    [Senate Hearing 119-9]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-9

                          OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF
                        TULSI GABBARD TO BE DIRECTOR OF
                             NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

                                     OF THE

                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                JANUARY 30, 2025

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence

    [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    __________

                          U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
    58-632                       WASHINGTON : 2026
    =======================================================================

                        SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE

               (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.)

                         TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman
                    MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman

    JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho                RON WYDEN, Oregon
    SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine              MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                   ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine
    JERRY MORAN, Kansas                  MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado
    JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma             KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York
    MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota            JON OSSOFF, Georgia
    TODD YOUNG, Indiana                  MARK KELLY, Arizona
    TED BUDD, North Carolina
                      JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ex Officio
                    CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio
                    ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ex Officio
                      JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio
                                  ----------

                           Ryan Tully, Staff Director
                      William Wu, Minority Staff Director
                         Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk

                               C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                                JANUARY 30, 2025
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas...........................     1
    Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia.......................     4
    The Honorable Richard Burr, Former U.S. Senator..................     7
    The Honorable Joni Ernst, U.S. Senator from Iowa.................     8

                                    WITNESS

    Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard, Nominee to be Director of National
      Intelligence...................................................    10
        Prepared Statement...........................................    14

                             SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

    Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees............    53
    Additional Pre-Hearing Questions.................................   194
    Post-Hearing Questions...........................................   310
    2017 Declassified Intelligence Analysis Regarding the Assad
      Regime's use of chemical weapons, submitted by Senator Kelly...   320
    2018 Declassified Intelligence Analysis Regarding the Assad
      Regime's use of chemical weapons, submitted by Senator Kelly...   324

     OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF TULSI GABBARD, TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL
                                  INTELLIGENCE

                           THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025

                                           U.S. Senate,
                              Select Committee on Intelligence,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in
    Room SD-106, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom
    Cotton, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Cotton (presiding), Warner, Risch,
    Collins, Cornyn, Moran, Lankford, Rounds, Young, Budd, Wyden,
    Heinrich, King, Bennet, Gillibrand, Kelly.

                              PROCEEDINGS

        Chairman Cotton. This hearing will come to order.
        Ladies and gentlemen, welcome.
        Before we get underway today, I would like to take a brief
    moment to recognize the terrible loss of life that occurred
    just a few miles away from here last night. Our hearts and
    prayers are with the families and friends who lost loved ones
    last night as well as the brave first responders who are still
    on the scene.
        I would like to ask everyone to join us in a moment of
    silent prayer and reflection for the souls lost.
        (A moment of silence was observed.)
        Thank you. Next, I want to remind everyone in attendance
    here that while you are all welcome to observe today's hearing,
    I will not allow or tolerate disruptions from the audience.
    Audience members may not verbally or physically distract from
    the hearing, including by shouting, standing raising signs or
    making gestures that block the view of other members of the
    audience or the cameras for those watching on television or on
    line. Anyone who does so will be removed immediately by the
    Capitol Police and banned from return.

       OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COTTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                ARKANSAS

        Chairman Cotton. Welcome everyone to this hearing on
    President Trump's nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the
    Director of National Intelligence.
        Ms. Gabbard, welcome to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
    I also want to welcome your family in attendance today,
    including your husband Abraham, your mother Carol, and your
    sister Vrindavan. I also want to acknowledge some very special
    friends of yours: Dakota Meyer and Pat Payne, both Medal of
    Honor recipients.
        Gentlemen, on behalf of a grateful nation, I extend my
    deepest thanks to you and the heroes with whom you served.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Cotton. I also note that our next Attorney General
    Pam Bondi is joining us. Apparently, she didn't have enough fun
    at her own confirmation hearing.
        Ms. Bondi, welcome and congratulations.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Cotton. Finally, Senator Joni Ernst and former
    Senator and Chairman of this Committee, Richard Burr, will
    introduce Ms. Gabbard shortly. We look forward to your remarks.
        It is fair to say that Ms. Gabbard's nomination has
    generated a bit more interest and attention than do most
    nominees before this Committee. But I want to stress that Ms.
    Gabbard has been and will be treated with the exact same
    respect, consideration, and professionalism that we extended to
    every nominee, no more, no less, no better, no worse. That is
    how we treated CIA Director John Ratcliffe just 2 weeks ago,
    and how we treated DNI nominees like Avril Haines and Dan Coats
    in the past.
        For instance, Ms Gabbard has conducted dozens of office
    meetings with Senators. She has completed the committee's
    standard questionnaire. She has answered 247 questions in
    writing. This is all in keeping with the committee's customs,
    precedents and rules.
        Before I address the important work ahead at the DNI,
    please also let me make two observations about some of the
    accusations about Ms. Gabbard. First, I am dismayed by the
    attacks of Ms. Gabbard's patriotism and her loyalty to our
    country. For instance, Hillary Clinton has smeared Ms. Gabbard
    calling her an ``asset'' of a foreign nation. Let me remind
    everyone that Ms. Gabbard has served in our Army for more than
    two decades. She has multiple combat tours and she still wears
    the uniform to this day. She has undergone five FBI background
    checks. I spent more than two hours last week reviewing the
    latest--putting eyes on more than 300 pages. It is clean as a
    whistle.
        It is fine that we have differences of opinions on policies
    and programs. I suspect some of my Republican colleagues might
    disagree with some of Ms. Gabbard's votes in the House of
    Representatives, just as I suspect some of my Democratic
    colleagues might criticize Ms. Gabbard's statements and actions
    since she saw the light and left the Democratic Party. But I
    sincerely hope that no one today will impugn Ms. Gabbard's
    patriotism and integrity.
        Second, I can only laugh at some critics who say that Ms.
    Gabbard has ``unconventional'' views. No doubt she has some
    unconventional views, like her criticism of Barack Obama's
    regime change interventions in Egypt and Libya. But, guess
    what? I opposed the disastrous interventions in Egypt and Libya
    as well. Mubarek was a longtime American partner and Egypt was
    a linchpin of our security system in the Middle East. Gaddafi
    had been scared straight after we toppled the Taliban and
    Saddam Hussein. He turned over his weapons of mass destruction
    and cooperated against terrorists. In return we had lifted
    sanctions and reestablished diplomatic ties. But President
    Obama intervened to topple both regimes. And what came next?
    The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and dangerous chaos in Libya to
    this day.
        No one ever mistook Mubarek or Gaddafi as the Little
    Sisters of the Poor, but let's not kid ourselves, the world is
    a dangerous place, not a church picnic. Ms. Gabbard understands
    this, which is why she also saw the problem with regime change
    interventions in these places.
        The vast number of governments throughout history and still
    today are not Democratic. We may wish it were different and we
    can work to improve it, but that is the way the world is. If we
    only befriended nations that shared our system of government
    and our social and cultural sensibilities, well, we wouldn't
    have many friends. In a fallen world we have to take our
    friends where we find them. No question, stable democracies
    make the most stable friends, but what matters in the end is
    less whether a country is democratic or non-democratic, and
    more whether the country is pro American or anti-American.
        I confess that those views made be somewhat unconventional,
    but look where conventional thinking has got us. Maybe
    Washington can use a little more unconventional thinking. And I
    am sure that the Office of the Director of National
    Intelligence could use more unconventional thinking.
        Ms. Gabbard, I submit that, if confirmed, the measure of
    your success will largely depend on whether you can return the
    ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission.
        When Congress created the ODNI, we intended to put one
    office in charge to manage the different agencies of the
    intelligence community. Congress intended the ODNI to be a very
    lean organization that would use small staffs to execute
    specific tasks. Congress in no way wanted yet another unruly
    bureaucracy layered on top of an already bureaucratic
    intelligence community. Unfortunately, 20 years later, that is
    exactly what the ODNI has become.
        Incredibly, the ODNI is now larger than any agencies it was
    established to manage. It has 15 offices and centers which have
    many subunits within them. The ODNI staff is measured in the
    thousands when it should be measured in the dozens or maybe a
    few hundred. I promise that is going to change. I intend to get
    personnel at the ODNI back to their home agencies doing real
    intelligence work, not bureaucratic make-work. I also expect to
    cap the size of the ODNI.
        Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, I hope you will be a partner in
    these vital efforts.
        Another example of bureaucratic mission creep and empire
    building is what has come to be known in the intelligence
    community as DNI taxes. The ODNI levees these so-called taxes
    on other agencies, shifting and directing funds away from the
    intelligence community's core mission to the whims and fancies
    of any particular DNI. That practice which seems to have grown
    and run rampant under Director Haines is also going to stop.
        Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, you have a lot of work ahead of
    you. And as Chairman of this Committee, I am committed to
    ensuring that we see it all the way through.
        At this moment I will now recognize Senator Risch for a
    brief statement.
        Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I
    appreciate that and I want to thank Ms. Gabbard for meeting
    with me and having a candid conversation again, on the issues.
        Unfortunately, I have to chair the Foreign Relations
    Committee in our first substantive meeting today on malign
    influence of China here at home and abroad. So I am not going
    to be able to stay for this hearing and I am not going to get a
    chance to ask questions. However, we will have a closed session
    immediately following, and the questions I have trespass upon
    the security of our country and as a result of that they need
    to be done in a classified setting, in any event.
        So if I beg Intelligence to be excused to preside over the
    other committee. Good luck. I know you will do well.
        Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. You are excused. [Laughter.]
        Senator Risch. I was going to leave whether you excused me
    or not, but thank you very much.
        Chairman Cotton. I will now recognize the Vice Chairman,
    Senator Warner, for his opening remarks.

     OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                                VIRGINIA

        Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
    particularly for your comments at the top. I spent most of the
    morning out at the National Airport. I know Senator Moran was
    there last night. It was a horrible tragedy. The victims'
    families are still being notified.
        For those of us who live in this region, it is always kind
    of complicated. We have got Virginia, DC, Maryland, and a host
    of local jurisdictions. But last night, when this tragedy took
    place and I happened to be driving by National on the way home
    and saw all the first responders rushing to the scene. People
    came from as far away as Baltimore, Fairfax County. We had DOD
    and Federal officials there, and these first responders as
    always, ran towards the tragedy.
        There will be a time to figure out what happened and how we
    rectify it, but today our thoughts and prayers ought to be with
    the families and again thanking our first responders.
        Ms. Gabbard, welcome and congratulations on your nomination
    to be the next Director of National Intelligence.
        I would like to begin by thanking you for your decades of
    public service, both in uniform and as a Member of Congress in
    Hawaii. I applaud your continuing commitment to serve, should
    you be confirmed.
        Now the President has nominated you to be Director of
    National Intelligence. Most folks probably don't understand the
    importance of this position. If confirmed, you would lead 18
    agencies of the IC. You will also serve as the principal
    adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and
    Homeland Security Council for all intelligence matters related
    to national security. And in this role you will be responsible
    for over $100 billion between the national intelligence program
    and the military intelligence programs or the MIC and the NIC
    as we call them here.
        It is a position of great importance to our national
    security created after one of our worst national security
    failures, 9/11. For that reason, when Congress established this
    position, thanks in large part to our colleague and our friend
    Susan Collins, it mandated in law that any individual nominated
    for this position must have, and I quote ``extensive national
    security expertise.''
        Now I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me and as
    I noted in that office before and after, I continue to have
    significant concerns about your judgment and your
    qualifications to meet the standards set by law.
        First, as I noted previously, the DNI was created in part
    to make sure we had appropriate intelligence sharing which
    prior to 9/11 obviously wasn't happening. The mission was to
    not only share information between the IC, but also with our
    allies. There is no legal requirement that our allies share
    intelligence with us. It is all predicated on trust. Trust that
    our allies will protect each other's secrets. It appears to me
    you have repeatedly excused our adversaries worst actions and
    instead often blamed them on the United States and those very
    allies. For example, you blamed NATO for Russia's 2022 invasion
    of Ukraine. You rejected the conclusion that Assad used
    chemical weapons in Syria, despite it being the unanimous
    assessment of the then-Trump administration's DoD, State
    Department and IC as well as the assessment of our European
    allies. Instead, you blamed the United States for supporting
    terrorist groups in Syria.
        Now, I don't know if your intent in making those statements
    was to defend those dictators or if you were simply unaware of
    the intelligence and how your statements would be perceived. In
    either case, it raises, at least for this Senator, serious
    questions about your judgment. It also leads me to question
    whether you can develop the trust necessary to give our allies
    confidence that they can share their most sensitive
    intelligence with us. Make no mistake about it: If they stop
    sharing that intelligence, the United States will be less safe.
        We have seen this as recently as this past year where
    because of those strong intelligence sharing between the United
    States and Austria, countless lives were saved by disrupting a
    terrorist attack that was going to take place at the Taylor
    Swift concert in Vienna.
        Second, you have been publicly outspoken in your praise and
    defense of Edward Snowden--someone who betrayed the trust of
    our Nation and jeopardized the security of our country. The
    truth is the vast majority of the information he stole and
    leaked before running off to China and Russia, might I add, had
    nothing to do with Americans' privacy and compromised our most
    important sources and methods. In many ways we are still paying
    a price for that. And I believe that Edward Snowden's actions
    put our men and women in uniform in places like Iraq and
    Afghanistan at risk.
        You celebrated Snowden as a ``brave whistleblower'' and
    actually put forth legislation asking for his pardon.
        Furthermore, when given the opportunity to clarify your
    position in prehearing questions you declined and instead you
    expressed, and I quote, ``the DNI has no role in determining
    whether or not Edward Snowden is a lawful whistleblower.''
        What a line. That is troubling to me in so many ways.
        Not only did you think that someone who stole secrets and
    then ran off to Russia should be celebrated as ``brave,'' but
    you don't seem to understand the DNI's role in determining
    whistleblower determinations. In fact, the DNI has a
    significant role in transmitting lawful whistleblower
    complaints to this Committee. They are all laid out right here
    in this statute. And I would have serious concerns about
    confirming someone who could not distinguish between complaints
    that are made lawfully and those that are not.
        In the statute it says the job of the DNI is to protect
    intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure.
    That is a quote. I guess I am asking, what message would it
    send to have a DNI who celebrate the work of a member of the IC
    or a contractor who would on their own volition decide what is
    appropriate to leak? I don't understand that.
        Third, until recently, you had a clear and consistent
    record of opposing FISA 702. I know Members on this Committee
    already understand how important this is, but for the folks who
    don't, this law is critical for our national security.
    Literally 60 percent on average of what goes into the
    President's daily brief--what President Trump will read each
    day in assessing what is going on in the world comes from this
    important piece of law that allows us to seek out those
    foreign--foreigners abroad for coverage. And it has helped
    prevent terrorist attacks. It helps us prevent foreign cyber
    attacks. It helps us on a topic a lot of folks are talking
    about, fentanyl trafficking.
        Many in Congress and many on this Committee have tried to
    reform to better balance security and civil liberties; however,
    you have consistently gone further. Not only did you vote
    against reauthorizing 702, you actually introduced legislation
    to fully repeal the whole thing, calling it, again, quote ``a
    blatant disregard for our Fourth Amendment constitutional
    rights.''
        Now I understand that since you have been nominated to DNI,
    you have expressed a change of heart. I think that is welcome,
    but I have to tell you, as I try to make--and I do this on job
    interviews. I try to make my judgment on whether you should be
    confirmed, I don't find your change of heart credible because
    the world today is more complex and more dangerous than ever
    before and we need serious people with sufficient experience to
    be able to navigate that complexity.
        I hope you use this opportunity to address my concerns and
    with all of the Members of this Committee. I appreciate, again,
    your service and I am looking forward to further discussion.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman.
        We welcome back Senator Richard Burr, the former Chairman
    of this Committee who has emerged from retirement to introduce
    Ms. Gabbard. But still, even in his retirement, he still seems
    unable to find a pair of socks. [Laughter.]
        Nonetheless we say thank you and welcome you back, Senator
    Burr.
        Senator Burr. Some things are always predictable, Mr.
    Chairman.

                     STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR

        Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman
    Warner, Members of this distinguished Committee:
        I want to thank you for allowing me to join you today to
    provide my thoughts and support on behalf of Tulsi Gabbard's
    nomination to be Director of National Intelligence.
        This is my first visit back to the Senate in slightly over
    two years. Permit me to say, from this side of the dais, you
    are not as intimidating as I thought when I was on your side of
    the dais.
        When I was Chairman of this Committee, Senator Warner and I
    stuck to a single refrain with our staff: Follow the facts
    wherever they lead.
        Today, an anonymous person or group launching a campaign
    using rumors as sources and accusations as fact can drive the
    outcome of an election and of public opinion. I know it to be
    true. Remember I sat in your chair for the Russia
    investigation, where we found much of the influence to be the
    result of fictitious narratives driven by Russia.
        Now, some of you may be wondering why do I support Tulsi
    Gabbard and why am I here to introduce her as a nominee. I have
    experienced firsthand a coordinated attempt to influence this
    nominee's support in the United States Senate and with the
    American people.
        I was contacted by several national journalists shortly
    after the President nominated Tulsi, asking me to confirm one
    of the many rumors circulating about this nominee. I informed
    each journalist over a five-week period that the rumors shared
    with me was simply not true. This narrative was shared from one
    journalist to the next journalist to the next journalist. I
    assume today that they ran out of journalists. This was a
    coordinated effort to kill this nomination.
        Advise and consent is the responsibility of the United
    States Senate and I truly believe that each Member takes it
    seriously. All Members of this Committee were offered the
    opportunity for individual meetings with Tulsi and if you chose
    not to meet with her, it is on you.
        I have done my homework and here are the facts. Tulsi
    Gabbard historic's life began at birth. She is the first
    American Samoan-born Member of Congress, period. She graduated
    from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in business
    administration with a concentration in international business.
    In 2002, at age 21, Tulsi became the youngest woman in America
    ever elected as a State Representative.
        That was not enough. In 2003, she joined the Hawaii
    National Guard. When deployed, in a re-election, her opponent
    raised the issue: Could you serve the people that elected you,
    if in fact, you were deployed? What did Tulsi do? She withdrew
    from her re-election campaign in order to continue to serve our
    country in the War on Terror. This would not be the first or
    the last time Tulsi put her country above her career.
        After multiple deployments and serving in the Hawaii City
    Council, she was elected to the United States House of
    Representatives where she served four terms. Throughout her
    political career she maintained her military service either in
    the National Guard or the Army reserve.
        Media stories and anonymous rumors have questioned her
    qualifications, her patriotism, and whether she can be trusted,
    just to name a few. I refuse to question the qualifications of
    a woman who has worn the uniform of her nation for 22 years and
    never taken it off. No fewer than five times has the Department
    of Defense reviewed her security clearance and extended it,
    every single time. If Tulsi is guilty of anything, it is that
    since she was born, her views, opinions, and beliefs have
    evolved to reflect her life's experiences.
        Winston Churchill once said: ``Those who never change their
    minds never change anything.''
        She served her city, her State, her country while winning
    the support of the people she represented. She has fought in
    war, and yes, she has tried to stop wars. At the ripe age of
    43, Tulsi has the life experiences that match or exceed most
    Members of Congress. Tulsi was serving in uniform 3 years
    before some of us here today voted to create the Director of
    National Intelligence.
        Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, Members of the
    Committee: It is my honor to support and to introduce to the
    Committee, Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Burr.
        Now, our colleague, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, has taken a
    few minutes out of her very busy schedule to be here to
    introduce Ms. Gabbard, as well.
        Senator Ernst.

         STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA

        Senator Ernst. Thank you, Chairman Cotton and Ranking
    Member Warner, and good morning to my distinguished colleagues.
        I also do want to take a moment this morning to recognize
    the lives that were lost in the collision near DCA last night.
    It is a truly heartbreaking tragedy. My prayers are with the
    victims' families and their loved ones. Thank you.
        Duty, honor, service. These are not just words. They are
    principles that have guided Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard. As a
    young enlisted soldier in the Hawaii National Guard, Tulsi
    answered the call to duty upon her deployments to the Middle
    East. From graduating at the top of her class from the
    accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military
    Academy, the first woman to do so, to serving as the youngest
    member of Hawaii's legislature, she upheld honor while breaking
    barriers both in uniform and in her civilian leadership roles.
    And today, Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard demonstrates her
    commitment to service by sitting before this Committee,
    prepared to answer the Nation's call yet once again, this time
    as the next Director of National Intelligence.
        Tulsi and I share similar backgrounds, both to our Nation
    and to our communities. We have worn the same uniforms, serving
    in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves, leading
    battalions and deploying to Iraq and Kuwait. We both had the
    privilege of serving in our State legislatures and in Congress,
    representing the people who shaped our lives and our
    communities.
        Tulsi exemplifies what it means to rise above partisanship,
    putting the needs of the American people over political
    divisions. She put her own life on the line in combat
    operations, and now has set aside partisan differences as a
    former Democratic Member of Congress to answer the call to
    serve in a Republican administration.
        The mainstream media has fought to paint their own picture
    of Tulsi Gabbard. But let's talk about the real Tulsi Gabbard--
    the woman and the soldier who I have come to know and respect,
    and I have known Tulsi for the past decade. Relationships
    matter.
        In 2015, then-Congresswoman Gabbard met my dear friend Owen
    who was a dear friend of mine from Iowa State University. Owen
    was a wounded Special Operations warrior who embodies the
    resilience and strength of our military community. Owen was the
    subject of an attack in Afghanistan, where he lost his leg and
    his left eye serving in the war. After this attack, or during
    this attack, Owen was tossed into the dead pile. Owen, bleeding
    and in excruciating pain, cried out to his teammates, ``I am
    not dead.'' Thankfully, his fellow war fighter attended to
    Owen, but the road to recovery was long and hard, including a
    stint at Walter Reed Medical Center.
        During this time, Owen met a warrior and patriot,
    Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who became a friend and today they
    remain in touch. Owen prides himself in being a very good judge
    of character. And Tulsi, he speaks volumes of your character.
        Owen's final message to me before this hearing was, ``Tulsi
    has maintained her integrity throughout her career. She is the
    same gal I met in 2015. She always makes time for our old,
    broken warriors.''
        Colleagues, I will leave you with this. You know me. I
    trust Tulsi Gabbard. She will be honest with you. She will
    listen to your concerns. She will be receptive to your
    feedback. And rest assured, Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard loves
    this country--a fact proven by her willingness to put her life
    on the line to defend it. For over 20 years she has put on a
    uniform and checked her political views at the door with one
    mission in mind: to protect and defend our great United States
    of America.
        Tulsi, duty, honor, and service have marked your life.
    Thank you for your extraordinary dedication to our Nation, for
    embodying the values that make our military the best in the
    world, and for stepping up to serve yet once again as President
    Trump's Director of National Intelligence.
        Relationships matter.
        I urge my colleagues to support this nomination.
        My best wishes to you, Tulsi, and to your family.
        God bless our country.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Ernst.
        I know that Senator Ernst has a busy schedule, to include a
    hearing for Dan Driscoll, a Secretary of Army nominee at the
    Armed Services Committee. I am sure Senator Burr has to go on a
    fishing trip or something. [Laughter.]
        Chairman Cotton. So we will excuse both Senators from the
    witness table.
        Ms. Gabbard, before we move to your opening statement, it
    is the custom of the Committee to ask a series of obligatory
    questions to all nominees.
        First, do you swear or affirm to give this Committee your
    full and truthful testimony?
        Ms. Gabbard. I do.
        Chairman Cotton. Second, do you agree to appear before the
    Committee here or in other venues when invited?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Third, if confirmed, do you agree to send
    officials from your office to appear before the Committee and
    designated staff when invited?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Fourth, do you agree to provide documents
    or any materials requested by the committee in order to carry
    out its oversight and legislative responsibilities?
        Ms. Gabbard. I do.
        Chairman Cotton. Fifth, will you ensure that your office or
    your staff provide this material to the committee when
    requested?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Sixth, do you agree to inform or fully
    brief to the fullest extent possible all Members of this
    Committee on intelligence activities and covert actions rather
    than only the chairman and vice chairman?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you for those answers, Ms. Gabbard.
    We now welcome the opportunity, finally, to hear from you in
    your own words.

    STATEMENT OF LT. COL. TULSI GABBARD, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF
                         NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE

        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
        Before I begin, I, too, would like to start by offering my
    prayers and condolences to those who were killed in last
    night's horrific crash. Senator Warner, Senator Moran, our
    condolences and prayers are with you and all of your
    constituents.
        Again, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and all the
    Members of the Committee: It is an honor to be here before you
    today. I've appreciated the opportunity to meet with so many of
    you and address your questions and concerns before today's
    hearing. I know they have gone, but I am grateful to Senators
    Burr and Ernst for their trust and their confidence and in
    taking time to join us here today.
        To my husband Abraham, my family, friends, fellow veterans,
    Medal of Honor recipients and patriots, thank you for your love
    and support.
        I am honored and grateful to President Trump for his trust
    and confidence in nominating me to serve our country as
    Director of National Intelligence at a time when trust in the
    intelligence community unfortunately is at an all-time low.
    Chuck Schumer admitted a few years ago, ``you take on the
    intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at
    getting back at you.''
        For too long faulty, inadequate, or weaponized intelligence
    have led to costly failures and the undermining of our national
    security and God-given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution.
    The most obvious example of one of these failures is our
    invasion of Iraq based upon a total fabrication or a complete
    failure of intelligence.
        This disastrous decision led to the deaths of tens of
    thousands of American soldiers, millions of people in the
    Middle East, mass migration, destabilization, undermining of
    the security and stability of our European allies, the rise of
    ISIS, the strengthening of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist
    groups and strengthening Iran.
        Here are just a few other examples: The American people
    elected Donald Trump as their President, not once but twice,
    and yet the FBI and intelligence agencies were politicized by
    his opponents to undermine his presidency and falsely portrayed
    him as a puppet of Putin. Title I of FISA was used illegally to
    obtain a warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page using a
    Clinton campaign-funded false dossier that was so-called
    evidence.
        Biden's campaign adviser Tony Blinken was the impetus for
    the 51 former senior intelligence officials' letter dismissing
    Hunter Biden's laptop as disinformation specifically to help
    Biden win the election. Former DNI James Clapper lied to this
    Committee in 2013, denying the existence of programs that
    facilitated the mass collection of millions of Americans' phone
    and internet records, yet was never held accountable.
        Under John Brennan's leadership, the CIA abused its power
    to spy on Congress, to dodge oversight and lied about doing it
    until he was caught, and yet has never been held responsible.
    Under Biden, the FBI abused its power for political reasons to
    try to surveil Catholics who attend traditional Latin mass,
    labeling them as, quote-unquote, ``radical traditionalist
    Catholics.''
        Personally, just 24 hours after I criticized Kamala Harris
    and her nomination, I was placed on a secret domestic terror
    watchlist called Quiet Skies.
        Sadly, there are more examples.
        The bottom line is this. This must end. President Trump's
    re-election is a clear mandate from the American people to
    break this cycle of failure and the weaponization and
    politicization of the intelligence community and begin to
    restore trust in those who have been charged with the critical
    task of securing our Nation.
        If confirmed as DNI, I will do my very best to fulfill this
    mandate and bring leadership to the intelligence community with
    a laser-like focus on our essential mission, ensuring the
    safety, security, and freedom of the American people.
        As the President's principal intelligence adviser, I will
    begin by leading by example, checking my own personal views at
    the door and committing to delivering intelligence that is
    collected, analyzed and reported without bias, prejudice or
    political influence.
        I enlisted in the Army because of the horrific terrorist
    attack on September 11th and volunteered to deploy to Iraq in
    2005 where I served in a medical unit. After nearly 22 years in
    uniform with three combat deployments to the Middle East and
    Africa, I am now a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve
    where I serve as a battalion commander of soldiers in Oklahoma,
    Missouri, and Arkansas.
        I served in Congress for 8 years on the Homeland Security,
    Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees. It's my
    experience in the military and in the halls of Congress that
    have given me a deep understanding of the complex challenges
    that our Nation faces, in both roles engaging with world
    leaders, in both roles being privy to highly classified
    intelligence.
        So I know firsthand how essential accurate, unbiased and
    timely intelligence is to the President, to Congress, and to
    our warfighters. I also know the heavy cost of intelligence
    failures and abuses. Senator Collins, you led the creation of
    ODNI specifically to address those intelligence failures of 9/
    11 and Iraq's so-called WMDs. The need for the ODNI under
    strong leadership still exists today.
        If confirmed, I will bring my experience and fresh eyes to
    leading the intelligence community. And my day one priorities
    will be: to assess the global threat environment; identify
    where gaps in our intelligence exist; integrate intelligence
    elements; increase information sharing; and ensure that
    unbiased, apolitical objective collection and analysis of
    intelligence to support the President and policymakers'
    decisionmaking occur.
        I will work to end the politicization of the intelligence
    community and ensure there is a clear mission focus in the IC
    on its core mission of this unbiased apolitical collection and
    analysis of intelligence to secure our Nation. I will work to
    rebuild trust through transparency and accountability. This is
    a national security imperative.
        And I will work to assess and address efficiencies,
    redundancies, and effectiveness across ODNI to ensure focus of
    personnel and resources is on our core mission of national
    security. In my meetings that I have had with many of you, you
    expressed bipartisan frustration about recent intelligence
    failures as well as the lack of responsiveness to your requests
    for information, whether it's the surprise October 7 Hamas
    terrorist attack to the sudden takeover of Syria by Islamist
    extremists, failures to identify the source of COVID, anomalous
    health incidents, UAP's, drones and more. If confirmed, I look
    forward to working with you to address these issues.
        Ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American
    people is a mandate of leadership that rises above partisan
    politics. If confirmed, my commitment to the President, to you,
    and to the American people is this: I will do my very best to
    find the truth no matter where it leads and share that truth
    with President Trump, his advisors, and you in Congress,
    providing you with that unbiased, timely, and accurate
    intelligence as you make the tough decisions that will impact
    the safety, security and freedom of the American people.
        Now before I close, I want to warn the American people who
    are watching at home, you may hear lies and smears in this
    hearing that will challenge my loyalty to and my love for our
    country. Those who oppose my nomination imply that I am loyal
    to something or someone other than God, my own conscience, and
    the Constitution of the United States, accusing me of being
    Trump's puppet, Putin's puppet, Assad's puppet, a Guru's
    puppet, Modi's puppet, not recognizing the absurdity of
    simultaneously being the puppet of five different puppet
    masters.
        The same tactic was used against President Trump and
    failed. The American people elected President Trump with a
    decisive victory and mandate for change. The fact is what truly
    unsettles my political opponents is I refuse to be their
    puppet. I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator. I
    just hate al-Qaida.
        I hate that we have leaders who cozy up to Islamist
    extremists, minimizing them to so-called rebels. As Jake
    Sullivan said to Hillary Clinton, ``Al-Qaida is on our side in
    Syria.'' Well, Syria is now controlled by an al-Qaida offshoot,
    HTS, led by an Islamist jihadist who danced in the streets on
    9/11 and who was responsible for the killing of many American
    servicemembers.
        Democrat Senators in the past resorted to anti-Christian
    bigotry against some of President Trump's judicial nominees
    like Amy Coney Barrett and Brian Buescher. I condemn those
    actions as a Democrat in Congress at the time, as religious
    bigotry must be thoroughly condemned by all of us, no matter
    the religion.
        Unfortunately, there are some Democrat Senators who still
    don't understand the principle of freedom of religion and
    article VI of the Constitution: ``[N]o religious test shall
    ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public
    Trust under the United States.''
        Unfortunately, they're once again using the religious
    bigotry card, but this time trying to foment religious bigotry
    against Hindus and Hinduism. If anyone is sincerely interested
    in knowing more about my own personal spiritual path of
    Hinduism, I welcome you to go to my account on X where I will
    share more on this topic.
        If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will
    continue to live by the oath that I have sworn at least eight
    times in my life, both in uniform and as a Member of Congress.
    I will support and defend our God-given freedoms enshrined in
    the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies,
    foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance
    to the same.
        Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your
    questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gabbard follows:]
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Ms. Gabbard.
        A few reminders before we begin our five-minute round of
    questioning. First, a reminder to the audience. Once again, I
    will not tolerate disruptions or disturbances either in favor
    of or in opposition to Ms. Gabbard. We all came to hear from
    Ms. Gabbard, not from you.
        Two reminders to my colleagues: We will have a 5-minute
    round of questions. Not 5\1/2\ or 6--5-minute rounds. We will
    also have a closed session after this hearing in which we will
    have another 5-minute opportunity to ask questions. Second, if
    any question as Senator Risch alluded to, begins to approach
    the line of classified material, my crack staff will advise me
    and I will ask you to hold the question until we get to a
    closed setting.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Chairman, could I just inquire. I
    was under the understanding that in the open round, because
    this is the only time that the American people will be able to
    see this judgment, would you agree if certain Members need to
    ask a second round of questions in the public setting that
    would be available?
        Chairman Cotton. As if is our custom, if the Member waits
    until the end of the opening round and has a follow-up
    question, then we will permit that follow-up question.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, you will be
    entrusted with nation's most important secrets. We are all
    entrusted with that information to serve the American people
    and to keep our country safe. Unfortunately, as you said in
    your opening statement, we have seen too many instances in
    recent years of people who were trusted with classified
    information and went on to abuse and politicize that trust.
        For example, in October 2020, more than 50 former
    intelligence officers, many of whom still hold a Top Secret
    clearance, wrote a letter invoking their credentials to make
    false claims about Hunter Biden's laptop likely being Russian
    disinformation. Do you agree that was an example of
    intelligence officials abusing and politicizing their past
    positions and credentials?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. It is an example of
    what needs to end and why the American people elected President
    Trump to bring about those necessary reforms.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Will you commit that no one who
    abuses their past position and credentials in this fashion will
    are hold a security clearance in the future?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Now I want to be fair to my Democratic
    colleagues. Such abuses are not just a problem on the left.
    Also in 2020, President Trump's former National Security
    Adviser John Bolton published a book in which he revealed
    sensitive conversations with the President on national security
    matters, including highly classified information. He didn't
    submit this book for review and approval to ensure that our
    national security secrets were protected. Do you agree that
    John Bolton's actions likewise undermined public trust?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Will you commit that no one who so abuses
    his past position and risks the exposure of classified
    information by publishing a book without submitting it for
    review and getting approval before publication will hold a
    security clearance again or be trusted with classified
    information again?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Let's move on to the topic of
    ODNI reform that I mentioned in my opening statement. Congress
    originally envisioned the ODNI to be a small coordinating
    agency that directs rather than replicates the now 18
    constituent agencies that makeup our intelligence community.
    Over the years, however, the ODNI has strayed from this vision
    to an organization that now publicly boasts nearly 2,000
    people, more than half of whom are not detailed from an
    intelligence agency, but rather are career ODNI bureaucrats.
    They've even developed centers that are producing their own
    analysis. Will you commit today to working with this Committee
    to restoring the ODNI to its original size, scope and function?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I look forward to working with
    you and the Committee, as I, if confirmed, assess the current
    status of who is working in the ODNI and the function that they
    fulfill to make sure of its effectiveness and elimination of
    redundancies and bloating.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Do you support some of the
    policy proposals I mentioned in my opening statement about
    capping the size of the ODNI, eliminating ODNI taxes, returning
    employees back to their home agencies to do real intelligence
    work?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I look forward to working with
    you as we assess where the ODNI needs to be in order to fulfill
    its core mission and function.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. And in your preparation for
    this hearing and this important responsibility, have you
    developed any thoughts that explains the mission creep and the
    empire building that we have seen at the ODNI in recent years?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I have had the opportunity to
    review the history of the ODNI, to speak to Ambassador
    Negroponte, the first director of National Intelligence, as
    well as others who have served in this position. I think there
    are a number of contributing factors to the creation of
    centers--or not centers, but offices like the recently
    eliminated Office of DEI within ODNI, and other areas where I
    need to go in and assess the replication and duplication of
    responsibilities that exist elsewhere in some of the other
    intelligence elements that ODNI has oversight over.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you.
        Colleagues, I will lead by example and yield back one
    minute of my time. I recognize the vice chairman.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        That is a first. [Laughter.]
        And Ms. Gabbard, let me be clear, at least in my views. I
    salute your service to our country, but I have serious doubts
    about your judgment, and those are some of the areas that I
    want to pursue.
        First, until you were nominated by the President to be the
    DNI, you consistently praised the actions of Edward Snowden,
    someone who I believe jeopardized the security of our Nation
    and then to flaunt that fled to Russia.
        You even called Edward Snowden, and I quote here, ``a brave
    whistleblower.'' Every Member of this committee supports the
    rights of legal whistleblowers. But Edward Snowden isn't a
    whistleblower. In this case, I am a lot closer to the
    chairman's words where he said Snowden is ``an egotistical
    serial liar and traitor,'' who ``deserves to rot in jail for
    the rest of his life.''
        Ms. Gabbard, a simple yes or no question, do you still
    think Edward Snowden is brave?
        Ms. Gabbard. Mr. Vice Chairman, Edward Snowden broke the
    law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information
    and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did
    it. There would have been opportunities for him to come to you
    on this committee or seek the IG to release that information.
    The fact is he also, even as he broke the law, released
    information that exposed egregious, illegal, and
    unconstitutional programs that are happening within our
    government that led to serious reforms that Congress
    undertook----
        Vice Chairman Warner. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, we have five
    minutes.
        I take your answer. And these are your quotes: ``brave.''
    ``Please join my bipartisan legislation calling for charges to
    be dropped against him.''
        Do you disagree that that legislation was not appropriate?
    Do you believe he is brave or not? Do you want to take back
    those words?
        Ms. Gabbard. Once again, Senator, Edward Snowden broke the
    law. He also released important----
        Vice Chairman Warner. I am not--we agree that Edward
    Snowden exposed the United States government.
        [Cross talk]
        The question is whether your legislation, in your words,
    are still your beliefs; yes or no, please?
        Ms. Gabbard. I am making myself very clear. Edward Snowden
    broke the law. He released information about the United States
    government's illegal activity.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Again, ma'am, I have--
        Ms. Gabbard. If I may just finish my thought, Senator. In
    this role that I have been nominated for, if confirmed as
    Director of National Intelligence, I will be responsible for
    protecting our Nation's secrets. And I have four immediate
    steps I would take to prevent another Snowden-like leak.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Ma'am, I would simply ask you again.
    I don't think you answered. I agree with Tom Cotton. He is a
    traitor. You, for years, until you got chosen by President
    Trump have celebrated this guy as ``brave.'' You called for him
    to be pardoned, for his charges to be dropped. I cannot imagine
    a Director of National Intelligence that would say that kind of
    behavior is okay.
        How would we maintain the trust of the IC and the
    contractors who work for it?
        How would we maintain the trust of our FVEY partners? I
    find it very troubling.
        Let me move to 702. I know other members are going to raise
    this. Members of the committee know 702 is critical to our
    national security. Sixty percent of the information President
    Trump gets every day in the PDB will come from this.
        You've had a long history of opposing 702. Many Members of
    Congress have. But one thing that you have actually done that
    not many have is, not to reform it but you actually said you
    wanted to repeal it. But now, whether it is confirmation
    conversion or whatever, you call 702 ``vital.'' And I am
    quoting, ``because of significant FISA reforms have been
    enacted'' since you left Congress.
        Ms. Gabbard, what are the reforms that have led you to now
    support 702?
        Ms. Gabbard. In the short time that I have, Senator, I will
    just note that my actions in legislation in Congress were done
    to draw attention to the egregious civil liberties violations
    that were occurring at that time.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Ms. Gabbard, I asked you a question.
    Please give me the courtesy of responding. You said the reforms
    now make you support it. Which can you cite? Which reforms----
        Ms. Gabbard. There are a number of reforms to include
    getting----
        Vice Chairman Warner [continuing]. In the new law?
        Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. That all of you in your wisdom--
    --
        Vice Chairman Warner. Right. Okay. Ms. Gabbard, my time is
    getting short, but I got to just tell you, after the reforms
    were passed into law in April of 2024, you went on Joe Rogan's
    podcast in May--the bill is now law--and you said, quote,
    ``This bill took an already bad problem and made it many, many
    times worse.''
        Again, in my mind this is a question of judgment--702 is
    critical. I appreciate this late conversion, but I am not sure
    I buy it because you've had such a consistent position.
        Again, I know my colleagues are going to raise these, but
    rather than standing up to dictators like Putin and Assad, you
    know, you sometimes amplified his talking points. I mean, I
    just do not understand how you can blame NATO for Putin's
    brutal invasion of Ukraine.
        And when Assad used chemical weapons against his own
    people, you didn't condemn him. I can go through all the
    quotes. You actually questioned Americans' intelligence.
        Now you mentioned a lot about trust. One of the things I am
    so proud on this committee is, like my friend Senator Burr
    said, we always follow the truth. I say this committee is the
    most valuable work I do in the Senate. We have a bipartisan
    approach to intelligence. I think we have worked to try to keep
    the intelligence community and earn their trust and frankly
    earn the trust of the American people. But I, respectfully,
    ma'am--I just don't believe on your judgment and credibility
    issues that this is the appropriate role that you should take
    going forward.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Collins.
        Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gabbard,
    Edward Snowden does stand out as having done particularly grave
    harm to our national security by revealing Top Secret
    information, including sensitive sources and methods, thus
    jeopardizing the agents in the field.
        So let me ask you a question. If confirmed, would you
    support or recommend a pardon or any kind of clemency for
    Edward Snowden?
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you for the question, Senator Collins.
    If confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence, my
    responsibility would be to ensure the security of our Nation's
    secrets and would not take actions to advocate for any actions
    related to Snowden.
        Senator Collins. So the answer is no, is that correct? In
    2020, you introduced the Protect Brave Whistleblowers Act which
    would amend the Espionage Act to make it more difficult to
    prosecute individuals who reveal classified information. In
    particular, the bill would allow individuals to disclose even
    Top Secret information as long as it is not done with the
    specific intent to injure the United States or advantage any
    foreign nation. Your bill would also have created an
    affirmative defense if public disclosure of classified
    information were made for several reasons, one of which was to
    expose gross waste of funds.
        I strongly oppose this legislation which would hamper our
    ability to prosecute people who give our adversaries classified
    information.
        So let me ask you this. Ms. Gabbard, do you still support
    providing individuals who have access to Top Secret information
    with the ability to make their own decisions regarding whether
    that information should be publicly disclosed, even though
    disclosure may cause tremendous harm to our country or our
    allies?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, we cannot and should not have
    individual vigilantes within the intelligence community making
    their own decisions about how, where, and when to expose our
    Nation's secrets. The intent of the legislation that you have
    pointed out was pointed toward ensuring due process for those
    who are charged under the Espionage Act in a court of law.
        This is a law that has been abused in some cases and used
    for political purposes. President Obama charged more people
    under the Espionage Act than any--all other presidents
    combined. If confirmed as the director of National
    Intelligence, my sole focus and goal would be our Nation's
    security, which includes ensuring the security of our Nation's
    secrets. And I would work to make sure that we don't have any
    disclosures or vigilantes taking it upon themselves.
        There are numerous legal paths that will protect this
    information for those who feel they have concerns. And I look
    forward to working with you and this Committee on making sure
    that those protections are known by every single person in the
    workforce and effectively implemented.
        Senator Collins. So you do not support allowing individuals
    to make their own decisions without authorization to disclose
    secret information, classified information?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, and I believe we have the legal structure
    in place for those who have concerns to address them.
        Senator Collins. As you know, there has been speculation in
    the press that you met with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization
    affiliated with Iran. Have you ever knowingly met with any
    members, leaders, or affiliates of Hezbollah?
        Ms. Gabbard. No, and it is an absurd accusation.
        Senator Collins. Let me ask you one final question in the
    short time we have left. With Hamas, ISIS-K, the Houthis, all
    the Iranian proxies in Syria and Iraq, Yemen, and al-Qaida, all
    posing general resurgences in the Middle East, Africa, and
    Central Asia, I am alarmed at the lack of focus by the IC on
    this threat to our safety.
        We don't want to have to call you back to this room after a
    terrorist attack and ask how did the IC miss this. Great power
    competition--China, Russia--definitely pose threats to our
    country, but the terrorist threat is arguably the most imminent
    threat according to former FBI Director Chris Wray. If
    confirmed, what will be your strategy to refocus the IC on the
    terrorist threat to our country and to Americans abroad?
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. I agree with your
    assessment and this speaks to the need for the ODNI to exist,
    to redirect those resources, identifying the gaps in
    intelligence so that we are able to get ahead of these threats
    instead of coming around after the fact and trying to assess
    why did we not know about this sooner so that we could have
    taken action to prevent it.
        Senator Collins. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome,
    Ms. Gabbard. I am going to try to get four questions in, so I
    will be brief. And if you could reciprocate, that would be very
    much appreciated.
        We have been talking about Section 702, the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I believe it is critical
    that the DNI support additional reforms to protect the privacy
    of law-abiding Americans.
        In your written responses to committee questions, you wrote
    and I quote, ``Warrants should generally be required before an
    agency undertakes a U.S. person query of Section 702.'' Is this
    your current position?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, it is, Senator, and as you'll note in
    that written response, I noted some exigent circumstances in
    which there may be other options. But I also want to make a
    note that a simple warrant requirement is ultimately going to
    be a policy decision that all of you will make. I would point
    to history to some examples.
        Senator Wyden. My time is short. I am glad you answered in
    line with your written answer in support of a warrant.
        Section 702 also involves a huge loophole now that was
    included recently that could allow the government to force
    anyone with access to a Wi-Fi router or cable box to secretly
    participate in the warrantless surveillance program. Do you
    support as I do eliminating this language?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I would have to look more into that
    and assess if confirmed what the impacts of the implementation
    of the existing safeguards are and come back to you and
    Congress as you look at reauthorization.
        Senator Wyden. It is a massive loophole and I hope to hear
    after you've looked at it that you'll be supportive of my
    efforts.
        Let me turn now to the question of the inspector general
    situation. Can the President of the United States refuse to
    fund the inspector general for the intelligence community
    despite appropriations from Congress? And here, I would like a
    yes or no.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I don't know about the legal
    authorities, but I understand the essential role that the
    inspectors general play, and if confirmed, look forward to
    empowering our inspector general to fulfill their
    responsibility.
        Senator Wyden. Good, because Congress either has the power
    of the purse or it doesn't, and I think in your answer to me
    you recognized that you have an independent obligation to
    follow the law. I think that is a constructive answer.
        Let me turn now to the matter of spying on journalists.
        You wrote in your response to committee questions that you
    support the Biden administration Department of Justice's policy
    restricting the collection of reporters' records and called for
    the codification of those restrictions. Will you reconfirm that
    position this morning?
        Ms. Gabbard. I believe strongly in the First Amendment
    which protects a free press.
        Senator Wyden. So you will, in effect, say you will
    continue to support the Biden administration policy to protect
    journalists?
        Ms. Gabbard. I am not familiar with the specific Biden
    administration policy, but I believe strongly in the defense of
    the First Amendment.
        Senator Wyden. It is a policy to restrict the collection of
    reporters' records and you have called for the confiscation of
    those records. So I am going to accept that you are not
    changing your position and I appreciate it.
        I think I have time for one more question. While you were
    Congress, you introduced legislation prohibiting the government
    from mandating that Americans' phones or apps include
    mechanisms to allow government to bypass encryption or other
    privacy technology.
        In your written responses to the committee questions, you
    reconfirmed your opposition to these mandates. Is that still
    your position?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes. These backdoors lead down a dangerous
    path that can undermine Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and
    civil liberties.
        Senator Wyden. You are being very helpful by moving so
    quickly. Let me turn to whistleblowers. You wrote in your
    response that whistleblowers must have clear protected channels
    to report concerns including the unauthorized transmittal of
    classified information to appropriate entities such as Members
    of Congress. Do you agree that IC whistleblowers must have a
    clear path to this Committee and that they don't need
    permission from agencies to talk to us? That is a yes or no.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, the answer is clearly yes. I would
    like to state a few other actions I would take if confirmed as
    Director of National Intelligence. Number one is make sure that
    we don't have the illegal and unconstitutional programs within
    the intelligence community, making sure that we enact security
    clearance reform to limit access to our Nation's top secrets.
    Make sure that every single person in the workforce understands
    their rights as whistleblowers and the legal channels to take,
    which would include coming directly to you as Members of
    Congress as well as establishing a direct hotline to myself
    should they choose to take that path.
        Senator Wyden. One last question, if I might. Would you
    support the declassification of the committee's full report on
    the CIA's torture program?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I believe in transparency. I have not
    seen this and so cannot make an honest assessment for that
    answer.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Welcome Ms. Gabbard.
        Congratulations, and thank you for your service to our
    Nation. I hope you would take to heart the chairman's comments
    about the exploding bureaucracy, not only in the government
    generally but in the Office of the Director of National
    Intelligence. This is a critical role to be played, but
    unfortunately that role is not made easier or more effective by
    such a large and unwieldy bureaucracy.
        Do you believe that the President of the United States
    should get all of the lawfully collected intelligence that is
    available in order to inform his judgments as Commander in
    Chief?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, not only is the answer a strong yes,
    I would say it is the Director of National Intelligence's
