Haspel. I believe it's the number four position. Senator Cotton. For John Brennan, who was confirmed to be the CIA Director by the following members of this committee: Senator Warner, Senator Feinstein, Senator Heinrich, Senator Collins, Senator King, Senator Burr, Senator Manchin, Senator Wyden, and Senator Rubio. Let's turn to the question about the tapes that were destroyed in 2005. Did any lawyer at any time in any organization of the Federal Government say that there was a legal prohibition to destroy those tapes? Ms. Haspel. Senator, they did not. They were very consistent that there was no legal requirement to preserve the tapes, because of the written record. Senator Cotton. And it's your testimony that there is a written record that fully documents whatever may or may not have happened? Ms. Haspel. Senator, yes. And there were two reviews done of the written record, by the Office of General Counsel and Office of the Inspector General. Senator Cotton. In other words, the CIA has a record no different from the Federal court system, which keeps transcripts and allows sketch drawings, but does not allow video recordings in a Federal courtroom, is that correct? Ms. Haspel. That's correct, Senator. Senator Cotton. You were the chief of staff to Mr. Rodriguez when this happened, correct? Ms. Haspel. Yes. Senator Cotton. And at his direction, you drafted a cable that he later sent. Ms. Haspel. That's correct. Senator Cotton. Michael Morell, who supported Hillary Clinton in the last election, cleared you of any wrongdoing in drafting that cable? Ms. Haspel. He did. Senator Cotton. As did an investigation by the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of the Inspector General? Ms. Haspel. That investigation was closed without charges for Mr. Rodriguez or anyone. Senator Cotton. Would holding you responsible for drafting a cable at your boss' direction make any more sense than holding a Senate speechwriter responsible for the boring speeches Senators give on the Senate floor? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I'll defer to you. [Laughter.] Senator Cotton. I would submit that it does not. Finally, there's a lot of talk about policy guidance and that there was some awareness by Mr. Rodriguez that higher officials in the government who were political appointees had qualms or expressed reservations. I would say that's another way for which politicians don't want to take responsibilities when they are placed in certain positions, whether they are elected or appointed, and give the answers that they are responsible for giving yes or no and take the chips to fall where they may. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time has expired. Senator Harris. Senator Harris. Thank you. So let's just be clear. This hearing is not about the incredible importance of the service and sacrifice of the men and women of the CIA. That's not what this hearing is about. This hearing is not about the importance of the Agency's mission, both of which I wholeheartedly support. This hearing is about your suitability to be the Director of the CIA. And in our responsibility to participate in choosing who will be the next Director of the CIA, the mission that we have now includes understanding that who we choose will be a signal to the men and women of the Agency, to the American people, and to our neighbors around the world about our values as Americans on critical issues that range from our adherence to a rule of law, to what we prioritize in terms of professional accountability and what we prioritize in terms of our moral authority as Americans and as a country. So one question I've not heard you answer is: Do you believe that the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I believe that CIA officers, to whom you referred---- Senator Harris. It's a yes or no answer. Do you believe the previous interrogation techniques were immoral? I'm not asking do you believe they were legal. I'm asking do you believe they were immoral? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I believe that CIA---- Senator Harris. It's a yes or no. Ms. Haspel [continuing]. Did extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country, given the legal tools that we were authorized to use. Senator Harris. Please answer yes or no. Do you believe in hindsight that those techniques were immoral? Ms. Haspel. Senator, what I believe sitting here today is that I support the higher moral standard we have decided to hold ourselves to. Senator Harris. Can you please answer the question? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I think I've answered the question. Senator Harris. No, you've not. Do you believe the previous techniques--now armed with hindsight, do you believe they were immoral, yes or no? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I believe that we should hold ourselves to the moral standard outlined in the Army Field Manual. Senator Harris. Okay, so I understand that--you have not answered the question, but I'm going to move on. So I understand that you, from previous answers, are serving as the authority over whether or not CIA information concerning you will be classified or not. Given an obvious appearance of conflict, will you agree to recuse yourself from the responsibility and the authority to make decisions about whether or not that information will be classified or not? Will you agree to recuse yourself of that responsibility and authority, yes or no? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I am following the guidelines that exist at CIA, and there is another declassification authority. It's called the IRO. I have not interfered---- Senator Harris. Ms. Haspel, do you believe that you have the authority to recuse yourself? Ms. Haspel. I'll take that for the record. I may have the authority to recuse myself. Senator Harris. Assuming you do---- Ms. Haspel. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not sure about that. Senator Harris. Assuming you do--and I believe you do--will you agree to recuse yourself from the responsibility and the authority of making decisions about what CIA information about you and your record will be classified or declassified? Ms. Haspel. Senator, if I had agreed with the proposals that have come up to--because people thought it would be advantageous to me, I think I would've been abdicating my responsibility to follow the rules that everyone at CIA follows. Senator Harris. Okay. And you also in this hearing have a responsibility to answer the questions that are being asked of you. I'm going to ask you a different question. Would you agree that, given this appearance of conflict or potential conflict around the classification or declassification of these documents, that--would you agree that Director Coats instead should have the responsibility for declassification decisions regarding your background? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I think one important thing is that this committee plays a unique role to review the classified record, and we have sent over every piece of paper we can lay our hands on about my classified record; all of my evaluations over a 33-year career. And I hope every Senator has had the opportunity to look at that classified material. Senator Harris. Indeed I have. Ms. Haspel. But there are---- Senator Harris. I have another question for you then, because I only have a few minutes left. I only have few seconds left. The President has asserted that torture works. Do you agree with that statement? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't believe that torture works. I believe that in the CIA's program--and I'm not attributing this to enhanced interrogation techniques--I believe, as many people, Directors who have sat in this chair before me, that valuable information was obtained from senior Al-Qaeda operatives that allowed us to defend this country and prevent another attack. Senator Harris. Is that a yes? Ms. Haspel. No, it's not a yes. We got valuable information from debriefing of Al-Qaeda detainees, and I don't think it's knowable whether interrogation techniques played a role in that. Senator Harris. Thank you. My time has expired. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time has expired. Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn. Ms. Haspel, I note that one prominent national security expert has said that if President Obama had nominated you to be Director of the CIA it would be an easy decision to support your nomination. So it strikes me that you're being treated much differently than Director Brennan was, which Senator Cotton noted he was voted out of this committee by a vote of 12 to 3 and confirmed by a vote of 63 to 44 to be CIA Director. So it strikes me--and this is not a question for you; this is an observation by me--that you and this President are being held to a double standard, and I think that's regrettable. I also remember that President Obama in 2009, when he declassified the Office of Legal Counsel memos that are been referred to here, promised the men and women of the CIA that, quote, ``We will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful. They need to be fully confident that, as they defend the Nation, I will defend them.'' And I think this committee and this Senate should remember those words by President Obama and apply those when considering your confirmation. Senator Feinstein was kind enough about a year ago to send me a book by Peter Bergen called Manhunt. It's a ten-year history of the search for Osama bin Laden. Where as I was thumbing through it recently I was reminded that post-9/11 President Bush was concerned about reports that he had received that Osama bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were meeting with Pakistani officials connected with their nuclear program, to gain access to a nuclear device that they might then use for a follow-on attack against cities like Washington, D.C. Without divulging classified information, can you confirm that there were concerns about follow-on attacks using nuclear devices, biological weapons, other weapons of mass destruction that might've killed more innocent Americans, as happened on 9/ 11? Was that the environment in which you and the country were operating at the time? Ms. Haspel. Senator, there were very grave concerns on that front. And indeed, Al-Qaeda had those kinds of programs, efforts to acquire crude, dirty bombs, efforts to develop--they had a program, a biological weapons program. I remember the operative who was in charge of that. There was very deep concern about potential contacts--and we continue to monitor this very closely today--between extremists and Pakistani nuclear scientists. Senator Cornyn. So here we sit, years following the terrible events of 9/11, feeling very safe and secure thanks to the incredible work being done by the intelligence community, including the good men and women at the CIA, as well as the men and women who serve in the United States military. We're feeling very safe and secure and the memories of that terrible event are very distant. But it strikes me that, in addition to the double standard that I believe you and this President are being held to compared to Director Brennan and President Obama's Administration, that people have simply forgotten. And that's dangerous, to have forgotten the circumstances under which they were operating at the time and doing their dead level best to protect the country from a follow-on attack. I just want to note in closing that recently I had a chance to travel to a garden spot with the Chairman and visit with some of those unnamed patriots who served---- Ms. Haspel. Thank you for doing that. Senator Cornyn [continuing]. In the CIA, and I was struck by talking to one gentleman. He was talking about his girlfriend that he no longer had. And I said---- Ms. Haspel. It's a common story. Senator Cornyn. I said: This this must be incredibly difficult on marriages and on relationships and on families. Would you just take just a second to comment about the sacrifices that intelligence