[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 76 (Thursday, May 10, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2607-S2609]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                       Nomination of Gina Haspel

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to return to a theme that I have 
been addressing the last few days, and that is the nomination of Ms. 
Gina Haspel to be Director of the CIA.
  Yesterday, the entire country--indeed, the entire world--saw Ms. 
Haspel's performance before the Senate Select Committee on 
Intelligence. Speaking for myself, I could not have been more 
impressed, and taking an informal poll among others, I think many 
people felt the same way.
  It is a tough requirement of her confirmation process for somebody 
who has spent 33 years working for the CIA in some of the most 
obscure--and unknown to the rest of us--spots around the world to have 
to come and answer questions about her career, much of which happens to 
be classified information.
  We had an open session and then a classified hearing where she and we 
on the committee could protect the sources and methods and alliances we 
have around the world that help us collect intelligence for our 
policymakers and help to keep our country safe. As expected, she faced 
intense rounds of questioning, as I said, both in an open session and 
behind closed doors. I believe she did so with patience, courtesy, and 
poise.
  She articulated her view on a number of topics, of course. She 
defended her record against a series of false accusations and said 
repeatedly what those of us who have supported her already knew. She 
believes that U.S. Government actions must be held to a strict moral 
standard. If confirmed, she would not obey an order she believed to be 
unlawful, and in her new role, she would not restart interrogation 
programs inside the CIA.

  I want to highlight three developments that I believe lend credence 
to many of Ms. Haspel's statements during yesterday's hearing. First 
are the

[[Page S2608]]

comparisons that have been drawn with John Brennan, former CIA Director 
under President Obama.
  As many others have pointed out, Mr. Brennan served as the No. 4 
official at the CIA--much higher up the food chain, so to speak, than 
Ms. Haspel, who was a GS-15. Yesterday, I asked someone to tell me, as 
a civilian intelligence officer, how that rank would compare to the 
military. I was told that would be the equivalent of roughly a major or 
maybe a lieutenant colonel in the military. I think that is significant 
when you think that Mr. Brennan was the No. 4 official at the CIA, and 
at relevant times Ms. Haspel was an intelligence officer in a mid-level 
position to be sure.
  Getting back to Mr. Brennan, he had direct personal knowledge of the 
interrogation program many have questioned Ms. Haspel about. She told 
us she was not a part of it, had not been read into the program, and 
did not interrogate anyone.
  Mr. Brennan was confirmed by a vote of 63 to 34, with only 2 
Democrats and 1 Independent voting against him. If Mr. Brennan was 
confirmed, despite his history at the CIA at a time when this program 
was being implemented, Ms. Haspel should be confirmed as well.
  It is worth noting that Mr. Brennan himself agrees. He has called Ms. 
Haspel ``an exceptionally well-respected professional within the CIA,'' 
one ``who has held a number of senior-level positions over the years, 
and has acquitted herself very competently.'' He said she will be able 
to provide ``unvarnished, apolitical, objective intelligence . . . to 
[President] Trump and to others.''
  Given this body's past support of Mr. Brennan's nomination and our 
Democratic colleagues' current opposition to Ms. Haspel, it strikes me 
that she and our current President are being held to a standard to 
which Mr. Brennan and President Obama were not held. In other words, it 
is a double standard. I think that is highly regrettable and 
indefensible.
  The truth is that all the Senate Democrats currently on the 
Intelligence Committee who were Senators at the time of John Brennan's 
confirmation voted to confirm him, so I believe they have no good 
reason not to vote to confirm Ms. Haspel as well.
  I also remember when President Obama declassified certain Office of 
Legal Counsel memos in 2009. He promised the men and women of the CIA:

       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.
  I hope we will hear from President Obama as he keeps the promise he 
made back in 2009 to defend those who acted on legal advice from the 
Department of Justice in good faith. I think we all need to remember 
those words by President Obama and apply them when considering Ms. 
Haspel's nomination.
  The second thing I want to mention is a letter dated just yesterday 
that was sent to Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner of the 
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by more than 
30 former senior government officials with national security experience 
in administrations of different parties or on Capitol Hill. They called 
Ms. Haspel ``an excellent choice to lead the CIA at a time when our 
intelligence community is under significant pressure at home and 
abroad.'' They praised her as a leader with ``discipline and guts to 
take the CIA into the future,'' saying that she is highly regarded in 
the storied halls of Langley. That letter was signed by former CIA and 
National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former NSA Director 
GEN Keith Alexander, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and many 
others.
  I have said it before, but I will say it again. Those people who know 
Ms. Haspel best, who have worked alongside her on a daily basis, who 
have been in meetings with her and have witnessed her decision making 
like this woman. They respect her, and they think she is the best of 
the best, so enough already. I think we should listen to the people who 
know her the best.
  The third item related to Ms. Haspel that I will mention was a 
telling exchange she had with our colleague and friend, the senior 
Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein. Senator Feinstein asked about a 
certain book that at least one journalist has claimed proves Ms. Haspel 
``ran'' an interrogation program in the days after 9/11. In graciously 
responding to our colleague's question, Ms. Haspel pointed out 
something important: The author of the book in question has said 
definitively that he ``never intended to suggest in [the] book that 
Gina Haspel was in charge of the CIA's interrogation program. She was 
not.''
  In other words, he corrected a misimpression that was created by the 
way the book was written and made clear she was not in charge of the 
CIA interrogation program. The author went on to say that he fully 
supports Ms. Haspel's nomination.
  I think that short episode establishes how careful we need to be in 
evaluating what is known about Ms. Haspel's distinguished record of 
service. There are a lot of things being said that simply are not true.
  As many have mentioned this week, when it comes to interrogation 
programs following the devastating attack of 9/11, where 3,000 
Americans lost their lives, she in fact was exonerated by both internal 
reviews at the CIA, as well as two Justice Departments, which 
determined that she had complied with appropriate legal guidance in 
place at the time she acted.
  Toward the end of the open session, Ms. Haspel spoke about the 
sacrifices made by the men and women with whom she had served. I think 
we need to keep in mind how difficult intelligence work can be, 
especially when it requires one to leave family and friends and take up 
hardship assignments in far-off corners of the globe. They are not like 
our men and women in the military, who perform such dedicated and 
patriotic service; intelligence officers have the additional burden of 
not even being able to tell their own family and friends where they are 
and exactly what they are doing because of the sensitivity of their 
work.
  Ms. Haspel told us about a CIA al-Qaida expert who gave birth to her 
third child in the days leading up to September 11. This analyst, 
because of her expertise, was deployed to Afghanistan shortly after the 
terrible events of 9/11, leaving her family and three children behind. 
Later, she and six of her colleagues were murdered while serving in 
that combat zone in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency and 
the U.S. Government. This is exactly the kind of dangerous and selfless 
work that intelligence professionals embark upon day after day.
  They do it because they feel a deep, abiding sense of duty and 
loyalty to a country that has given us freedoms many parts of the world 
do not enjoy, and it is that loyalty, it is that sense of duty that 
propels them to put it all on the line. They pour their blood, sweat, 
and tears into detecting and helping to stop threats posed against this 
country by nations and actors intent on doing us enormous harm.
  As we heard yesterday from Ms. Haspel, there are more than 100 stars 
on the CIA Memorial Wall, and 7 more were added just last year. Those 
are a reminder of the U.S. men and women who have lost their lives 
while engaged in the service of the intelligence community and our 
country.
  Having served for 33 years with distinction, Ms. Haspel is acutely 
aware of the sacrifices that have been made by so many with whom she 
will be working in her new capacity as Director of the CIA, and I know 
she is mindful of the colleagues and friends she has lost. Yet she 
believes so firmly in the Agency's mission that she is willing to take 
on one more challenge, one that may be her greatest challenge yet; that 
is, leading the entire CIA into an uncertain future.
  I want to close by saying that I appreciate her willingness and 
desire to serve in this new and never easy capacity. I hope we can 
confirm her in short order so that she can get back to work and 
continue to do what she loves and help keep our Nation safe.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Mr. President, I appreciate the remarks made by the 
Senator from Texas. Indeed, I think we have a career intelligence 
officer who, over three decades, has performed commendable service for 
this country. I

[[Page S2609]]

will be meeting with her next week. I have a number of questions, and 
after meeting with her, I will make my decision.
  I thank the Senator from Texas, as I have thanked many on the 
Intelligence Committee from whom I have sought opinions while reading 
all the relevant documents.