SENATE (SELECT) INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF GINA
HASPEL TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
MAY 9, 2018
SPEAKERS: SEN. RICHARD M. BURR, R-N.C., CHAIRMAN
SEN. JIM RISCH, R-IDAHO
SEN. MARCO RUBIO, R-FLA.
SEN. SUSAN COLLINS, R-MAINE
SEN. ROY BLUNT, R-MO.
SEN. TOM COTTON, R-ARK.
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD, R-OKLA.
SEN. JOHN CORNYN, R-TEXAS
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL, R-KY., EX OFFICIO
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN, R-ARIZ., EX OFFICIO
SEN. MARK WARNER, D-VA., VICE CHAIRMAN
SEN. RON WYDEN, D-ORE.
SEN. MARTIN HEINRICH, D-N.M.
SEN. JOE MANCHIN III, D-W.VA.
SEN. KAMALA HARRIS, D-CALIF.
SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF.
SEN. ANGUS KING, I-MAINE
SEN. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, D-N.Y., EX OFFICIO
SEN. JACK REED, D-R.I., EX OFFICIO
WITNESSES: GINA HASPEL, NOMINATED TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE
AGENCY
FORMER SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS, R-GA.
FORMER SEN. EVAN BAYH, D-IND.
[*] BURR: 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 benefits of members and for the benefit of our witness, if you're going to do it, do
it fast, do it early and be gone.
(LAUGHTER)
I'd like to welcome our witnesses today -- or witness, Acting Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency Ms. Gina Haspel.
Gina, congratulations on your nomination.
BURR: 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 collection 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 graduation from the University of Kentucky,
Gina went on to work as a contractor with the 10th Special Forces Group. It was in Fort
Devens 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's developed an extensive overseas experience and served
as chief of -- chief of station in many locations. In Washington, she's held numerous senior
leadership positions including, deputy director, deputy director of national clandestine
services.

 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 allow -- follow its charter and
conduct vigorous and real-time oversight over CIA's operations and activities. We'll 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 -- 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 -- this hearing's about -- this hearing's not about programs already
addressed by executive order, legislation and the court of law. It's about the woman seated
in front of us.
BURR: Gina, if you -- 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've 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've 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've 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've commented on your leadership skills and
success in creating a more inclusive and fair workplace, and admired your operating at a -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.

 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 represent the face of the U.N. -- 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 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 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 a counterterrorism center during the time of rendition, detention and
interrogation programs.
Ms. Haspel has acknowledged the history of the program. She has stated that the law has
changed and the RID -- RDI program is no longer equal (ph) -- 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 I.C. often operates and when the glaring light of
public scrutiny is nonexistent.
No one should get credit for simply agreeing to follow the law. That's the least you 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 didn't 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 created (ph) -- treated detainees under the
program, even if you believe 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, will 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?
WARNER: In the same vein, I would like to know your views from that time -- 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 vicechairman. 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
response in the future -- requests in the future.
If confirmed, you will find -- 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 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'll 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.
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?
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 -- 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, walking -working at almost every level of the national clandestine service.
For her contributions, she's been awarded the Intelligence Medal of Merit America, 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 of 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 our 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 have reviewed her extensive record.
Gina has been criticized in the press for some of her work done at the CIA's
Counterterrorism Center and, 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 and 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 Kerrey, 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.
CHAMBLISS: Everything I've said is -- 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 two 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 hotspot
in the world.
On several of those stops, we did sit 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 allsource 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.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Bayh?
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 first hand the
important responsibility each of you bear, 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 long-standing. 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 Congress -- 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 the 11th, 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 had been blunt in their
criticism of some aspects of the current administration, but all support Gina Haspel.
Ms. Haspel, as it's 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.
BURR: Thank you, Senator Bayh.
And 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?
HASPEL: I do.
BURR: Thank you. Please be seated.
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?
HASPEL: I do.
BURR: Two, if confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before
the committee and designated staff, when invited?
HASPEL: I do.
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?

 HASPEL: I do.
BURR: Four, will you, both, ensure that your office and your staff provide such materials to
the committee when requested?
HASPEL: I will.
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?
HASPEL: I do.
BURR: Thank you, very much. We'll now proceed to your opening statement. Ms. Haspel,
the floor is yours.
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 Principle 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 I.C. 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 my 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, and 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.
All together, 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'm 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 I.C. because they consider 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.
HASPEL: I am humbled by their confidence that I can successfully lead this agency and
inspire 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, and 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 work 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 and 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. The 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.
BURR: Ms. Haspel, thank you for that testimony. Let me inform members that we will have
a five minute round of questions. We'll 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've 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?
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 of the deputy director for
operations, has been very upfront 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 (ph) 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 -- to disposing of the tapes; so our job in -- 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 (ph) 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 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 and queries 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.
BURR: Thank you for that answer. Recognizing my five minutes is now up, I recognize the
vice chairman.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow-up on the question around the tapes,
Ms. Haspel. November 4 of 2005, senator -- then Senator Levin introduced legislation to
create a commission model on the 9/11 commission to look into the agency's treatment of
detainees.
Three days later, you drafted the cable (ph). 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 was comments that - that your superior, Mr. Rodriguez, was aware that two White House counsels, the counsel

 of 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 least aware of, and were you
aware of the actions of Senator Levin when you drafted your memo and then had the tapes
sequentially (ph) destroyed?
HASPEL: Senator Warner, what I recall were the security issues surrounding the tapes. I
don't recall pending legislation. I just don't recall...
WARNER: What about the issue of all of the -- the councils, the counselor of the vice
president, DNI, HPSCI ranking member. The fact that there was...
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.
WARNER: Well, with that overhang and no 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, and I -- I heard your statement about that if you're confirmed, there will never be
an interrogation program under your leadership. And you address the issue -- 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?
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.
WARNER: 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 policy making, 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, and if that (ph) gives you a
get out of jail free card, what will you do in that action when you are the director of the
CIA?
WARNER: Senator, my father's 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.
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 option -- 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 would be.
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.
WARNER: So you would not follow the order if you felt it was...
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.
WARNER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
BURR: Senator Risch.
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, and 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 10 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...
HASPEL: I remember.
RISCH: Right. In any event, I have, 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 -- are very important.

 And I have to tell you that uniformly, people who I have discussed here taking on this job
have been very enthusiastic about it, and they know you, they trust you, and the trust of
this agency is so important when we deal with five Is or amongst the five Is or with other
intelligence partners, so -- so thank you for that. Also, I deal with a lot of the employees at
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 on this side of
the table regularly hear 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're -- 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 10 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?
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 I.C. 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 in 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.
RISCH: Thank you for that.
BURR: The gentleman's time (ph) has expired. Senator Feinstein.
FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much Mr. Chairman. Good morning Ms. Haspel.
HASPEL: Good morning Senator Feinstein.

 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, and 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?
HASPEL: Senator, I'm so pleased you asked me that question.
FEINSTEIN: yes or no will do.
HASPEL: No. And for the record, if you -- if you have your staff check, Mr. Rizzo has issued
a correction. It is -- its true that it is hard for in a secret...
FEINSTEIN: Excuse me, my understanding...
HASPEL: That is not accurate.
FEINSTEIN: ...has recently confirmed that it was you.
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 to -- of certain organizations to correct their facts, and that was one of
them, and he noted that Mr. Rizzo, about 10 days ago he was wrong. He did in fact check
and that has been corrected.
I would never even served in that department nor was I the head of it.
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
counterterrorist center who had previously run the interrogation program.
Between them they were the staunchest advocates inside the building for destroying the
tapes."
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...
FEINSTEIN: Were you an advocate for destroying the tapes?
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...