officers, rank and file employees of the CIA, make when it comes to those sorts of relationships? Ms. Haspel. Senator, thank you. You know, maybe I could start by saying I talked about how CIA's boots were the first on the ground in Afghanistan. We suffered the first U.S. casualty. But maybe it's important for the American people to know that CIA officers are still out there in Afghanistan. Our officers are out there fighting extremists, Al-Qaeda and the Taliban. We have 125 stars on our memorial wall, now. Many of those--it's shocking how many stars we've added. I believe we added seven starts to our wall last year. Perhaps I could cite one personal example of an officer who worked for me. She was the most extraordinary woman. She was our number one Al-Qaeda expert. I worked with her in the Counterterrorism Center. She was having her third baby in those days following 9/11. But we needed her because she had such deep expertise. She later worked for me on terrorism issues in a foreign capital. And then she went to Afghanistan. And she and six colleagues were murdered by a suicide bomber who penetrated our base. These are very real sacrifices. These are my friends and colleagues. All of us at CIA have a commitment and an honor- bound obligation to uphold the memory of those officers, mothers who've left their children to go to the field and sometimes have given their all in service of this country. Chairman Burr. I thank Senator Cornyn. Senator Reed. Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms. Haspel. You've been working with the Administration now for 15 months. You've had the opportunity to brief the President. Have you ever been alone with the President? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I'm usually there with Senator Coats, a brilliant analyst who delivers the actual analytic briefing, and usually the National Security Advisor, the Vice President. Senator Reed. There have been allegations, Mr. Comey one, that while he was alone the President asked for a personal pledge of loyalty. If you were ever approached by the President and asked for a personal pledge of loyalty, what would you respond? Ms. Haspel. Senator, my only loyalty is to the American people and the Constitution of the United States. I am honor- bound and will work very hard to deliver to this President and his Administration the best performance and intelligence CIA can deliver. Senator Reed. And if you were approached in such a way and such a demand was made of you, would you inform this committee and the Congress that you had been so approached? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I've worked very closely with this President. I don't believe that such circumstance would ever occur. CIA has been treated with enormous respect and our expertise is valued for what we bring to the table. Senator Reed. If it occurred, would you inform the committee? Ms. Haspel. Senator, it's a hypothetical. I don't think it's going to occur. I'm very confident about that. Senator Reed. It does not seem to be a hypothetical. People have alleged that that has happened already. Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't know anything about that conversation. Senator Reed. Now, Senator Harris was asking you about the morality of the enhanced interrogation techniques, the waterboarding. At the time that you were involved in it, in fact fairly directly, you expressed no moral concerns. In fact, you have suggested that it was good tradecraft and that it contributed to information that was developed. If one of your operations officers was captured and subject to waterboarding today or tomorrow or the next day---- [Interruption.] Chairman Burr. The Senator will suspend. The Capitol Police will remove. If there are any other further disruptions, I will ask the Capitol Police to remove all individuals. The Senator can continue. Senator Reed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If one of your operators were captured, subjected to waterboarding and enhanced interrogation techniques, which you I believe supervised, would you consider that to be moral, since perhaps the other entity did not have legal restrictions, and good tradecraft, as you appeared to do when you were involved in it previously? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I don't believe the terrorists follow any guidelines or civilized norms or the law. CIA follows the law. Senator Reed. Excuse me, madam. You seem to be saying that you were not following civilized norms and the law or anything else when you were conducting those self-said activities, if that's the analogy you're going to draw. Ms. Haspel. Senator, I'm sorry? Can you---- Senator Reed. It's very simple. You have an operations officer who is captured. He is being waterboarded. I've asked you very simply, would you determine that to be immoral and something that should never be done, condoned in any way, shape or form? Your response seems to be that civilized nations don't do it, but uncivilized nations do it or uncivilized groups do it. Senator Cotton. The United States---- Senator Reed. But a civilized nation was doing it until it was outlawed by this Congress. Ms. Haspel. Senator, I would never, obviously, support inhumane treatment of any CIA officers. We've lost CIA officers over the years to terrorists. I just gave an example. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed personally killed a Wall Street Journal correspondent and filmed that. I don't think there's any comparison between CIA officers serving their country, adhering to U.S. law, and terrorists who by their very definition are not following anybody's law. Senator Reed. Finally, in the Morell report, which you've somewhat acknowledged, there was opposition to the destruction of the tapes by two White House counsels, the counsel to the Vice President, the DNI, the DCIA and a member of the Congress. And yet, those tapes were destroyed. Do you consider that to be insubordinate actions without the Director, in this case, Mr. Goss, being notified? Ms. Haspel. Senator, I think that consultation with the Director was essential, and a lesson coming out of that is the importance of making sure all the stakeholders have agreed to include Congressional oversight. There is also a leadership lesson: Don't let real security issues go unaddressed. Senator Reed. So the action was insubordinate and you would not countenance anyone in your organization doing something like that? Ms. Haspel. I expect my officers to bring those difficult issues to me and I think I have a reputation for not just leaving them in the inbox. I will say this: Mr. Rodriguez has taken full accountability for his decision, which he thought he was operating under his own authority. Senator Reed. Thank you. Chairman Burr. The Senator's time has expired. We've come to the conclusion of the open session. And I would duly note for the members, it's my understanding that we're going to have two recorded votes starting at 12:00. My intention is to start the closed hearing immediately after the second vote. The Vice Chairman and I would like to make some closing statements. I do want to take the opportunity, Ms. Haspel, since two individuals have been mentioned and they will be the subject of conversation in a closed session, but for the American people's purpose, would you share for them who Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is and Nashiri? Ms. Haspel. Chairman, thank you. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the architect and mastermind of the 9/11 attacks. His nephew, Ramzi Yousef, was behind the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed financed that operation. He also was behind the infamous Bojinka plot in the Philippines. Tragically, he was the individual who personally killed a Wall Street Journal American correspondent and filmed that heinous act. He also after 9/11 carried out an attack on a synagogue in Tunisia, and he had other attacks planned. We were able to warn allies about a planned attack, for example, on Heathrow Airport. Mr. Nashiri was the emir of the attack in 2000 on the USS COLE, in which we lost 17 sailors. He also was behind the attack on a French ship, the LIMBURG, and he was the Al-Qaeda Chief of Operations in the Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula. Chairman Burr. I thank you for that. I think it's important to put into context, when individuals are mentioned, what their role was in terrorism and why they were the focus of not only the Agency, but law enforcement. With that, I'd like to recognize the Vice Chairman for any closing statements he'd like to make. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to submit for the record, to refresh my colleagues' memories, the testimony of then-nominee John Brennan, who quite explicitly repudiated the EIT techniques and programs, who stated that he expressed his personal objections and some of his views to Agency colleagues, which I think was a relevant piece of information when we considered Mr. Brennan's testimony for those of us who decided to vote in favor of him. Senator Cotton. And that would be the same---- Vice Chairman Warner. Excuse me, sir. Excuse me, sir. Senator Cotton. And that would be the same Mr. Brennan who supports her nomination. Chairman Burr. The Senator will suspend. Senator Cotton. We need the full record on the record. Chairman Burr. No, the Senator will suspend. Senator Cotton. John Brennan supports her nomination. Vice Chairman Warner. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. Let me also say this. I know this is something that is a different experience for you. You have led your life serving our country in the shadows. But should you be confirmed in this position, you have a whole different set of responsibilities that, candidly, I understand that perhaps nothing in your career has fully prepared you for. You have to not only earn our trust, where we have more exposure to your records and classified information, but you have to earn the trust of other members who are not on this panel, and folks in the House who won't even consider this. You also I think have to earn the trust of the American public. So three brief points I want to make. I appreciate the fact and the support you have from the Agency's workforce and the fact that this, your confirmation, will be the first time in 54 years an operations officer would be confirmed to be Director. And I also understand what are normal procedures on declassification. But I think it troubles some of my colleagues when we do get stories that float from the press that point out some remarkable parts of your career--your interactions with Mother Teresa, the fact that you were shot at by foreign operatives--and there does appear to be information put forward by the Agency that helps you. And all--I think many of us--and I've reviewed most of your record. I think there's many extraordinary things in your record. But the willingness to lean forward on that declassification--not for our benefit on this committee, we get that. But for other members and for the public? I'd hope you reconsider some of your decisions made there. I also appreciate very much in my line of questioning on the fact that you believe at this point that the RDI program is not consistent with American values. I wish you would have said that more clearly and more directly. And finally, the question that if you were asked by this President to take an action that you believed was immoral, regardless of the status of a legal opinion, we finally got to the point that you said you would not follow that. You gave me an even stronger answer in private. I just feel that as you try to gain our trust and other Senators', for that matter the public's trust, you realize this is a totally different kind of role than you had any time in your career. And having clarity on these issues and having clarity on what your appointment will represent, and what values you'll bring to this critically important job, at this moment in time, is extraordinarily important. My hope and prayer will be that as we consider this nomination, the more you can bring us that clarity, for those of us who want to give you that fair consideration that you deserve and, candidly, the extraordinary service you provided our Nation, is so important. So we can make the right judgment, so that we can know the character of the individual who will take on again one of the most important jobs in our country's protection, and particularly at this moment in time. So I thank you for your testimony. I would like to see more. I regret some of my colleagues' comments in terms of mischaracterization, but that's part of the process and welcome to it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. I thank the Vice Chairman. Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record two documents provided by Senator Feinstein in opposition to the nomination, one from myself, a statement of support from Attorney General Michael Mukasey. I would expand my unanimous consent to include any documents that are for or against the nomination; and I would ask unanimous consent that every member be given the opportunity for additional follow-on questions, and those QFRs would need to be in by the close of business tomorrow. Senator Wyden. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Burr. Yes? Senator Wyden. Very quickly, following up on that point you made, and I support that, I did have several additional questions for the public record, and if I could at least make clear, I think it's important to have those before we vote in the committee, those answers to the additional questions, and I just wanted to convey that, and I hope we can get consent for that, too. Chairman Burr. Duly noted. Senator Cornyn. Mr. Chairman, may I ask you a question, briefly? Chairman Burr. Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn. I think there's been some comment made about committee members not getting responsive information, but I noticed declassified materials have been provided in a public setting. It is true, isn't it, that classified materials will be made available to members in a classified setting? Chairman Burr. Everything that I think has been requested is available to members, not to all staff. And any inquiry into those documents will be made available in the closed setting, and I stand to be here as long as we need be tonight for every Senator to ask the full breadth of questions that they have. With that, Gina, I'd like to thank you for your testimony today. Ms. Haspel. Thank you. Chairman Burr. And I look forward to continuing the conversation in the closed setting. Before we adjourn the open session, though, I want to add a few closing remarks. As you know, I'm a strong supporter of your nomination to be Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. I can think of few, if any, individuals as qualified to lead the Agency as you are, particularly at this challenging time. You may in fact be the most qualified nominee ever nominated for this role. You've been a leader in the field and at headquarters. You have the respect of the workforce, of your peers, of Republicans, of Democrats, of military officers, and of civilian security leaders. You have the courage to speak truth to power and you've demonstrated that courage time and time again. You're intimately familiar with the threats facing our Nation. Where others can discuss world events, you've lived them. For you, there's no learning curve. You have a vision for the Agency and its future. It's obviously informed by your career, your past experiences. But you bring a clear-eyed understanding of the Agency's mission going forward, and I think you have reemphasized that today. I support your nomination for all of these reasons. But I'm also mindful of the historic nature of your nomination and what it means for those first-tour case officers and junior analysts that will join the Agency this year and in years to come. I know you don't like to talk about it, so I will. Outside the Agency workforce, not many Americans get an opportunity to walk the halls of the Old Headquarters Building. Those who do, though, including the members and staff of this committee frequently enter the OHB, climb the stairs and turn down that hallway. As they do, they enter a series of portraits depicting former Directors of OSS, Central Intelligence, and the Central Intelligence Agency. We see them every day, as does the workforce. Some of those directors were loved, some were controversial, and some little understood the Agency they were asked to lead. Some made disastrous decisions out of hubris or inexperience, or both. But one thing is common: All of the portraits are men. Many want to make your nomination about one small piece of Agency's past. Most of us, though, are looking towards the Agency's future. I think it's important to remember Director Brennan's--to put in context Director Brennan's not only time there and his testimony, but the fact is that you're being criticized for not speaking up when you were there, and nor did he. I want to make sure that we don't hold you to a different standard for any reason. Avril Haines and Meroe Park and others who have served or are currently serving have cracked the glass ceiling at the Agency. You're poised to break it. It may be impossible to measure the importance of that breakthrough, but I know that your confirmation will send a signal to the current workforce and the workforce of the future that a lifetime of commitment to the Agency and its mission can still and will be rewarded. I want to thank you for your willingness to go through this treacherous process. I'm not sure if I was in your position that I would expose myself to it, but I thank you for your willingness to lead. I thank you for your willingness to serve. This hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:06 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] Supplemental Material [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] [all]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources