John Cornyn

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I have a request for one committee to meet during today's session of the Senate. It has the approval of the Majority and Minority leaders. Pursuant to rule XXVI, paragraph 5(a), of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the following committees is authorized to meet during today's session of the Senate: subcommittee on airland The Subcommittee on Airland of the Committee on Armed Services is authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Monday, May 21, 2018, at 5 p.m. to hold a hearing.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, yesterday the Senate Intelligence Committee voted Gina Haspel's nomination out favorably by a vote of 10 to 5. It was a strong bipartisan vote. Of course, in just a few minutes, we will vote on her confirmation. Last week, during her confirmation hearing, she said repeatedly what those of us who had supported her for weeks already knew: She believes that U.S. Government actions must be held to a strict moral standard. If confirmed, she would not obey an order she believed to be unlawful, and in her new role, she pledged not to restart the interrogation programs inside the CIA. Of course, that could not happen without consultation and approval of Congress because the standard has literally changed since the immediate post-9/11 era. Based on her testimony, her record of service, and her exemplary character, it is clear that the only real option for the Intelligence Committee was to report her out favorably. Our colleagues on the other side who have objected to this nomination have an opportunity to join a couple of their Members who have already come on over and acknowledged that she is the best qualified nominee in the Agency's history. Our colleague, the senior Senator from Virginia and vice chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Mr. Warner, voted yesterday on Ms. Haspel's behalf. He praised her as an independent voice and found it noteworthy that she would be the first operations officer in more than five decades to lead the Agency. Generally speaking, you have analysts and you have the case officers who actually handle the cases and do the important intelligence- gathering work from a human intelligence perspective at the Agency, and that is the work she has been involved in for more than 30 years. She would be the first officer in more than five decades to have that sort of experience and the credibility that goes along with it. The senior Senator from Virginia, Mr. Warner, is joined by the senior Senator from West Virginia, Mr. Manchin, who also sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, as well as the junior Senator from North Dakota and others. In other words, there are a number of Democrats now who have decided that it is not in the Nation's best interest to oppose President Trump's nominees just because they happen to be President Trump's nominees. Now I want to talk about some of the stated objections and why I don't believe they hold any water, but I am glad for this movement in the right direction, which will allow us to confirm her today. I appreciate all of our colleagues carefully examining Ms. Haspel's records. A number of people I have talked to about the nomination said they wanted to do their due diligence. Well, that is our job, and I don't believe any nominee should be rubberstamped. I know they have reviewed her record, and they have met with her in person and drawn the only reasonable conclusion, I believe, which is that she is well qualified; that she loves the CIA, where she has worked for more than three decades; and that she will provide the Agency's objective, unbiased, and unvarnished intelligence to the President and other policymakers in the Federal Government. Her loyalty, of course, is not to a political party, after all, because she is nonpartisan, but she owes her loyalty to the American people, whose safety and security she has made her life's work. Comparisons have rightfully been drawn between the upcoming confirmation vote for Ms. Haspel and the 2013 confirmation vote of John Brennan, former Director of the CIA under President Obama. The vast majority of Democrats had no problem voting for Mr. Brennan, and so I believe they should have no problem voting for Ms. Haspel because, first of all, Mr. Brennan supports her. Of course, he was the No. 4 person at the CIA during this period post-9/11 when the rendition, detention, and interrogation programs were carried out in full compliance with then-stated law from the highest legal authority available, the Office of Legal Counsel. We have also seen others in the Obama administration support Ms. Haspel as well. I have said it before, and I will say it again: Those people who know Ms. Haspel best, who have worked alongside of her on a daily basis in undisclosed locations around the world, doing the Nation's important work, like this woman, admire her, respect her, and think she is the best of the best. I speak for many when I say that we appreciate Ms. Haspel's willingness and desire to serve in this new and never-easy capacity. I hope we can confirm her in short order so she can get back to work and continue to do the work that she loves and that our Nation needs. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young). Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Indiana (Mr. Young) would have voted ``yea.''

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that notwithstanding rule XXII, the cloture vote on the Haspel nomination occur at this time; further, that if cloture is invoked, all postcloture time be yielded back and the Senate immediately vote on the nomination; and that if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, today our Democratic colleagues insisted on an aimless vote on the issue of net neutrality. This is what has been called by the Wall Street Journal a vague name which essentially is cover for regulation of the internet like a utility under the previous regime, which is the Obama-era regime. Following the FCC issuance last December of the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, our Democratic colleagues vowed to make net neutrality a campaign issue. To me, one of the most maddening things about the title ``net neutrality'' is that this is the opposite of neutrality. This is all about more regulation of the internet. Oh, by the way, I noticed that the internet seemed to be working just fine while this Restoring Internet Freedom Order by the FCC was in effect. How did they do this? By painting the FCC's decision as proof somehow--and I am not really sure how, other than maybe gullible press and people willing to just accept their argument at face value--that some of us are against net neutrality. That is just not the case. I believe the free market has done more to help the internet grow and succeed as an engine of commerce and something that allows us to communicate with our friends and family, share pictures and the like, beyond our wildest dreams. I guess Thomas Friedman's book ``The World is Flat'' talked about how one of the most important events in recent history was the development of the world wide web in 1995. We have come a long way since 1995, and the internet has succeeded beyond our wildest dreams, which is the reason the last thing we should want is the government to come in and inject itself with more controls. We have always supported a free and open internet. Internet service providers should not be able to block, slow, or otherwise unfairly discriminate against any legal website or online service. In fact, it was our Democratic colleagues who blocked Republicans from passing the bill earlier today that would have prevented the internet service providers from being able to do just that. The issue up for debate this week, though, was how to classify these providers for regulatory purposes, and here, there was a choice. Our side of the aisle has long favored a light-touch approach that is offered under title I of the Telecommunications Act. Our Democratic friends favor a more onerous approach under title II. That is why they favor repealing the FCC's recent order, returning to Depression-era regulations implemented under the Obama administration. Our Democratic colleagues have now gotten their wish, in a way. They voted here in the Senate to repeal the current FCC order by using the Congressional Review Act, which gives Congress the power to nullify agency rules and requires only a simple majority to pass. But our colleague, the senior Senator from South Dakota, is correct when he refers to their stunt as ``political theater.'' It is merely a ``show vote.'' First of all, even though our Democratic colleagues may have joined together to win this vote on the Congressional Review Act in the Senate, there is simply no indication that the House plans to take it up or that the President would sign it if they did. Second, contrary to supporters' claims, the resolution will not ``restore'' net neutrality. In fact, it would accomplish the opposite. This resolution would remove rightful oversight of noncompetitive behavior and consumer protection from the Federal Trade Commission and, instead, subject ISPs to oversight by the FCC, including regulations regarding consumer data privacy, approval or disapproval of new innovation, and dictating the terms and conditions of service. That would create a major imbalance in our internet ecosystem between content and platform regulation, as edge providers like Google and Facebook would not be subject to the same standards as broadband providers. Finally, the resolution would increase the digital divide across America, and that is no small matter. As Brent Wilkes, the former CEO of LULAC, wrote recently in the Houston Chronicle, ``the CRA would . . . reinstate Depression-era Title II rules that have not created the open internet's engine of opportunity with a level playing field that proponents envisioned.'' He went on to say: ``Placing the internet back under Title II rules would . . . curb the critical infrastructure investment necessary for connecting more Americans to high-speed broadband, including nearly 4 million Texans--about 15 percent of the state's population--who live in rural communities that are difficult and costlier to connect.'' As I said when I began, I believe in an open and free internet, but the vote we just held does not make the internet more open or more free--just the opposite. Let's be blunt about it. This vote was simply a waste of time. The light-touch regulatory treatment of internet service providers under the December 2017 FCC order was a return to the Clinton-era environment that allowed the internet to innovate and thrive. Imposing additional, stifling government regulations does not benefit consumers in the long run and, instead, allows FCC bureaucrats to pick winners and losers. That is why I opposed our Democratic colleagues' resolution today.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, on a separate note, for the last few days, we have been celebrating National Police Week, when we honor the men and women who help keep our communities safe. They have chosen a difficult and often dangerous life, dedicated to enforcing the law, defending our civil liberties, and protecting our cities and neighborhoods. Sometimes law enforcement officers intentionally put themselves in harm's way for our benefit, and sometimes they even sacrifice their lives for their fellow citizens. The police in my State are no exception. In fact, according to one FBI report, Texas had more law enforcement officers die in the line of duty in 2017 than any other State. Because it is National Police Week, I would like to mention two important pieces of legislation that are high priorities for law enforcement groups, and I am happy to be the chief sponsor of both. The first is called the Justice Served Act. Its companion legislation passed just yesterday in the House. I am grateful to my colleague Representative John Carter for helping to make sure that happened. The bill would provide grants for State and local governments to prosecute cold cases. These are older crimes that have languished but are reignited through DNA evidence, including evidence obtained from backlogged rape kits. By making sure that newly tested evidence is used to investigate and prosecute unsolved crimes, the Justice Served Act would ensure that vital criminals are brought to justice instead of remaining free and on our streets. This will give crime victims and their families closure and relief and deliver justice. Once new DNA evidence is used and the wrongdoers are prosecuted, the crime victims will know that their attackers no longer remain at large. The evidence can also help exonerate those who have been wrongfully accused or even convicted. Especially this week, I am proud to have the support of the Major County Sheriffs of America, the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Association of Police Organizations, the Major Cities Chiefs, and other law enforcement organizations. I am also grateful to have the support of various organizations that support sexual assault victims, as well as prosecutors' groups. Finally, I would just like to say that I appreciate my cosponsor, the senior Senator from Minnesota, who has helped this bill continue to move through the legislative process. Another bill I would like to mention as long as I can--seasonal allergies are getting to me, like so many of us--is the Project Safe Neighborhoods Authorization Act of 2018. We hope to have it hotlined this week because, like the Justice Served Act, it is a high priority for law enforcement groups across the country. Project Safe Neighborhoods is a nationwide partnership among State, Federal, local law enforcement, and prosecutors that use data-driven, evidence-based, and trauma-informed practices to reduce violent crime. When I was the attorney general of Texas, then-Governor George W. Bush and I administered a program known as Texas Exile, in which we targeted felons who were carrying firearms as part of their carrying out some crime. We targeted those violent offenders by concentrating resources on the most important cases. This program involved multiple law enforcement agencies and allowed them to collaborate on a ``Smart on Crime'' approach, focusing efforts on high-level offenders who were responsible for tearing communities and families apart. Multiple jurisdictions in Texas participated in Project Exile, which, again, was focused on the most violent offenders and the ones who were carrying firearms, which they could not legally possess or use. The result was a staggering reduction in crime rates and homicides. Project Exile later became the basis for the Department of Justice's nationwide Project Safe Neighborhoods Program, which has been ongoing for more than a decade. I am happy that soon we will reauthorize it. Under Project Safe Neighborhoods, Federal, State, and local law enforcement cooperate and focus their enforcement efforts on organized criminal networks and repeat offenders who are driving crime rates in a particular area. One of those regions is Northern Virginia, where a regional task force composed of 13 local, State, and Federal law enforcement agencies has made tremendous strides in eradicating gang violence perpetrated by groups like MS-13. My colleague Barbara Comstock's district is in that region, and she has been the bill's biggest champion in the House. Since its inception in 2001, Project Safe Neighborhoods has been deployed by both Democratic and Republican administrations to reduce violent crime. According to a Michigan State University study funded by the Department of Justice in 2013, Project Safe Neighborhoods was associated with a 13.1-percent decrease in violent crimes in cities with high rates of program participation, including double-digit reductions in total firearms, crimes, and homicides in every city examined by the study. Our bill will reauthorize the program through fiscal year 2021 in amounts consistent with current appropriations levels. Additionally, it will require participating entities to prioritize the investigation and prosecution of individuals with leadership roles in criminal organizations, and it will strengthen innovation and prevention initiatives on the local level. I yield the floor.