 FEINSTEIN: Were you aware of what those tapes contained?
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.
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.
HASPEL: No, the tapes were recordings of only one detainee. It was 92 tapes of one
detainee.
FEINSTEIN: All right, well thank you for -- 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 water board as publicly reported? Yes or no?
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 they are very good reason 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 the classifying 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 shortterm gain to declassify my operational history.
BURRS: Senator's time has expired. Senator Rubio.
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 and
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 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, to the 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 also about the men
and women who serve us, of which I said at the (inaudible) that 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 has undertaken -- 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 world, second to ours. And so, my question, first and foremost, is the
agency. As it stands today, equipped and structured to meet this multifaceted challenge.
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 counter terrorism 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 -- we have a good program, but your more general point is
that we have to -- we have to do more and we have invest more on each of these hard
targets.

 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 as a -- with 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 or computer to a
Huawei or ZTE network?
HASPEL: Well, Senator, as I mentioned, I don't even have a social media account, but I
wouldn't -- I wouldn't use Huawei products.
RUBIO: And.
BURR: The Senator's time has expired.
RUBIO: Thank you.
BURR: Senator Wyden.
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?
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
know the classification. So, let me take that for the record, if I may?
WYDEN: But do you have any objection?
HASPEL: Well, I haven't seen it. So, I haven't read it. So, I don't know.
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?
HASPEL: Senator, I think, like all of us who were in the counter terrorism 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 Counter Terrorism Center were working as hard as
we could, with the tools that we were given...
WYDEN: Ma'am.
HASPEL: ...to make sure that we were successful in our mission.
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 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...
HASPEL: Senator, may I just say that...
WYDEN: Of course.
HASPEL: ... I don't - I haven't - 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.
WYDEN: I respect that.
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 casted a shadow over what has been a major contribution
to protecting this country.
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 video tapes, Jose Rodriguez told you in advance that he was
going to take matters into his own hands. Did that conversation happen?
HASPEL: Senator, no. It did not. Mr. Rodriguez indicated to me that he planned to discuss it
with the then Director Goss.
WYDEN: Let me see if I can get one last in on it. When did you become aware that the cable
authorizing the destruction of the interrogation video tapes had been sent?
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.
WYDEN: I'm over my time. I'll ask some more about this in the classified session. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.

 BURR: Senator Collins.
COLLINS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Jack Reed and I cosponsored the McCainFeinstein bill that banned water boarding 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?
HASPEL: Senator, I was not, and I was not read into the program until about a year into its
existence.
COLLINS: Were you a senior manager at the CIA at the time that the program was created?
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.
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?
HASPEL: Senator, it was a new subject for me. We - 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.
COLLINS: Have your views of the program evolved in the years following the attacks on our
country on 9/11?
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.
They 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.
COLLINS: So that's a very good segue into a very important question. As a candidate,
President Trump repeatedly expressed his support for water boarding. In fact, he said we
should go beyond water boarding. So if the CIA has a high-value terrorism suspect in it's
custody and the president gave you a direct order to water board that suspect, what would
you do?
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 highvalue interrogation group. So I would be - 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 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.
COLLINS: So debriefing a source is very different from interrogating a detainee. Should the
CIA even be in the business of interrogating detainees?
HASPEL: We don't - we're not in the business of interrogating...
COLLINS: Interrogating (inaudible) is what you're saying.
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.
COLLINS: Thank you.
BURR: Senator's time has expired. Senator Heinrich.
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?
HASPEL: Senator, the president has selected me to give him...
HEINRICH: That's a yes...
HASPEL: ... advice. I would not restore it under any circumstances in an interrogation
program at CIA under any circumstances.
HEINRICH: Thank you. You have repeatedly said that at the time the CIA's use of
interrogation techniques like water boarding 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? Do -- are
they consistent with American values fundamentally? What you believe?
HASPEL: Senator, I believe very strongly in American values and America be 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.
HEINRICH: But that's about Congress and all of us. I want to know what you think.

 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.
HEINRICH: Where was that moral compass at the time?
HASPEL: Senator, that was 17 years ago and it's -- 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...
HEINRICH: No, I know...
HASPEL: ...to prevent another attack...
HEINRICH: ...you believed it was legal.
HASPEL: I'm sorry?
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.
HASPEL: Senator I -- you know, we provided the committee every evaluation since my -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 -- I
know the difference between right and wrong.
HEINRICH: Let's move on to -- 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?
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 stakeholder's concurrence. There's also another very important
leadership lesson; and is director of CIA, when your officers are concerned about their
physical security, you can't let it languish in your inbox...
HEINRICH: Absolutely, I agree.
HASPEL: ...for three years with no action.
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 -- why
actually destroy the videotapes? Doesn't that feel like a cover up, even if it isn't?
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 -- not an official release.
HEINRICH: No, I understand that; but if you would black out the agents faces, destroyed
the videotapes and then kept a digital record, that would've addressed the security
concerns.

 HASPEL: Senator, I'm -- I'm just not a -- a technical person, so I -- I don't...
HEINRICH: Not that complicated.
HASPEL: Well I don't -- senator, I -- I don't know if that was considered or not.
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 is an actual
video?
HASPEL: Senator, I never saw the videos. I do know that we keep very complete and
almost verbatim records and our cable traffic, but I think that the issue was the security risk
posed our officers.
HEINRICH: Thank you.
BURR: It was time's expired. Senator Blunt.
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 associate have (ph) 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 the General Hayden, former CIA director say the other day that he would be
incredibly comfortable when the president was making decisions -- he made have said,
maybe even more than comfortably, said he would -- feels 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 I'm -- I'm -- it
is the 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.
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 (ph) 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 is hugely important...
PROTESTER: (OFF-MIKE)
BURR: Capitol Police, please remove her.
BLUNT: So let's go back, your -- as a leader of the team, I -- 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?
HASPEL: Senator, thank you. I've already worked with this President and his team for 15
months. I think I have a -- 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 principal's meetings.
I backup the former Director in the Oval Office where I'm part of Director Coats team;
sometimes Sue Gordon is with me. soon. 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 and 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
analyst because we're really there to deliver the objective all source analysis that they write
to support the President.
BLUNT: So you would see yourself as the master of the facts, the facts to be sure the
President knows all the facts the President needs to know.
HASPEL: I think that's incredibly important Senator.
BLUNT: Thank you Chairman.
BURR: Thank you Senator. Senator King.
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 and -- and 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 2017, the IC issued a joint report on
the the Russia involvement in the 2016 elections. Do you agree with the findings of that
report?
HASPEL: Senator, I do.
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 2001-03 Deputy Group Chief Counterterrorism Center; '03 to '04
Senior Level Supervisor Counterterrorism Center; '04 to '05, Deputy Chief National
Resources Division. In any of those jobs, were you in a supervisory or management capacity
in connection with the rendition and -- and interrogation program?

 HASPEL: Senator, we'll be able to go over and I know you -- 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.
KING: Who's deciding what's classified what isn't in terms of what's released to this
committee?
HASPEL: Senator, we are following the existing guidelines. There are very...
KING: Who is deciding?
HASPEL: We are following the existing guide...
KING: Who is we?
HASPEL: Well, I have chosen to follow the guidelines that exist for the RDI...
KING: You are making the classification decisions about what material should be released to
this committee?
HASPEL: I am electing not to make an exception for myself, but I am adhering to existing
RDI guidelines. If I may...
KING: That's -- that's fine. I -- I just wanted to understand that. With regard to the table -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 did -- 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?
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.
KING: And when you drafted the cable, is that correct?
HASPEL: Yes at his request.
KING: Isn't it common practice in the CIA when a cable particularly of this importance is
drafted that there could be copied to various parts of the legal establishment within the CIA
and was it -- was that done in this case? Was that cable copy to Mr. Rizzo or other lawyers
within the agency?
HASPEL: Senator, there was there was robust coordination with the lawyers at CIA...
KING: Were they copied on the cable?
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.
KING: And you were aware because you drafted the cable that the lawyers weren't copied
on the cable?