    responsibility to make sure that the President has access to
    all the intelligence so that he can make the best informed
    decisions for our country.
        Senator Cornyn. And you will be the one actually briefing
    him on a daily basis, correct?
        Ms. Gabbard. That's correct.
        Senator Cornyn. And the President's daily brief and we have
    heard that is composed of--about 50-60 percent of it is
    composed of information gleaned by collection under Section 702
    of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act.
        I have heard your comments to Senator Wyden and others. You
    and I talked about the importance of getting dissenting views
    in front of the President so we don't have groupthink, which
    can be particularly dangerous in the intelligence collection
    areas. And I appreciate your agreeing that presenting the
    policymakers including the President with dissenting views is
    very important.
        Are you aware that overwhelmingly the courts that have
    looked at a challenge to Section 702 based on the Fourth
    Amendment and any potential warrant requirement have
    overwhelmingly said that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated
    by search of lawfully collected intelligence?
        Ms. Gabbard. I am aware, yes, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. Do you disagree with that?
        Ms. Gabbard. What I began to say in answer to Senator
    Wyden's previous question on this issue is, number one, the
    decision about a warrant requirement will be yours to make.
        Senator Cornyn. But you will be the Director of National
    Intelligence and people will be wanting to hear from you about
    what we should do as policymakers. Admittedly, you are not
    going to be a policymaker, but you certainly will inform us and
    you do agree that the courts have overwhelmingly held that a
    warrant is not required, correct?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I am aware of the court rulings
    but my commitment is to make sure that we uphold the Fourth
    Amendment rights of Americans and protecting against unlawful
    seizure and search. There are many different ways to do this.
    The devil is in the details. There are examples of how even in
    situations under title I where a warrant is required to surveil
    a U.S. person----
        Senator Cornyn. Title I is different. I agree with you on
    that.
        Ms. Gabbard. But my point, Senator, if I may just finish--
    --
        Senator Cornyn. Excuse me, if that was misused in the case
    of Carter Page and basically an FBI lawyer lied in order to
    secure that warrant.
        Ms. Gabbard. Which is why----
        Senator Cornyn. What would be necessary to be shown in
    order to establish probable cause to a judge in order to obtain
    a warrant?
        Ms. Gabbard. Again, Senator, that is not for me to say.
    That would be for you all to decide and for the Attorney
    General to weigh in on.
        Senator Cornyn. Do you know what the elements of probable
    cause are and whether that is a practical and workable
    solution?
        Ms. Gabbard. This is the center of the debate--the high
    standard of probable cause that is required to get a warrant
    and why this will continue to be a conversation, again, with
    the Attorney General weighing in and all of you in Congress
    making this policy decision.
        Senator Cornyn. The CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, said
    during his testimony before this Committee that he believed
    that a warrant is not only required by law but is actually
    impractical. Do you disagree with that or agree with that?
        Ms. Gabbard. I will be in a better position to make an
    assessment on the practical implications on this, if confirmed
    as DNI. My commitment is to uphold the Constitution and
    Americans' Fourth Amendment rights.
        Senator Cornyn. Where would a warrant be sought, in the
    Foreign Intelligence Court or in some other Article III court?
        Ms. Gabbard. My understanding is it would be in the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Court.
        Senator Cornyn. Are you aware of the fact that the Foreign
    Intelligence Surveillance Court has held that a warrant is not
    required?
        Ms. Gabbard. I am aware.
        Senator Cornyn. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Senator Heinrich.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Welcome. You traveled to Syria and Lebanon in January of
    2017. Bassam Khawam personally paid for that trip and Bassam
    and his brother Elie accompanied you to both Lebanon and Syria.
    The Khawam brothers have links to the Syrian Social Nationalist
    Party, an ally of Hezbollah, and in fact, in 2008, the Syrian
    Social Nationalist Party participated in the assassination of a
    former Lebanese prime minister and assisted Hezbollah in
    Beirut.
        When did you become aware of the links between the Khawam
    brothers and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party?
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator, for the question.
        Just a point of clarification, I paid for my own expenses
    and travel on that trip. I was not aware of any accusations of
    these two Lebanese Americans' associations until after the trip
    occurred.
        Senator Heinrich. And that is when you reimbursed----
        Ms. Gabbard. Correct.
        Senator Heinrich. Because----
        Ms. Gabbard. Not because of--I wanted to make sure that
    there were no perceived conflicts of interest.
        I addressed this specific question to these Lebanese
    Americans who had organized the trip, and they vehemently
    denied any associations with that group.
        Senator Heinrich. There is not a great deal in the public
    record about what you and the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad
    discussed for so long in January of 2017, and I think there is
    a great deal of interest from the American people about what
    was discussed in that meeting.
        So what did you talk about?
        And did you press Assad on things like his use of chemical
    weapons, systematic torture, and the killing of so many of his
    citizens?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. Upon returning from this trip, I
    met with people like then-leader Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer,
    and talked to them and answered their questions about the trip.
    And, quite frankly, I was surprised that there was no one from
    the intelligence community or State Department who reached out
    or showed any interest whatsoever in my takeaways from that
    trip. I would have been very happy to have a conversation with
    them and give them a brief.
        I went with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich who had been
    there many times before and who had met with Assad before. A
    number of topics were covered and discussed.
        And to directly answer your question, yes, I asked him
    tough questions about his own regime's actions, the use of
    chemical weapons and the brutal tactics that were being used
    against his own people.
        Senator Heinrich. Were you able to extract any concessions
    from President Assad?
        Ms. Gabbard. No and I didn't expect to, but I felt these
    issues were important to address.
        Senator Heinrich. According to your revised trip report,
    your third meeting in Syria after meeting with Assad and then
    his wife was with Grand Mufti Ahmed Badreddin Hassoun. Forgive
    me if I am not pronouncing that correctly. In an October of
    2011 speech, the Grand Mufti warned the U.S. and Europe that
    ``we will prepare suicide bombers who are already in your
    countries if you bomb Syria or Lebanon.''
        What was the goal or what did you accomplish by meeting
    with Grand Mufti?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, before going on this trip and during
    my time there both in Syria and Lebanon, I made it a point to
    meet with different religious leaders, both Muslim leaders as
    well as various Christian and Catholic leaders, who were there
    in the region. I did that both in Syria and in Lebanon to hear
    from them about what their concerns or thoughts were with
    regard to the war that was being waged at the time.
        Senator Heinrich. Were you aware of his threats regarding
    suicide bombers in the United States?
        Ms. Gabbard. I was not and had not heard that until today.
        Senator Heinrich. Who vetted the people that you met with
    on this trip to Syria and Lebanon?
        Ms. Gabbard. The itinerary was created by former
    Congressman Dennis Kucinich, his constituents who he had
    traveled with to Syria and Lebanon a number of times before.
    Some of individuals that I met with were looked at prior to the
    trip. Others came up during the trip that were unexpected.
        Senator Heinrich. Just in complete hindsight, would you
    view this trip as good judgment?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator, and I believe that leaders,
    whether you be in Congress or the President of the United
    States, can benefit greatly by going and engaging, boots on the
    ground, learning and listening and meeting directly with people
    whether they be adversaries or friends.
        Senator Heinrich. Last question. Who do you blame--who is
    responsible for the war in Ukraine?
        Ms. Gabbard. Putin started the war in Ukraine.
        Senator Heinrich. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Moran, before your questions, I
    want to extend all of our condolences, in particular to the
    loss of life for your fellow Kansans last night in that air
    crash. Our prayers are with all of your people back home who
    lost loved ones.
        Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So many people here
    and throughout the halls of Congress have been kind in
    expressing their condolences, and I appreciate you saying this
    in this setting just now.
        Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard, you were asked in your
    questionnaire about your priorities, and you listed Iran and
    Hamas and Hezbollah and North Korea. You also mentioned Russia,
    but the only thing you said about Russia in fulfilling--in
    fully explaining why it is a priority is ending the war with
    Russia.
        When you talk about Russia, what are your fears or policy
    priorities beyond ending the war? How do you see Russia as a
    threat to the United States?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, if confirmed as the Director of
    National Intelligence, it will be paramount for me to assess
    where our intelligence gaps may exist so that I can provide the
    President and all of you with the most accurate full picture of
    that threat assessment to directly answer your questions.
        I think that it is a complex environment. Russia remains a
    strategic competitor. There are a number of concerns that have
    to do with their nuclear weapons as well as how the decisions
    and policies that are being made by this body and by the
    President will impact our own national security, which is my
    foremost concern.
        Senator Moran. I want to make certain that in no way does
    Russia get a pass in either your mind or your heart or in any
    policy recommendation you would make or not make.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I am offended by the question because
    my sole focus, commitment, and responsibility is about our own
    nation, our own security, and the interests of the American
    people. In carrying out the responsibilities of the Director of
    National Intelligence, if confirmed, no country, group, or
    individual will get a pass in my fulfilling that responsibility
    of providing that full intelligence picture so that you all can
    make the best informed policy decisions for the safety,
    security, and freedom of the American people. You have my
    commitment to be completely objective, unbiased, and
    apolitical. And I hope you understand my commitment to our
    country's interests.
        Senator Moran. I absolutely do. You have answered my
    question in the manner in which I wanted to hear, that you will
    do this in an objective manner, provide the information
    necessary, and that Russia, if it is a threat, you will tell us
    so and tell us the details of that threat.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Moran. How would you restructure the national
    intelligence priority framework to better align with President
    Trump's national security goals?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, this is a discussion--if confirmed--I
    look forward to having with the President and his National
    Security Advisor, again, based on the threat assessment and
    based on the President's priorities. He has spoken about a
    number of different priorities in different parts of the world.
    I would work with them on that national intelligence priorities
    framework which will serve as the foundation for the
    intelligence elements under ODNI.
        Senator Moran. Any recommendations that you have in mind to
    make to President Trump in that regard?
        Ms. Gabbard. I want to make sure that any recommendations
    that I make to the President are fully informed. From where I
    sit now, I don't believe that I can make those recommendations.
    I take that responsibility seriously, and wouldn't want to
    shortchange him without first doing the due diligence and work
    to make sure my recommendations are well founded.
        Senator Moran. How will you, Lieutenant Colonel, as the
    DNI, if confirmed, meet the objectivity and political
    neutrality requirements to ensure that you are telling the
    White House what they need to hear and not what they want to
    hear? A follow-up to that is how will you handle conflicting
    intelligence reports from the various members of the
    intelligence community and present a broad intelligence picture
    to the President?
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I hope that you have confidence in my ability to extract
    politics from what my role will be as Director of National
    Intelligence, because it is something I have done for almost 22
    years now wearing the uniform both serving in the National
    Guard and Army Reserve, even while holding political office.
    There is a brick wall between the two, and I have fulfilled
    that obligation in uniform, as I will as Director of National
    Intelligence, if confirmed.
        I think the President, I know the President values hearing
    a lot of different views and I would make sure that in the
    intelligence community's responsibilities that dissenting views
    are not only allowed but encouraged.
        And where they present themselves, make sure that the
    President and you as policymakers are aware so that you can
    make your best informed decision.
        Senator Moran. Would you agree with me that bias and
    prejudice if it exists any place exists on both sides of an
    issue, both partisan sides of this place called Washington, DC?
    And the goal--the effort--that you will make is to make certain
    that all the information is presented in that nonpartisan,
    direct, and manner based upon the facts as known?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator, I agree. And you have my
    commitment. This is essential for the American people and all
    of you to have faith and trust in the intelligence products
    that are being delivered.
        Senator Moran. One of the greatest challenges is knowing
    who is telling us the truth, and we need a DNI who tells the
    truth. True?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes. I have a long record of speaking truth to
    power and will continue that commitment if confirmed in this
    role.
        Senator Moran. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator King.
        Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Gabbard, I simply want to applaud your service both in
    the military and in the Congress--two very challenging jobs--
    and I want to thank you for that.
        I noted that Edward Snowden was in Hawaii of all places for
    a year and a half before he fled to Hong Kong and then off to
    Russia. Did you ever meet him or have any contact with him
    during that period or subsequently with telephone calls,
    emails, zooms--contact with him or his lawyers?
        Ms. Gabbard. No, Senator, not at any time did I have any
    contact with Edward Snowden.
        Senator King. And you introduced a bill in 2020 that
    essentially was a pardon. It basically said all charges should
    be dropped. You had a lot of whereases in that bill. Where did
    the factual basis for those whereas clauses come from?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, if I recall in that bill, it came
    from publicly available information.
        Senator King. I see. And were you aware that there was a
    bipartisan committee report from the House Intelligence
    Committee in 2016 on Snowden's activities?
        Ms. Gabbard. I don't recall specifically at that time, but
    I am aware of that committee's report and executive summary
    that was reported publicly. I did not have access to the
    classified report that summary was based on.
        Senator King. Did you read that report prior to filing your
    bill in 2020?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I don't recall specifically. I
    remember reading a lot of materials prior to filing that bill.
        Senator King. Well, the bipartisan committee report, the
    first item, Edward Snowden perpetrated the largest and most
    damaging public release of classified information in U.S.
    intelligence history. It goes on to say, Snowden caused
    tremendous damage to national security, and the vast majority
    of the documents he stole have nothing to do with programs that
    impacted individual privacy.
        But you don't recall ever seeing the work of that
    committee?
        Ms. Gabbard. I am aware of those conclusions drawn.
        Senator King. You are aware now. Were you aware at the
    time?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes I was, Senator. Edward Snowden broke the
    law. There is no question about that. He should not have
    released all of that information that caused that harm. There
    is no question about that.
        Senator King. How many documents did he release?
        Ms. Gabbard. I know that he took over a million documents.
    I don't know specifically how many of those million he
    specifically released.
        Senator King. You stated very unequivocally today that
    Snowden broke the law, but you introduced a bill in Congress
    along with Congressman Matt Gaetz to essentially pardon him. He
    broke the law but it wasn't all that serious? Is that what you
    thought in 2023?
        Ms. Gabbard. I take very seriously upholding our
    Constitution, and I have sworn an oath to support and defend
    that Constitution over eight times in my life. My statements in
    the past have been reflective of the egregious and illegal
    programs that were exposed in that leak.
        Senator King. But you ignore the vast majority, as the
    committee found, bipartisan. I think Devin Nunes was the Chair
    and Adam Schiff was the vice chairman. The conclusion was that
    the vast majority of these things that he released had nothing
    to do with constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment, but
    indeed were enormous compromises of our national security. You
    didn't seem worried about that.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I focused on raising concerns around
    egregious, illegal, and unconstitutional programs that our
    government was conducting that clearly violated Americans'
    Fourth Amendment rights.
        I think the most important thing that I hope all of you
    find to be relevant here is that if confirmed as Director of
    National Intelligence, I would take seriously the
    responsibility to protect our Nation's secrets, just as I have
    for almost 20 years, of holding a security clearance of some
    sort myself, either Secret or Top Secret, and I never once
    violated the responsibility and privilege that comes with
    holding that clearance. And I have a specific action plan in
    place to make sure there is not another Snowden-type leak in
    the future.
        Senator King. I think you testified that you never saw the
    classified version of this report.
        Ms. Gabbard. That's correct.
        Senator King. On page 22 of the report there is a heading
    that is not classified that says ``What Damage Did Snowden
    Cause?'' And there is a lot of redacted material. Did that not
    raise a red flag for you?
        Ms. Gabbard. Edward Snowden broke the law.
        Senator King. You said that.
        Ms. Gabbard. I did not have access----
        Senator King. Did you seek access to it?
        Ms. Gabbard. I believe so, yes. This was quite some time
    ago.
        Senator King. But you still introduced your bill.
        Ms. Gabbard. I take very seriously the protection of
    Americans' civil liberties and our Fourth Amendment rights. If
    confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I would make
    sure that there is no further Snowden-type leak in the future
    and that those who have concerns have legal channels to raise
    those concerns so that we don't violate and release our
    Nation's secrets.
        Senator King. There are about 20 countries in the world
    that don't----
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator King. Your time has
    expired.
        Senator Lankford.
        Senator Lankford. Tulsi, it is good to see you again.
    Thanks for the time that we got a chance to be able to spend
    together and talk about a lot of these issues. Thanks for your
    service both in Congress, even though you were in the wrong
    party at the time, and your service to the country, through
    your service there including my great State of Oklahoma to have
    the opportunities to serve there.
        I want to give you an opportunity for you to be able to
    answer a few things about it and there has been a lot of
    questions about 702 and Edward Snowden. And it may seem like
    this is repetitive to be able to go through it but there are
    thousands of intelligence employees and folks that have also
    taken an oath to the country and Constitution. They serve our
    country every day. They are the folks that don't have a uniform
    on that no one ever says thank you for them and no one ever
    buys them lunch because people don't know who these people are,
    but they every day put their lives on the line and they work
    very hard to protect Americans. And when Edward Snowden got mad
    at his employer that he didn't get the promotion that he wanted
    and started harvesting information, and then found some things
    that he didn't like on it, and then kept going, and then
    released them to the media and went to China, and then went
    from China to Russia and became a Russian citizen, and
    continued to be able to layer out intelligence unrelated to the
    civil liberties of any American, and then said: I have more and
    I can release them any time I want.
        They don't see him as brave. They see him as a traitor. And
    the concern among so many here, and I think what a lot of folks
    in the intelligence community that you have the responsibility
    to oversight is, they want to hear that you also believe the
    same thing--not just that he broke the law, but that he is a
    traitor, because they don't want that to ever happen again. And
    all the sources that they had that they trusted and trusted
    them, now their lives are at risk. And all the programs that
    they had determined lawful, all collapsed and that intelligence
    was gone and the President didn't have access to a lot of
    information for decisionmaking.
        So this is a big deal to everybody here because it is a big
    deal to everybody that you will also oversee in that role as
    well. So it is helpful to hear your heart on this.
        So, was Edward Snowden a traitor?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, my heart is with my commitment to our
    Constitution and our Nation's security.
        Senator Lankford. Ours, too.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. I have shown throughout my almost
    22 years of service in the military as well as my time in
    Congress how seriously I take the privilege of having access to
    classified information and our Nation's secrets. That is why I
    am committed if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence
    to join you in making sure that there is no future Snowden-type
    leak, and I would do so by taking four specific actions. Number
    one, again to make sure there are no illegal and
    unconstitutional programs limiting in a big way those who have
    access to our Nation's top secrets through security clearance
    reform, making sure that every single person in the workforce
    knows about the legal whistleblower channels available to them,
    and making sure that there is a direct line available to me
    should anyone have concerns.
        If people choose to step outside of those legal channels to
    raise any concerns about programs or actions that exist in the
    intelligence community that are classified, there will be no
    excuse to do so and they should be charged and prosecuted under
    the law.
        Senator Lankford. Was he a traitor when he took America's
    secrets, released them to the public, and then ran to China and
    then became a Russian citizen?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I am focused on the future and how we
    can prevent something like this from happening again.
        Senator Lankford. You would have the responsibility to give
    counsel to the President, which is a great privilege. You
    already have his ear, quite frankly. And you have a great
    relationship on that which is very beneficial. But when
    President Trump chose to take the strike on Soleimani, he was
    also at the same time going through an impeachment in the
    House, and you were kind of tough on him at the time on that.
    You called it a declaration of war. You said that the Soleimani
    strike will lead to an outcome that will further undermine our
    national security. As a Member of Congress I also take
    seriously a declaration of war and our responsibility in that.
        He was acting in a way that he came out and intelligence
    gave--that Soleimani was in the process of preparing a strike
    on American citizens and those folks that were in the field at
    the time.
        I guess the question that I have is, the ODNI will sit with
    the President and provide options to the President and say:
    ``Here are the options that you could take.''
        Would you have presented a Soleimani strike at that time,
    looking back at it now in retrospect, and say: This is an
    option that you could take and here is how to be able to do it.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. It is an important
    question. If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I
    would make sure that the President has all of the objective
    analysis and intelligence reporting to make that best informed
    decision, including all of the options and actions that he has
    available to him, which should exist alongside an assessment of
    what the possible repercussions or responses to those actions
    may be. My own personal views have no place in that assessment,
    in providing to the President and his advisers with all of
    those options available.
        Senator Lankford. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
        Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you. I would like to repeat my
    colleague's question to you. Thank you for being here to answer
    these questions and for your service. Was Edward Snowden a
    traitor to the United States of America?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I will also repeat my answer. He
    broke the law.
        Senator Bennet. You said earlier that you were offended by
    the question that my colleague from Kansas asked which I think
    was his duty as somebody on this Committee to fulfill his
    responsibility to advise and consent. We are not here to be a
    rubber stamp for the President of the United States.
        So let me ask you again: Do you believe, as the Chairman of
    this Committee believes, as the vast majority of Members of our
    intelligence believe, that Edward Snowden was a traitor to the
    United States of America?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, if confirmed.
        Senator Bennet. When the rubber hits the road, this is
    not--this is not a moment for social media--it is not a moment
    to propagate theories--conspiracy theories or attacks on
    journalism in the United States. This is when you need to
    answer the questions of the people whose votes you are asking
    for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this
    Nation.
        As my colleague said, this is not about you. It is about
    the people that serve the intelligence agencies of the United
    States.
        Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of
    America?
        That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are
    this high.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator as someone who has served in uniform--
    --
        Senator Bennet. Is your answer yes or no? Is Edward Snowden
    a traitor to the United States of America?
        Ms. Gabbard. As someone----
        Senator Bennet. I will go on to my questions.
        Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. In combat, I understand how
    critical our national security is.
        Senator Bennet. Apparently you don't. Apparently you don't.
        Let me ask you. I have worked very hard to put your own
    words here in front of the committee--not fake news, not
    conspiracy theories on the internet, but the actual things that
    you have said. On February 23, 2022, at the very moment that
    Russian tanks were rolling across the peaceful border of
    Ukraine for the first time, you tweeted at 11:30 p.m. your
    time: ``This war and suffering could have easily been avoided
    if Biden administration/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's
    legitimate, legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's
    becoming a member of NATO.''
        Did you say that, yes or no?
        Ms. Gabbard. I believe you are reading my tweet, Senator.
        Senator Bennet. Yes is the answer.
        A few months later you said on your podcast, and I quoted
    it--quote ``but this regime change war against Russia that the
    U.S. and NATO are waging via their proxy in Ukraine didn't
    begin when Putin invaded Ukraine. They had their eyes set on
    this objective long before that.''
        Did you say that, yes or no?
        Ms. Gabbard. I believe you are reading my tweet. There's a
    lot more.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you. The answer is yes.
        Ms. Gabbard. You are quoting a podcast that provided much
    more context.
        Senator Bennet. I'd be happy to have a conversation with
    the chairman about whether I am taking anything out of context.
    I don't think I am. And your answer is yes.
        Are you aware that your comments about proxy wars and
    Russia's ``legitimate''--``legitimate security concerns'' to
    quote your own words, are in alignment with what the Russians
    have said to justify their invasion of Ukraine, yes or no?
        Ms. Gabbard. I don't pay attention to Russian propaganda.
        Senator Bennet. Okay. I will take that as the answer is no.
        Ms. Gabbard. My goal is to speak the truth, regardless of
    whether you like it or not.
        Senator Bennet. That is fine. You are used to speaking
    truth to power. I am shocked to hear you now say----
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Senator Bennet [continuing]. That you are agreeing. I am
    not shocked because I know you said it. You are agreeing that
    you basically said that Putin was justified in rolling over the
    peaceful border of Ukraine, the first time since World War II
    that a free nation has been invaded by a totalitarian State and
    you were there at 11:30 p.m. that night to say that you were
    with them, not us.
        And let me tell you something. You say you don't know
    because you don't read Russian propaganda. Russian State TV
    then aired your comments, did you know that?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I think you should also quote the
    statement that I made criticizing Putin for his invasion.
        Senator Bennet. I would say--what I would say, Mr.
    Chairman, it is up to all of us. We are the Senate. We get to
    decide whether we confirm this nominee. Obviously we didn't
    select this nominee, but can't we do better than somebody who
    doesn't believe in 702? Can't we believe that somebody who
    can't answer whether Snowden was a traitor, five times today,
    who made excuses for Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the
    first time that I am aware of any American official has done
    that.
        I am questioning her judgment. That is the issue that is at
    stake here. And as you said, and I totally agree, this is about
    our intelligence officers. And you cannot answer. Most of what
    we do here is in secret. This is one of the very few
    opportunities that you will ever have to have a conversation
    with this panel in public, and the record is going to be very
    clear about the position you took with regard to Edward
    Snowden, and the record is going to be very clear about your
    reaffirmation of the statements you made in the middle of the
    night when Russia was invading the free country of Ukraine.
        Chairman Cotton. Okay. Time is up.
        Senator Bennet. And I hope you will take that in
    consideration when we need to have this vote. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Bennet, your time has expired.
        I will note that during Senator Bennet's question and
    answer there was two disturbances in the room. The first
    sounded like a cell phone. I would ask everyone on both sides
    of the dais if you have not silenced or turned off your cell
    phone, please do so now. The second disturbance was the cries
    of a small child. We will welcome such disturbances because the
    cries of an infant are the sound of answered prayers.
    [Laughter.]
        Senator Rounds.
        Senator Rounds. Not only here, but the answered prayers in
    church when they cry as well, Mr. Chairman.
        First of all, thank you for your service to our country. I
    think part of the discussion here, as you can see, we feel
    very, very strongly about FISA 702. We work with it literally
    every day. As you can also tell, we have very, very strong
    feelings here with regard to the actions of Edward Snowden.
        I want to come back and I will give you an opportunity to
    make any corrections or to make any other comments with regard
    to both of those issues that have been brought up here--but
    before I get into that, I want to go back into a little bit of
    your previous history as well.
        You did serve in Hawaii. You served as a Congress person
    for eight years.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Rounds. And during that time you served on the
    Armed Services Committee. And during that time period you did
    carry a TS SCI clearance. You worked your way through that time
    period. You had an opportunity to look at a lot of information.
    Can you share just a little bit about the way you looked at,
    not just as a Member of the congressional delegation in Hawaii,
    but also about the time in which you were a Lieutenant Colonel
    serving up through and including a battalion commander? Talk a
    little bit about that, please.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator, for your question. In both
    of those roles I had exposure to different sides of how
    critical our national security is and the unique role that our
    intelligence community plays in ensuring our national security.
    My most recent deployment with the military was as part of a
    Joint Special Operations Task Force, to Djibouti and Somalia
    where our mission was to support the Somali government and
    military's focus on defeating al-Shabaab which is al-Qaida's
    element there within East Africa.
        One of the things that we came across there that I hadn't
    known previously even having served in Congress for eight years
    because it hadn't been focused on was how al-Shabaab
    specifically was the biggest funder al-Qaeda in the Arabian
    Peninsula which, again, should be of unique concern and
    interest to our own national security concerns. Being able to
    engage with world leaders in both capacities, in uniform and as
    a member of Congress, being a customer of intelligence in both
    of those roles gives me a unique perspective. If confirmed as
    Director of National Intelligence, to come in with fresh eyes,
    to come in with some of the frustrations that I experienced as
    a member of Congress about the lack of information we received
    from the intelligence community, oftentimes feeling as though
    everything we heard in a brief could have been read in the
    newspaper that morning, and the essential oversight role that
    all of you play here in Congress, you are unable to do so
    unless you are equipped with that intelligence and information.
    And I am committed to fulfilling that responsibility if
    confirmed as Director of National Intelligence.
        Senator Rounds. Okay. Now, when you and I first met, I told
    you that I thought you needed to kind of take a change in the
    direction you were going with regard to how you were
    approaching the private conversations and we wanted you to sit
    down and meet with some folks who were directly involved in
    gathering the intelligence and so forth.
        You did that.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Senator Rounds. And then we came back and we sat back down
    again. And what those individuals who I had talked to and who I
    asked you to talk with shared with me that they thought you
    were a quick study and that you had the opportunity to look at
    a number of the issues that this committee considers to be
    extremely sensitive, 702 in particular.
        I've got about a minute left, but I want to give you an
    opportunity in front of this committee to share your position
    in your own words about how strong or how much it is needed
    with regard to a continuation of 702 and your support for it.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. Section 702 provides a
    unique security tool and capability that is essential for our
    national security. There are a number of areas that we would be
    blind from a national security perspective without this
    capability. It also must exist next to having safeguards in
    place to ensure American civil liberties are protected.
        As you know, Senator, it is illegal under 702 to target any
    U.S. person. There are several other sections within FISA which
    speak to some of the civil liberties reforms that you all
    passed in last year's legislation.
        Senator Rounds. So let me finish with this: Section 702 in
    its current form stays in effect for the next year. You would
    agree that there were reforms made which fixed a number of the
    items that you had a problem with in the first place; is that
    correct?
        Ms. Gabbard. It is correct, Senator. And some of those
    reforms that you enacted were specific to some of the
    legislation that I introduced back when I was in Congress, such
    as prohibiting the about's collection as well.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Rounds.
        Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
    Ms. Gabbard, for your service both in Congress and with the
    U.S. military.
        I want to talk to you a little bit about your perspectives
    on China. How do you view China in your national security role?
        Ms. Gabbard. Our relationship with China is one that is
    complex, given how closely our economies are linked. There are
    a number of challenges and threats that need to be navigated
    with respect to China, some of which have come up most recently
    with this very serious cyber exploitation in Salt Typhoon and
    Volt Typhoon that seemingly took us by surprise, and the
    compromising of our major telecom companies is an area of
    significant and great concern.
        Senator Gillibrand. Some of your past statements that are
    relevant to China are concerning because I don't think it fully
    appreciates China's perspective to the United States; for
    example, with regard to TikTok.
        Your past statements have essentially said that requiring
    domestic ownership of TikTok is a violation of civil liberties
    and the national security concerns are complete BS. Can you
    explain why you have this view on TikTok?
        Ms. Gabbard. The position that I previously made, obviously
    not as a member of Congress as you consider the TikTok
    legislation, were centered around the protection of Americans'
    First Amendment rights and the lack of data privacy
    legislation, frankly, that would apply to TikTok, Facebook, X,
    all of these different social media applications that collect
    on us as users of these applications.
        There were other provisions within that legislation that
    granted very vague and grandiose authorities to the President
    on deciding which private companies are or are not a national
    security threat.
        Senator Gillibrand. Let's talk about China specifically,
    because I just want to make sure you understand what is at
    stake. We have had concerns over many years that when China
    owns infrastructure, it can manipulate that infrastructure. It
    can use it for spying. It can turn it on or off. You have
    actually addressed some of the most recent cyberattacks that we
    believe China had relevant participation.
        The challenge is, if China owns TikTok, it means they can
    spy on the United States, on the American people. It can take
    all the data from our children. It can change the narrative
    about what people are talking about through their algorithms.
    If it wants to create misinformation or malign foreign
    influence, it is very easy. So can you understand why it is so
    important that we require domestic ownership of TikTok?
        Ms. Gabbard. I understand the concerns, Senator. I would
    just reiterate some of my concerns that I stated in the past
    about how this really is an issue about data privacy because so
    much of what is collected by all of these even U.S. companies--
    --
        Senator Gillibrand. Excuse me. I get it and that is a
    bigger issue for Congress to wrestle, and I am all in for that
    conversation--but I want you to appreciate China.
        What is your view with regard to Taiwan? Do you think that
    it is something that your intelligence efforts will understand
    how important our relationship is with Taiwan, specifically on
    chips manufacturing? I think President Trump has recently
    decided to have 100 percent tariffs on all chips from Taiwan.
    In your statement, particularly about the bill--we passed the
    CHIPS Act to make sure that domestic production is invested in
    so that we have that supply chain and we have that for national
    security, but your public statements about the CHIPS Act have
    been very negative and don't seem to appreciate how important
    that independence is for our national security to be beholden
    to China, to be beholden to Taiwan, to be in a place where we
    can't do our own national intelligence.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I fully support the investment
    in building and strengthening our own domestic capabilities. If
    I recall, that legislation had a lot of other provisions in it
    that had nothing to do with the production of our own
    capability and I felt were a distraction away from and a
    potential obstacle toward achieving that.
        Senator Gillibrand. So you will recommend to the President
    that we continue to invest in the semiconductor industry in the
    United States for our own independence as well as our own
    national security?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator, and I would base my
    recommendations on a number of these--all of these issues if
    confirmed as DNI, based on the full assessment of the
    intelligence picture so the President understands the
    ramifications and the potential costs toward any one of these
    policy positions that he will make and all of you will make.
        Senator Gillibrand. Last, I want to return to the Soleimani
    strike. At the time you said it was illegal, that what
    President Trump did was illegal and would cause very
    significant problems down the line.
        What is your position on that strike and will you be able
    to advise the President in future issues with regard to
    national security?
        Ms. Gabbard. Those broader issues I raised with regard to
    war powers I have been consistent on. I didn't have access to
    all the information behind that strike at the time, and my
    concerns were that it could be an escalatory action. President
    Trump was right. There was no escalation beyond that and his
    policies toward Iran turned out to be very effective for our
    own national security.
        Chairman Cotton. Your time has expired, Senator.
        Senator Gillibrand. Can I just--Do you disagree with the
    President taking away the protection for those who are now
    being targeted in retaliation for the Soleimani strike, such as
    Secretary Pompeo?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I can't answer that without being
    able to look at the intelligence assessment and the threat
    assessment for that or other decisions.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Senator
    Young.
        Senator Young. Tulsi, it is good to see you. We had a nice
    visit in the office.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
        Senator Young. And I appreciate you being here today. It
    was clear in that visit that we share a lot of concerns--
    concerns about ill-advised foreign regime change interventions,
    about the weaponization in certain instances of our domestic
    law enforcement and intel authorities.
        Let me talk about something--Edward Snowden--on which we
    may not agree. It has been recognized he fled overseas with--
    the number is 1.5 million classified documents. He shared them
    with the press. He absconded to China and Russia.
        Do you have any response to the bipartisan findings of the
    House intel committee which stated that ``Snowden caused
    tremendous damage to national security'' including to military,
    defense and intelligence programs of great interest to
    America's adversaries?
        I will give you an opportunity to respond, hopefully,
    briefly.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. As I said before, Edward
    Snowden broke the law and I do not agree with how he chose to
    release information and the extent of the information and
    intelligence that he released.
        It is my focus on the future, and I think we can all agree
    that we do not want to have an another Snowden-type leak, and
    have laid out specific actions if confirmed as DNI to do that.
        Senator Young. Well, it is notable that you didn't say yes,
    and clearly, he hurt in various ways our national security.
        The same House committee also reported that based on DoD
    assessments, should the Chinese or Russians access certain
    documents relating to DOD capabilities that we know Snowden
    stole, ``American troops will be at greater risk in any future
    conflicts.''
        Do you have any reflection on this assessment?
        Ms. Gabbard. I would be very concerned about that.
        I have not had access to the information or intelligence
    that led to that assessment. But anything that puts our men and
    women in uniform unnecessarily at risk should be a grave
    concern.
        Senator Young. I share that sentiment as a former Marine
    Corps intelligence officer. When we find that Americans,
    whether private citizens or contractors or uniformed personnel
    have shared sensitive designs about military technology or
    plans to a foreign government, however well intentioned, we
    rightfully throw the book at them.
        Snowden did just that. Yet, you have argued many times that
    he should be pardoned. You introduced legislation, as has been
    discussed here. He has been able to publicly hide, as I see it,
    behind this facade of being a so-called ``whistleblower,'' but
    he likely endangered American lives through his actions.
        So as the leader of the intelligence community, how would
    you think you would be received based on some of these past
    actions to support or even to pardon Edward Snowden by rank-
    and-file intelligence analysts and intelligence professionals?
    How do you think you will be received?
        Ms. Gabbard. I am grateful, Senator, to have received
    letters of endorsement in support from many current and former
    individuals who have worked within the intelligence community,
    those who worked or are still working within our military,
    because I believe they trust that my goal--my sole goal and
    interest is in our Nation's security and upholding our oath to
    the Constitution, and they trust that, if confirmed as Director
    of National Intelligence, I will take the very specific steps
    that I have laid out in informing every single person within
    the intelligence community about the legal pathways that they
    have to blow the whistle, to bring any concerns to the
    forefront to include coming directly to Members of Congress to
    limit access so that we don't have people who are E3's or E4's
    or people in any situation taking it upon themselves to release
    classified information, giving them a direct line to me to once
    again make sure we are all fulfilling our responsibility to
    secure our national security and uphold our Constitution.
        Senator Young. Thank you. Tulsi, was Edward Snowden false
    to an obligation or false to a duty?
        Ms. Gabbard. I don't understand what you are saying. False?
        Senator Young. Yes. Did he betray a duty? Did he betray the
    trust of the American people, which is, according to Merriam-
    Webster, that is the definition of a traitor.
        Ms. Gabbard. Edward Snowden broke the law and he released
    this information in a way that he should not have. He also
    acknowledged and exposed information that was unconstitutional
    which drove a lot of the reforms that this body has made over
    the years to make sure that Americans' constitutional rights
    were protected.
        Senator Young. For what it is worth, Mr. Snowden is
    watching these proceedings. He's posted on social media, even,
    indicating that Tulsi Gabbard ``should indicate that I harmed
    national security.''
        This may be the rare instance in which I agree with Mr.
    Snowden.
        I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you
    are perceived by Members of the intelligence community if you
    would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower in
    American history, so-called, harmed national security by
    breaking the laws of the land around our intel authorities.
        So, thank you for being here.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Colonel Gabbard, first to say thank you for your service to
    this country.
        Ms. Gabbard. Likewise.
        Senator Kelly. In Congress and in the Army, and thank you
    for meeting with me a couple of weeks ago and for being here
    today. You are nominated to lead and coordinate across the
    intelligence community's numerous sources of collection and
    analytic capabilities. In a few sentences, could you describe