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate resume legislative session for a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the Senator from Texas (Mr. Cruz), the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham), the Senator from Nevada (Mr. Heller), the Senator from Oklahoma (Mr. Lankford), the Senator from Utah (Mr. Lee), and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I wish to return to a theme that I have been addressing the last few days, and that is the nomination of Ms. Gina Haspel to be Director of the CIA. Yesterday, the entire country--indeed, the entire world--saw Ms. Haspel's performance before the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. Speaking for myself, I could not have been more impressed, and taking an informal poll among others, I think many people felt the same way. It is a tough requirement of her confirmation process for somebody who has spent 33 years working for the CIA in some of the most obscure--and unknown to the rest of us--spots around the world to have to come and answer questions about her career, much of which happens to be classified information. We had an open session and then a classified hearing where she and we on the committee could protect the sources and methods and alliances we have around the world that help us collect intelligence for our policymakers and help to keep our country safe. As expected, she faced intense rounds of questioning, as I said, both in an open session and behind closed doors. I believe she did so with patience, courtesy, and poise. She articulated her view on a number of topics, of course. She defended her record against a series of false accusations and said repeatedly what those of us who have supported her already knew. She believes that U.S. Government actions must be held to a strict moral standard. If confirmed, she would not obey an order she believed to be unlawful, and in her new role, she would not restart interrogation programs inside the CIA. I want to highlight three developments that I believe lend credence to many of Ms. Haspel's statements during yesterday's hearing. First are the comparisons that have been drawn with John Brennan, former CIA Director under President Obama. As many others have pointed out, Mr. Brennan served as the No. 4 official at the CIA--much higher up the food chain, so to speak, than Ms. Haspel, who was a GS-15. Yesterday, I asked someone to tell me, as a civilian intelligence officer, how that rank would compare to the military. I was told that would be the equivalent of roughly a major or maybe a lieutenant colonel in the military. I think that is significant when you think that Mr. Brennan was the No. 4 official at the CIA, and at relevant times Ms. Haspel was an intelligence officer in a mid-level position to be sure. Getting back to Mr. Brennan, he had direct personal knowledge of the interrogation program many have questioned Ms. Haspel about. She told us she was not a part of it, had not been read into the program, and did not interrogate anyone. Mr. Brennan was confirmed by a vote of 63 to 34, with only 2 Democrats and 1 Independent voting against him. If Mr. Brennan was confirmed, despite his history at the CIA at a time when this program was being implemented, Ms. Haspel should be confirmed as well. It is worth noting that Mr. Brennan himself agrees. He has called Ms. Haspel ``an exceptionally well-respected professional within the CIA,'' one ``who has held a number of senior-level positions over the years, and has acquitted herself very competently.'' He said she will be able to provide ``unvarnished, apolitical, objective intelligence . . . to [President] Trump and to others.'' Given this body's past support of Mr. Brennan's nomination and our Democratic colleagues' current opposition to Ms. Haspel, it strikes me that she and our current President are being held to a standard to which Mr. Brennan and President Obama were not held. In other words, it is a double standard. I think that is highly regrettable and indefensible. The truth is that all the Senate Democrats currently on the Intelligence Committee who were Senators at the time of John Brennan's confirmation voted to confirm him, so I believe they have no good reason not to vote to confirm Ms. Haspel as well. I also remember when President Obama declassified certain Office of Legal Counsel memos in 2009. He promised the men and women of the CIA: We will protect all who acted reasonably and relied upon legal advice from the Department of Justice that their actions were lawful. They need to be fully confident that as they defend the Nation, I will defend them. I hope we will hear from President Obama as he keeps the promise he made back in 2009 to defend those who acted on legal advice from the Department of Justice in good faith. I think we all need to remember those words by President Obama and apply them when considering Ms. Haspel's nomination. The second thing I want to mention is a letter dated just yesterday that was sent to Chairman Burr and Vice Chairman Warner