 HASPEL: But I -- I knew that the lawyers had been consulted in a meeting and -- and
consulted over many times over three years.
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?
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.
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?
HASPEL: Senator I don't recall that specific conversation.
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 EPSI (ph) the (inaudible) ranking member had either expressed opposition or
reservation about the destruction of tapes."
Did you know that at the time you drafted that cable?
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.
KING: Final question, was a matter of coincidence that you -- that this decision was made to
destroy the tapes in the same week the two major stories appeared in American
newspapers. The Levin Amendment was being considered in 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.
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.
KING: There's a broader question, not -- 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?
HASPEL: Senator, I do not recall being aware of that.
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.
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 Inspector's 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, Frank -- I'm sorry, 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 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 happening in our
hemisphere, dealing with drug trafficking organizations, international drug trafficking, in
particular. What do you sense is a role the CIA should have in the ongoing work to be able
to do counter narcotics work in our hemisphere?
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, but 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, I, 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 stock the flow of drugs form 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.
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. They -- 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.
How -- what is need with CIA and what do you anticipate would be the need and to be able
to help our nation be able to determine what the threats are and where they're coming
from?

 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. And every -- 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 the -- 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.
LANKFORD: I will look forward to that. I yield back.
BURR: Senator Manchin.
MANCHIN: Ms. Haspel, I wanted 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 was your thoughts and greatest concerns for the United States of
America after the 9/11 attack?
HASPEL: I think for, probably, every American it was also 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.
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 have acquaintances with? Next of all, my final
thought was, was any other Americans harmed. That's all I cared about. How -- what was
this doing and what (inaudible).
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, say, procedure changed because of the attacks -- of
those attacks? Any -- 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 where were
going, that's not where you want the CIA to be. Were those changed after that?
HASPEL: Senator, I'm not sure I understand, exactly, but we're -- CIA does not do
interrogations. We, historically, have not done interrogations and we don't do
interrogations, today.

 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 that you -- of your knowledge?
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 a 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.
MANCHIN: And then, we'll go into this. Explain why you feel so strongly that the CIA should
not be an interrogation business, and would it have anything to do with basically the
makeup of the CIA with -- with the appointments -- appointment to the -- your appointment
now for -- 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?
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.
MANCHIN: I'm saying (ph) most of the questions have been directed to you has been
because of that.
HASPEL: Yes that's right. And why 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 highvalue interrogation group, and CIA as part of that; we support that was substantive
expertise about a particular group or an individual, but we don't conduct interrogation.
MANCHIN: And I know you stated strongly that's why you would be -- you feel very
compelled to tell the president, no, this is not something we do and it's not our line of work.
HASPEL: I just think there are other U.S. government entities that are suited to holding
detainees, and that isn't CIA.
MANCHIN: Let me say this about the CIA -- and 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'll -- I -- 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 -- 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 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 the West Virginian in this country for the job you all do.
HASPEL: Thank you, Senator.
BURR: Thanks, senator. Senator Cotton.
COTTON: Thank you, Mrs. 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 at
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?
You don't have to answer.
(LAUGHTER)
I also have to take exception at 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.
HASPEL: Senator, CIA follows the law.
COTTON: Exactly what I thought. Let's turn to the circumstances of what the
counterterrorism center was doing the day that you were there. I think Senator Collins
asked a excellent sequence of questions that got at many of these points; I just want to tie
a bow on some of them.
This was -- these programs, or 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?
HASPEL: That's correct, senator.
COTTON: You said that you were not a senior manager when those programs were created,
is that correct?
HASPEL: That's correct.
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?
HASPEL: Senator, I believe Mr. Brennan was the deputy extern (ph) of the agency at that
time.
COTTON: And you'd consider that a senior manager position at the CIA?
HASPEL: I believe it's a number four position.

