[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 75 (Wednesday, May 9, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2578-S2579]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Gina Haspel

  Also, today we are talking about a nomination in a committee that 
should look carefully at that. It is a committee I am on--the 
Intelligence Committee. It is the nomination of someone to run the 
CIA--the Central Intelligence Agency. It is critically important to the 
country. Actually, the President has nominated the most qualified 
person ever to be nominated to that job in the history of the CIA. She 
is someone who has spent her entire 30-plus-year career in the CIA, 
someone who has had almost every job you could have in the CIA, someone 
who has been at the front ranks in the most dangerous countries working 
for the Central Intelligence Agency, and someone who currently serves 
not just as the Acting Director but has been serving as the Deputy 
Director. Nobody has ever been nominated with that capacity.
  When people look at the hearing that was publicly held today, I think 
they are going to see an individual who is incredibly prepared. They 
are going to see someone who needs no on-the-job training, someone who 
is not only running the Agency now day-to-day but someone who knows 
more about the Agency--the Central Intelligence Agency--than anybody 
has ever known who has held that job.
  When we confirm Gina Haspel, and I believe we will--I know we 
should--there will be no on-the-job training necessary. She will run 
the CIA; the CIA will not run her.
  Now, if any Member of the Senate--even Members who have been on the 
Intelligence Committee for years--went to the CIA, there would be a 
great likelihood that, at least for a while, the CIA would run them; 
that people at the CIA would say: Well, here is something we have to 
do; here is something we used to do; here is a box that has always been 
checked before. It takes a certain amount of time to determine why that 
may have been necessary, but it will take her no time to determine what 
is necessary and what is not.
  She is nominated by the President, but she has been briefing since 
her boss became the Secretary of State and part of the time while he 
was the Director of the CIA. General Hayden is one of--virtually every 
past Director of the CIA, Democratic and Republican appointees, has 
said she is someone who should be confirmed.
  In a quote I particularly like, Gen. Mike Hayden said she was the 
person he would want in the room when the President was making the 
decision. She would be the person whom I think you and I would want to 
be there understanding the facts. Sometimes we don't know all the 
facts, but all the facts we should know, and if anybody knows them, the 
Director of the Central Intelligence Agency should know them.
  I said at the hearing this morning--this is a phrase I don't use very 
often, and I think it is overused, but if ever there is a moment when 
someone speaks ``truth to power''--if that is the right way to describe 
the discussion--that could certainly be the moment when the Director of 
the CIA, with a 32- or 34-year career there, would say to the President 
of the United States: Mr. President, that doesn't take into account all 
of the facts. Let's be sure we understand everything we need to know 
before you make that decision. That is truth to power.
  Hopefully, we will get to that nomination. That may even be a 
nomination that would justify a 20-hour floor debate. We can certainly 
give 20 hours or 30 hours to every Member of the Senate who wanted to 
come to the floor to talk about that nomination, and it may be close 
enough that if it changed three or four votes, it would make a 
difference in the outcome, but in all likelihood, no votes would be 
changed. Believe me, this would be a debate where the country should 
really know exactly what they are getting when they get someone who has 
dedicated themselves to the Central Intelligence Agency and the country 
like Gina Haspel has, but that is a very different moment than the one 
we are in right now. The one we are in right now takes time and doesn't 
change any result.
  I would just encourage my colleagues, let's get to work. Let's stop 
hearing that we don't have time on the floor to get our job done, where 
every time you turn on C-SPAN, more often than not, you see the Senate 
in what is called a quorum call, which is a very slow calling of the 
roll of the Senate because there is nobody here to say anything because 
we are using up someone's insisted-on 30 hours of debate.
  Let's get to the business of the country. Let's do what we are--this 
is the greatest country in the history of the world, with the greatest 
capacity to impact the world of any country in the world.
  When you turn on C-SPAN and look at what is happening in the U.S. 
Senate, it shouldn't be a blank screen because we are waiting x number 
of hours for people to cast a vote, and they already know what that 
vote is going to be. Let's take the time we need to debate the 
nominations we need to debate. Let's quit wasting the time and using 
the excuse of, well, we need to have thoughtful consideration of this 
nomination that, by the way, no one is going to come to the floor to 
talk about.
  Senator Johnson may have set a new standard here. Certainly, when I 
checked just a few days ago, we had a debate on a very controversial 
nominee. This was the NASA Administrator. I think it passed by one 
vote. It was pretty controversial. We spent hours and hours for an open 
debate on the floor, and there were 17 minutes of debate on the floor--
17 minutes in something exceeding 17 hours. No wonder people are 
frustrated with the way they would like to see their government work, 
the way the government should work, and the excuses we come up with to 
keep the government from doing what it ought to do in a way that people 
can openly see and be proud of.
  I look forward to the quorum call no longer being the daily flag of 
the U.S. Senate.
  Maybe, appropriately, seeing no one here, I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.

[[Page S2579]]

  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.