of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. It was signed by more than 30 former senior government officials with national security experience in administrations of different parties or on Capitol Hill. They called Ms. Haspel ``an excellent choice to lead the CIA at a time when our intelligence community is under significant pressure at home and abroad.'' They praised her as a leader with ``discipline and guts to take the CIA into the future,'' saying that she is highly regarded in the storied halls of Langley. That letter was signed by former CIA and National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, former NSA Director GEN Keith Alexander, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, and many others. I have said it before, but I will say it again. Those people who know Ms. Haspel best, who have worked alongside her on a daily basis, who have been in meetings with her and have witnessed her decision making like this woman. They respect her, and they think she is the best of the best, so enough already. I think we should listen to the people who know her the best. The third item related to Ms. Haspel that I will mention was a telling exchange she had with our colleague and friend, the senior Senator from California, Ms. Feinstein. Senator Feinstein asked about a certain book that at least one journalist has claimed proves Ms. Haspel ``ran'' an interrogation program in the days after 9/11. In graciously responding to our colleague's question, Ms. Haspel pointed out something important: The author of the book in question has said definitively that he ``never intended to suggest in [the] book that Gina Haspel was in charge of the CIA's interrogation program. She was not.'' In other words, he corrected a misimpression that was created by the way the book was written and made clear she was not in charge of the CIA interrogation program. The author went on to say that he fully supports Ms. Haspel's nomination. I think that short episode establishes how careful we need to be in evaluating what is known about Ms. Haspel's distinguished record of service. There are a lot of things being said that simply are not true. As many have mentioned this week, when it comes to interrogation programs following the devastating attack of 9/11, where 3,000 Americans lost their lives, she in fact was exonerated by both internal reviews at the CIA, as well as two Justice Departments, which determined that she had complied with appropriate legal guidance in place at the time she acted. Toward the end of the open session, Ms. Haspel spoke about the sacrifices made by the men and women with whom she had served. I think we need to keep in mind how difficult intelligence work can be, especially when it requires one to leave family and friends and take up hardship assignments in far-off corners of the globe. They are not like our men and women in the military, who perform such dedicated and patriotic service; intelligence officers have the additional burden of not even being able to tell their own family and friends where they are and exactly what they are doing because of the sensitivity of their work. Ms. Haspel told us about a CIA al-Qaida expert who gave birth to her third child in the days leading up to September 11. This analyst, because of her expertise, was deployed to Afghanistan shortly after the terrible events of 9/11, leaving her family and three children behind. Later, she and six of her colleagues were murdered while serving in that combat zone in the service of the Central Intelligence Agency and the U.S. Government. This is exactly the kind of dangerous and selfless work that intelligence professionals embark upon day after day. They do it because they feel a deep, abiding sense of duty and loyalty to a country that has given us freedoms many parts of the world do not enjoy, and it is that loyalty, it is that sense of duty that propels them to put it all on the line. They pour their blood, sweat, and tears into detecting and helping to stop threats posed against this country by nations and actors intent on doing us enormous harm. As we heard yesterday from Ms. Haspel, there are more than 100 stars on the CIA Memorial Wall, and 7 more were added just last year. Those are a reminder of the U.S. men and women who have lost their lives while engaged in the service of the intelligence community and our country. Having served for 33 years with distinction, Ms. Haspel is acutely aware of the sacrifices that have been made by so many with whom she will be working in her new capacity as Director of the CIA, and I know she is mindful of the colleagues and friends she has lost. Yet she believes so firmly in the Agency's mission that she is willing to take on one more challenge, one that may be her greatest challenge yet; that is, leading the entire CIA into an uncertain future. I want to close by saying that I appreciate her willingness and desire to serve in this new and never easy capacity. I hope we can confirm her in short order so that she can get back to work and continue to do what she loves and help keep our Nation safe.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from South Carolina (Mr. Graham) and the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator from Arizona (Mr. McCain) and the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran).

