    [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]