 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, 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 there was a legal prohibition to
destroy those tapes?
HASPEL: Senator, they did not. They were very consistent that there was no legal
requirement to preserve the tapes because of the written record.
COTTON: And it's your -- it's your testimony that there is a written record that fully
documents whatever may or may not have happened?
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.
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 court room, is that correct?
HASPEL: That's correct, senator.
COTTON: You were the Chief Of Staff, to Mr. Rodriguez when this happened, correct?
HASPEL: Yes.
COTTON: And at his direction, you drafted a cable that he later sent.
HASPEL: That's correct.
COTTON: Michael Morell who supported Hillary Clinton in the last election cleared you of any
wrongdoing in directing the cable?
HASPEL: He did.
COTTON: As did in investigation by the Office of Special Counsel and the Office of the
Inspector General?
HASPEL: That investigation was closed without charges for Mr. Rodriguez or anyone.
COTTON: Would hold you responsible for drafting a cable at your boss's direction make any
more sense than holding a Senate speech writer responsible for the boring speeches
senators give on the Senate floor?
HASPEL: Senator, I'll defer to you.
(LAUGHTER)
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 take responsibilities when they are placed

 in certain positions, whether they are elected or appointed, and give the answers they are
responsible for giving yes or no and take the chips to fall where they may.
BURR: The senator's time has expired. Senator Harris.
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?
HASPEL: Senator, I believe that CIA officers, to whom you referred...
HARRIS: It's a yes or no answer. Do you believe the previous interrogation techniques were
immoral? I'm not asking you believe they were legal. I'm asking do you believe they were
immoral.
HASPEL: Senator, I believe that CIA...
HARRIS: It's yes or no.
HASPEL: ... extraordinary work to prevent another attack on this country given the legal
tools that we were authorizing...
HARRIS: Please answer yes or no. Do you believe in hindsight that those techniques were
immoral?
HASPEL: Senator, what I believe sitting here today is that I support the higher moral
standard we have decided to hold ourselves.
HARRIS: Will you answer the question?
H
ASPEL: Senator, I think I've answered the question.
HARRIS: No, you've not. Do you believe the previous techniques, now armed with hindsight
-- do you believe they were immoral, yes or no?
HASPEL: Senator, I believe that we should hold ourselves to the moral standard outlined in
the Army Field Manual.
HARRIS: OK, so I understand that -- you've 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.
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...
HARRIS: Ms. Haspel, do you believe that you have the authority to recuse yourself?
HASPEL: I'll take that for the record. I -- I may have the authority to recuse myself.
HARRIS: Assuming you do.
HASPEL: ...I'm not a lawyer. I don't -- I'm not sure about that.
HARRIS: Assuming you do -- and I believe you do. Will you agree to recuse yourself from
the responsibility and the authority if making decisions about what CIA -- information about
you and your record will be classified or declassified?
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.
HARRIS: OK. And you also have hearing have a responsibility to ask -- answer the questions
that are being asked of you. I'm going to ask you a different question. Do you -- 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?
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 is had the opportunity to look at that classified material...
HARRIS: Indeed I have.
HASPEL: But there are...
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?
HASPEL: Senator, I -- I -- I don't believe that torture works. I believe that in the CIA's
program -- and -- 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.
HARRIS: Is that a yes?
HASPEL: No, it's not a yes. We got valuable information from the briefing of Al Qaeda
detainees and I don't -- I don't think it's knowable whether interrogation techniques played
a role in that.
HARRIS: Thanks (ph) for (ph) my time.

 BURR: The senator's time has expired. Senator Cornyn.
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 the 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 10 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 was meeting with the 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 the 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 there - was that the environment in which you and the country were operating in at the time?
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, between extremists and Pakistani nuclear scientists.
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 that, in addition to the double standard that I believe you and this President
are being held to, compared to Secretary Brennan, compared -- I mean 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...
HASPEL: Thank you for doing that.

 CORNYN: ...in the CIA and I was struck by talking to one gentleman, he was talking about
his girlfriend that he no longer had.
(LAUGHTER)
And I said...
HASPEL: It's a common story.
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?
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 Counter Terrorism 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 - 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.
BURR: I thank, Senator Cornyn. Senator Reed.
REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I 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?
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.
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?
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.

 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?
HASPEL: Senator, I've worked very closely with this President. I don't, 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.
REED: If it occurred, would you inform the committee?
HASPEL: Senator, it's a hypothetical. I don't think it's going to occur. I'm very confident
about that.
REED: It does not seem to by hypothetical if people have alleged that that has happened
already.
HASPEL: Senator, I don't know anything about that conversation.
REED: OK. 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 express no moral concerns. In fact, you have suggested that it was
trade -- good tradecraft, and that it contributed to information that was developed.
If one of your operation's officers was captured and subject to waterboarding, today or
tomorrow or the next day...
PROTESTER: Sorry to interrupt here -- Senator Wyden, your -- your (inaudible).
BURR: Senator will suspend. Capitol Police will remove.
PROTESTER: Waterboarding (inaudible), waterboarding of Al Azhari (ph) and (inaudible).
(UNKNOWN): Stop resisting. Stop resisting!
PROTESTER: (Inaudible)
(UNKNOWN): Stop resisting!
PROTESTER: (Inaudible).
BURR: If there are any further disruptions, I will ask the Capitol Police to remove all
individuals.
The senator can continue.
REED: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
If one of your operators were captured, subjected to waterboarding and enhanced
interrogation techniques, which you, I believe, supervise. Would you consider that to be
moral since, perhaps, the other entity did not have legal restrictions and good trade craft as
you appeared to do when you were involved in it, previously?
HASPEL: Senator, I don't believe the terrorists follow any guidelines or civilized norms or
the law. CIA follows the law.

 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 (inaudible) activities, if
that's the analogy you're going to draw.
HASPEL: Senator, I'm sorry, can you -- I can't...
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.
(CROSSTALK)
A civilized nation was doing it until it was outlawed by this Congress.
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.
REED: Finally, in the morale 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 - the director - the next - this case, Mr. Goss, being notified?
HASPEL: Senator, I think that in 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's also a leadership lesson, don't let real security
issues go unaddressed.
REED: So the action was insubordinate and you would not countenance anyone in your
organization doing something like that?
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 do -- I will say this, Mr. Rodriguez has
taken full accountability for his decision, which he thought he was operating under his own
authority.
REED: Thank you.
BURR: Senator's time's expired. The -- we've come to the conclusion of the open session.
And I would duly note for members, it's my understanding that we're going to have two
recorded votes starting at 12:00. My intention's to start the closed hearing immediately
after the second vote.
And 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 peoples purpose, would you share for them who Khalid Sheikh
Mohammed is and Nashiri?
HASPEL: Chairman, thank you. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was the architect and mastermind
of the 9/11 attacks. His nephew, Ramzi Yousef was behind the '93 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.
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.
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 expressed -- who stated that he expressed his personal objections and some of his
views to agency colleagues. Which I think is a relevant piece of information when we
considered Mr. Brennan's testimony, for those of us who decided to vote in favor of him.
(UNKNOWN): And that would be the same ...
WARNER: Excuse me, sir ...
(UNKNOWN): That would be the same ...
WARNER: Excuse me, sir ...
(UNKNOWN): ... Mr. Brennan who supports her nomination.
BURR: Senator will suspend.
(UNKNOWN): You need the full record on the record.
BURR: No, Senator will suspend.
(UNKNOWN): John Brennan supports her nomination.
WARNER: Appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.
Let me also say this, I -- 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 -- you now hold a 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 work force. 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 de-classification. 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 putting -- 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 those -- some of your
decisions made there.
I also appreciate very much and -- and -- and we -- 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.
I've heard (ph), is all and -- 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 -- 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 your -- 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 -- 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.
WYDEN: Mr. Chairman?
BURR: Thank you, Vice Chairman. I would ask unanimous consent to enter into the record
two documents provided by Senator Feinstein in opposition to the nomination, one from
myself of 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 be -- would need to be in by the close
of business tomorrow.
WYDEN: Mr. Chairman?
BURR: Yes.
WYDEN: Very -- 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.
BURR: Duly noted.
CORNYN: Mr. -- Mr. Chairman, can I -- may I ask you a question, please, briefly?
BURR: Senator Cornyn.
CORNYN: I think there's been some comment made about the 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?
BURR: Every -- 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.
HASPEL: Thank you.
BURR: And I look forward to continuing the conversation in the closed setting.
Before we adjourn the open session -- 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 the 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. And 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 currently 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
-- 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's now adjourned.
END