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. CORNYN

Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, earlier today the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence heard from the President's pick for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Gina Haspel. Actually, we had an open hearing this morning, and I just returned from a recently concluded closed hearing, during which classified information was shared with the committee and discussed with the nominee. As we know, the President's nominees for various positions have been the victims of hearsay, innuendo, and rumor. Thankfully, Ms. Haspel had the opportunity today to respond to some of the questions--and attacks, really--that have been posed against her in the public. She has now had a chance to respond, and I thought she did so with tremendous knowledge, grace, and the kind of temperament you would hope for in a Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. She exemplified the core attributes we have come to know about her since she was nominated: professional integrity, an innate sense of loyalty to her country, and a strong drive to work hard, not just for the advancement of her individual career but also to protect Americans and put our national security first. The fact that she is here today, as President Trump's nominee to become the first female Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, is a testament to both her character and her exceptional, decades-long career as an intelligence professional. All the while, she has endeared herself to her colleagues in the intelligence community, who have an immense amount of respect for her and her work. In fact, in addition to being the first female Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, Ms. Haspel would be the first operations officer in perhaps 40 years or more. In other words, at the CIA they have analysts, they have people who do operations, who are case officers and who do intelligence work, and, then, they have other people who perform technical intelligence activity. She would be the first in 40 years to actually have worked in some of the hot spots around the world that I will mention more about here in a moment. Yesterday, I spoke about some aspects of her career, about some of the pieces that our colleagues across the aisle have left out of the picture, which, in fairness, should be painted in full context so people can understand that her career, spanning 33 years, is far more than a couple of anecdotes or caricatures of her experience. In other words, she is not defined by those experiences. Although, as she has said today, we have all learned from those experiences. Her 33 years of service showcase an unparalleled commitment to the Central Intelligence Agency and a devotion to the rule of law. She understands that when the intelligence agencies don't follow the rules of the road, somebody is going to be held to account for it at a later time. In this case, ironically, having followed the rule of law, we find that some of our colleagues from across the aisle want to relitigate decades-old incidents after the fact of 9/11, where, relying on the premier legal authorities in the country from the Department of Justice and having received orders from the Commander in Chief, they simply did their job and now are being questioned in a way that suggests they did something less than honorable, when, in fact, they did exactly what they were asked to do. The fact is that here in America we have not seen a follow-on attack from 9/11. I mentioned yesterday a book I was reviewing that reminded me that in the days following 9/11, on which 3,000 people died--some at the Pentagon, where one plane crashed, and two others crashed at the World Trade Center--there was some chatter about a potential nuclear device getting into the hands of al-Qaida, the same people who took down the two towers and hit the Pentagon. That would have been catastrophic, obviously. Thankfully, as a result of the good investigatory work and intelligence collection that the intelligence community acquired, we learned that those rumors did not end up proving to be true. But that sort of sets the tone for the environment and attitude that many had about the potential for follow- on attacks, which would have been tremendously devastating. It is a strange business that we ask our intelligence officials to play to the edge of the law--in other words, to follow the law but to be aggressive, to be forward-leaning to prevent these attacks. Then, when they do exactly that, we come back years later, when we are feeling safe and secure, and say: Well, you went too far. We can imagine what it would have been like if there had been another follow-on attack during which American citizens were killed. We can imagine that our intelligence community would be criticized for allowing that to happen, for somehow not stopping it, finding out about it, and preventing it. Unfortunately, too many people have 20/20 hindsight and are engaged in second-guessing. Frankly, for people who serve honorably in the intelligence community, it seems like a lose-lose proposition: Do too much and prevent an attack, and we will criticize you. Don't do enough and an attack occurs, and we will criticize you for that. Suffice it to say that in all respects, during her career Gina Haspel has acted in accordance with the law, as determined by the Department of Justice. By the way, the Supreme Court of the United States is not going to hand out an opinion in a case where the executive branch has to act. Opinions handed down by the Office of Legal Counsel in the Justice Department are the authoritative legal guidance for executive branch agencies like the CIA. Ms. Haspel has worked in assignments from Africa and Europe, and she has been posted to dangerous capitals around the world. She has been shot at, survived a coup d'etat, and run clandestine assets against hard targets. Those who have worked with her say her management skills and integrity are unmatched. That is why she served as a station chief, the Deputy Director of the National Clandestine Service, and Deputy Director of the Central Intelligence Agency itself. All of this experience is extraordinary and it is important, and it is exactly what our country needs in this uncertain time. Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified in recent memory that, in his 50 years in the intelligence business, he has never before seen such a diverse array of threats confronting our country--from North Korea to Iran, to Russia, to China, to the terrorism threat, to domestic home-grown terrorist attacks inspired by social media and online activity from overseas. America clearly needs someone with the deep expertise and understanding of the Central Intelligence Agency and the intelligence community and someone who doesn't have to get up to speed. Americans need someone with extensive counterterrorism experience who has worked with difficult and hostile intelligence services and, I would say, also with our friends and allies around the world. Some of the relationships we have with other countries, like Britain, are some of the most important relationships we have--government to government, intelligence community to intelligence community. Ms. Haspel has the admiration and respect of those coalition agencies around the world. She may well be the most qualified person ever to be nominated for the role of CIA Director. But we saw today in the hearing that there is a determination by some to relitigate the past. We saw an attempt to relitigate issues that have been closed for a long time, going on 17, almost 20 years. There were questions about Ms. Haspel's role in counterterrorism efforts in the days immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks. I am not questioning the questions, but I am questioning using some of these issues as pretext to block or to vote against her nomination. She was accused of making decisions that clearly were made by her supervisor, when it came to getting rid of videotapes because of concerns for the safety and security of the intelligence officers depicted on those videotapes, even though there were verbatim cables of the activity on the tapes. Obviously, in this case, the decision to destroy the tapes was not hers but her supervisor's, who took full responsibility for that. As I said, it is easy here today, in the safety and security of 2018, to remember what the post-9/11 climate was like. It is easy to second- guess the legal guidance that had been provided to our intelligence professionals at the time, which they relied upon in good faith. It is easy to overlook the considerable pressure placed on the Agency at that time. As I said, if they didn't do enough, we would criticize them. If they did too much, we would criticize them for that. So it is a fine thin line they had to walk, which they did with incredible skill and determination. I would say it is nothing less than obscene to hold someone to a standard that was set after their actions were performed, in good-faith reliance on the law, as determined at the time they did act. In this case, two different Justice Departments--one under President Bush and one under President Obama--conducted investigations, exonerated Ms. Haspel, and chose not to proceed against her or her colleagues at the CIA. The fact is that early on Congress was briefed on a regular basis and approved of the activities in which she was engaged when it came to the enhanced interrogation program, which she herself did not directly participate in but which occurred during her time in the counterterrorism center. That Congress decided after the fact to change some of those policies does not make the prior implementation of the policies improper at all. Indeed, it was her professional obligation to carry them out, and it was not for her or her fellow officers to second-guess the legality of those policies. At the time at issue, Ms. Haspel was a GS-15, which is a civil service ranking that would be the equivalent of either a major or lieutenant colonel. It is as if saying that as for decisions made by the Commander in Chief, where a lieutenant colonel participated in executing those orders, that somehow they were responsible for the policy decision made by the Commander in Chief in the military. It just doesn't make any sense at all. As long as our military and intelligence officials rely in good faith on the best legal guidance given to them at the time, they should be free to conduct their activities and not be second-guessed later on. Some have now gone so far as to complain her full personnel file has not been released. As I said, Ms. Haspel has the unique qualification of having served 33 years essentially undercover, and