Hearings
Hearing Type:
Open
Date & Time:
Wednesday, May 9, 2018 - 9:30am
Location:
Hart 216
Witnesses
Full Transcript
[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]