she has participated in some of the most sensitive intelligence activities our country is engaged in. The idea that now we would jeopardize the sources, the methods, and the alliances we had at that time just so colleagues could display that in full public view strikes me as terribly misguided. It is true that in the Intelligence Committee we did have a classified hearing, at which all of those matters were aired, but in an appropriate setting, protecting that important sensitive information, which is absolutely critical to keeping the country safe. The idea that we ought to release her full personnel file, including sensitive operations, to jeopardize the safety of other officers and expose sensitive sources and methods of intelligence collection is to risk national security itself. Some of our colleagues are suggesting that this happen, but they simply know better, and they should know better. You saw a stark difference at the hearing today between those who wish to ensure we have the most qualified person leading the CIA and those who have determined to obstruct President Trump's nominees at all cost. In fact, during my time questioning Ms. Haspel, I mentioned a national security expert who said, if Ms. Haspel had been nominated by President Obama, it would be an easy call, but because she was nominated by President Trump, and ironically happens to be the first woman nominated to this important position as Director of the CIA, for some reason, now we are going to hold her and President Trump to another standard, a double standard. If people were really listening, they would have heard Ms. Haspel confirm what many of us have been saying about her all along; that she is the right person for this job. We learned that former Defense Secretary and CIA Director Leon Panetta and former Director of National Director James Clapper, both former Obama officials, unequivocally support Ms. Haspel. We have heard from Michael Hayden, John Brennan, both former CIA Directors. Both have criticized President Trump for other matters but praised this pick to head the Agency. We read about this nominee, too, as the Wall Street Journal Editorial board penned its support, writing: [T]he people misrepresenting the CIA nominee were in the cheap seats during the worst days of the war on terror. Ms. Haspel didn't have that luxury. I couldn't agree more with that characterization. Yet some of our colleagues simply refuse to listen. In fact, we have been seeing this same pattern play out throughout the Trump Presidency--people playing politics and obstructing the nominees of the President simply because they disagree with the President, not because of the qualifications of the nominees. Sadly, we have seen character assassination against nominees who have subsequently withdrawn because they have simply been unwilling to go through the process and see the destruction of a reputation they have worked a lifetime for. It is our Nation's loss that good people withdraw from the process rather than go through that sort of character assassination. The Senate has a duty, after all, to ensure that our country has well-qualified people at the head of our national security agencies like the Central Intelligence Agency. While Ms. Haspel's credentials are certainly more than sufficient to support her nomination against some of the baseless claims we have heard, there is just as important a case to be made for her that is based on upholding the CIA as an institution. Two lawyers who formerly served in the White House Counsel's office and the Justice Department, David Rivkin and Lee Casey, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: ``If agents are blamed following the directives of their superiors, the CIA's ability to protect the U.S. will be fundamentally compromised.'' I agree. We want our intelligence officers to be as aggressive as they can within the confines of the law, collecting and analyzing intelligence they can then provide to policymakers so we can keep our country safe. We ought to, at least for a while, put a hold on the politics of obstructing nominees, particularly at a national security post, so we can put Americans' safety first. We have to ask ourselves, in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous time, what does the CIA mean to the national security of the United States? For an agency at the very forefront of protecting our country's citizens, what type of person do we want at the helm? I believe we want a person like Ms. Haspel. It is Ms. Haspel--short and sweet--who I think fits the mold of that sort of person we want. I urge our colleagues to rethink what they are doing here, to shift gears and support this nominee who is so well-qualified and so devoted to protecting our country. Can you imagine the individual sacrifices intelligence officers who serve undercover have to make--the sort of strain on relationships when they are deployed abroad like our military is and the hardships they have to sustain, but they do it because they love our country and they are dedicated to keeping the American people safe. Those sort of people--that kind of character, that kind of integrity--ought to be rewarded and not criticized and punished. As I said, I urge our colleagues to rethink what we are doing and shift gears and support this qualified nominee. She is exactly what the American people deserve, so let's get her confirmed.