    how you make assessments and how you are going to sift through
    all this intelligence and make careful and thoughtful
    conclusions?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. There are great professionals
    who work within the intelligence community. I will build a
    strong team around me as they present the intelligence
    reporting to provide to the President for the President's daily
    brief and to respond to issues and concerns that this body has.
    I will welcome dissenting voices to be able to make sure that
    this information and intelligence is thoroughly vetted prior to
    presenting it, and make sure that the truth is reported,
    whether that truth is convenient or not.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Colonel Gabbard, and I appreciate
    that. The President and others are going to rely on that.
        I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC. For
    years the U.S. analyzed evidence of numerous chemical weapons
    attacks in Syria. Eventually, we were able to assess that
    Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a number of attacks that
    slaughtered his own civilians. Do you accept the conclusion
    broadly that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrians?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, and I am on the record for years of
    agreeing with that broad assessment.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Among the attacks, the U.S.
    assessed Assad was responsible for two that occurred in Douma
    and Khan Sheikhoun in Syria. As a Member of Congress and as a
    Presidential candidate and as recently as this month in your
    written responses to this committee, you have cast doubt on the
    assessment that Assad is culpable in these two attacks. Is that
    still your position?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I raised those questions given
    conflicting information and evidence that was presented at that
    time.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. So to help inform the public, the
    Trump administration released declassified intelligence in 2017
    and again in 2018 showing how experts analyzed multiple types
    of evidence--satellite imagery, medical experts, witnesses,
    describing sources and showing the reasoning used to determine
    Assad's culpability in using these chemical weapons, including
    in Douma and Khan Sheikhoun in these attacks and these were the
    ones you questioned.
        I have two documents I want to submit for the record, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Admitted.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Were you aware of the
    declassified assessments, the ones I referenced?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, I was.
        Senator Kelly. As a Member of the House Armed Services
    Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, did you take time to
    review these?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. Can you explain to me then why
    you doubted the intelligence community's conclusions in these
    two cases, Douma and Khan Sheikhoun, but not the others? And
    please be specific.
        Ms. Gabbard. These two cases were being looked at to be
    used as a pretext for major military movement. And another--my
    fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half million
    soldiers like we saw in Iraq towards what was the Obama
    administration's goal, which was regime change in Syria. The
    question specifically that I raised around these two came about
    because there were two reasons. One, that assessment was made
    with high confidence and low information. The information that
    they had came from those on the ground in an al-Qaida
    controlled area, and therefore were al-Qaida linked sources.
    And there was conflicting information that came from the U.N.'s
    Office on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspectors as
    well as MIT Professor Ted Postol.
        Senator Kelly. So, let's talk about him. Did you look into
    his credentials?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes.
        Senator Kelly. Were you aware of his appearances on
    ``Russia Today'' which is used by the Russians to disseminate
    government-approved messages?
        Ms. Gabbard. No.
        Senator Kelly. Were you aware Postol relied on a chemistry
    student with a record of defending the Assad regime?
        Ms. Gabbard. At that time, I was not. I have been made
    aware since.
        Senator Kelly. Do you consider this person or these two
    individuals now, do you consider them a better source for the
    chemistry of sarin gas in the U.S. intelligence community?
        Ms. Gabbard. I assessed that at the time the information--I
    don't know the second person you are referring to, but MIT
    Professor Ted Postol and the inspectors at the OPCW provided
    some credible questions that deserved examination.
        Senator Kelly. Did you attempt to weigh Postol's claims
    against significant evidence and assessments already conducted
    by the IC?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, I did.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you. So here's my concern, here,
    Colonel. When we began this, you described a thoughtful
    approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions.
    This is what we expect of our professionals. But we just kind
    of walked through how you came to question Assad's use of
    chemical weapons in these two cases with a different approach.
    And I don't reject seeking out differing viewpoints. We need to
    do that.
        But you started from a place of doubting the conclusions of
    the U.S. intelligence community and then you sought out
    information that confirmed your viewpoint. That led you to
    embrace the opinions of two individuals that--I think we
    disagree on this--you think they had expertise. I do not and
    others do not. But these individuals were sympathetic to Russia
    and the Assad regime.
        It also led you to minimize or discount the overwhelming
    information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the
    expert assessments of our own intelligence community. And they
    don't get it right 100 percent of the time. I get that.
        But what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time
    you were skeptical of our intelligence community's assessments,
    you would not apply the same skepticism to information that
    came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad. And I think that is
    something that we should all be concerned about.
        I am sorry to go on so long.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Kelly.
        I want to recognizee and welcome our newest Member, Senator
    Budd. Although we all regret Senator Rubio's departure, we are
    all pleased, as evidenced by a 99-to-nothing vote, that he is
    now Secretary of State and also pleased that we have a great
    new Member on our Committee.
        Senator Budd.
        Senator Budd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for
    your leadership here as well.
        Colonel Gabbard, nice seeing you again, and I enjoyed
    meeting you in my office a while back, as well as our
    friendship and serving together in the U.S. House.
        As you know, Section 3023 of title 50 states, ``any
    individual nominated for appointment as DNI shall have
    extensive national security expertise.''
        You served four terms as a Member of the House of
    Representatives, which is a constitutional office, and
    throughout your tenure you were a member of the Armed Services
    Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee; is that correct?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Budd. You also served over two decades in the U.S.
    Army, including holding commands at multiple levels and served
    through administrations of both political parties; is that
    correct?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Budd. Throughout your time in the U.S. House and
    the Army, you have both been both a consumer of intelligence
    and a policymaker. How important is it for the intelligence
    community to provide timely, relevant, factual, and objective
    intelligence to policymakers?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, it is nothing less than a matter of
    our national security. Too often, in the multitude of
    intelligence failures that our country has seen, that objective
    has not been met. Now CIA Director Ratcliffe talked about in
    his testimony before this Committee how the CIA's own internal
    metrics have shown that analytic objectivity has gone down
    within that organization. This is the very kind of thing that I
    would seek to address if confirmed as Director of National
    Intelligence, is ensuring that politics, biases, or personal
    views are checked at the door. I would lead by example by doing
    it myself and by ensuring that intelligence analysis and
    reporting meets the objective that the President and Congress
    requires, which is no politics, no personal abuses, and making
    sure that that objectivity in a timely, relevant fashion is
    brought to the President so that we can get ahead of the
    problems in ensuring our national security rather than being
    caught on our heels and being forced to respond to them.
        Senator Budd. Thank you for that. I think it is clear from
    your background and experience that you more than meet the
    statutory requirements for this position.
        I want to switch gears a little bit. There has been a lot
    of discussion, I think necessary discussion, about your
    position on Section 702 of FISA. I personally have had
    concerns, and I think we even talked about this when we served
    in the House together. I actually voted against its
    reauthorization when I was in the House. However, I recently
    voted to reauthorize Section 702 with additional safeguards to
    end the politicization of the tool and to ensure national--to
    ensure privacy and civil liberties--that they are protected.
        So, Ms. Gabbard, tell us how has your thinking on Section
    702 developed over time and why, and, if confirmed, what will
    you do to ensure that these new statutory safeguards are fully
    implemented?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, as you pointed out, many of the
    concerns that we raised when we served in the House of
    Representatives were centered around the lack of safeguards to
    protect Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and civil liberties
    as it pertains to searching of U.S. persons with that
    incidental collection that occurs under 702.
        You and I both know and agree that the national security
    capability that is provided by Section 702 that enables this
    foreign surveillance on non-U.S. persons overseas is critical,
    period.
        My commitment is to make sure that our national security
    tools are maintained to fulfill that requirement while also
    protecting Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and protection
    against unlawful search and seizure. There are a number of
    those reforms that you referenced such as the prohibition of
    about collection, which we brought up when we served in the
    House, making sure that 100 percent of U.S. persons by the FBI
    on this incidental collection are reviewed by the Attorney
    General herself.
        There are a number of other reforms that I believe
    strengthen significantly those safeguards, a number of them
    that I had worked to try to bring into place when I was in the
    House of Representatives. I look forward, if confirmed as
    Director of National Intelligence, to overseeing and assessing
    the implementation of these reforms and reporting back to you
    as you begin to consider next year's reauthorization and
    meeting that mark of ensuring our security and upholding
    Americans' Fourth Amendment protections.
        Senator Budd. Thank you. Switching gears a little bit. Talk
    briefly, if you will, about the task of simultaneously
    protecting whistleblowers and protecting classified
    information.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, there are more than sufficient
    legally protected routes for whistleblowers to come forward
    should they have concerns on any actions occurring within the
    intelligence community. I have spoken about the additional
    protections that I personally will put in place if confirmed as
    Director of National Intelligence, understanding the
    seriousness of protecting our Nation's secrets, and one that I
    hold personally.
        Senator Budd. Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Budd.
        I will recognize Senator Wicker, an ex officio member of
    our committee, which is Latin for so powerful a man that he can
    go to any committee he wants and ask questions at any time.
        Senator Wicker. I look at it differently, Mr. Chairman. I
    think what you are saying is that I am the only nonvoting
    member of the committee that is at this hearing, and I have
    been at an Armed Services Committee hearing most of the
    morning.
        Let me ask about something that happened a long time ago
    and something that is happening right now, Colonel Gabbard. I
    was a Member of the House of Representatives on 9/11/2001. As a
    matter of fact, I was at the Pentagon that very morning when
    the attacks happened. Where were you when 9/11--we all remember
    where we were.
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes. I was in Hawaii. There was a 5 or 6-hour
    time difference, so when I woke up that morning, it was several
    hours, and I remember the first thing I saw in waking up was
    that horrific footage of those airplanes attacking the Twin
    Towers in New York City.
        Senator Wicker. And I think you obviously have read a lot
    about it during the 24-plus years since that, and most
    Americans have. There is a general consensus that there was a
    massive intelligence failure that caught us all by surprise,
    even though the World Trade Center had been attacked earlier.
        Do you think stovepiping was a problem in our intelligence
    failure?
        Ms. Gabbard. There is no question about it, Senator.
        Senator Wicker. Okay. Well, based on your reading--okay,
    could you elaborate?
        Ms. Gabbard. Yes, absolutely, Senator. When we look back at
    the post-9/11 reporting and the post-assessments that were
    made, it was very clear that there was stovepiping of
    information and intelligence that occurred at many levels--at
    the highest, but also at the lowest levels--information that
    was collected by the FBI, information that was collected by the
    CIA--was not being shared. It was almost ships passing in the
    night. Where, if there was an integration of those intelligence
    elements and information being shared, it is highly likely that
    that horrific attack could have been prevented.
        Senator Wicker. And that is the reason, really, your
    position was created. There has been some discussion this
    morning--again, I have not been able to listen in, but I
    understand there has been some discussion about reforming the
    Office of the DNI to eliminate redundancy and increase
    effectiveness. Do you worry that in doing so, we might be
    getting back to the same problem that we had in 2001?
        Ms. Gabbard. The problem that we had in 2001, Senator,
    remains at the forefront of my mind and, as I said, this is
    exactly why the ODNI was created. Given my limited vantage
    point of not being in the seat, I am concerned that there are
    still problems with stovepiping that need to be addressed and
    in some cases my concern would be that unnecessary bureaucratic
    layers may be contributing to that problem. This is where
    coming in and being really able to take a fresh look given my
    experience and my background will be essential to making sure
    that the ODNI is accomplishing the reason why it was created in
    the first place.
        Senator Wicker. Okay. And I have a lot of suggestions about
    how to make the Department of Defense more efficient also. I
    would simply caution you, before I move on to that other quick
    question, that as we are trying to eliminate overlaps, that we
    avoid getting back to the thing that created your agency to
    start with.
        Now, let me just ask about anomalous health incidents. I
    know you are not in the intelligence community yet, but having
    read as most of us have about these Havana syndrome incidents,
    what is your understanding of that now and what are your plans?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, thank you for this question. It has
    been deeply concerning throughout this period from the first
    time this was discovered so long ago to where we are today that
    the intelligence community still has failed to identify the
    source and the cause for Havana syndrome as it is commonly
    known, even as many people who are in service are suffering the
    consequences of it.
        I look forward if confirmed as Director of National
    Intelligence to addressing this, making sure that those who
    have been impacted are getting the care that they need and
    deserve, but getting to the truth behind how and why this has
    occurred.
        Senator Wicker. Are you saying that we are not any closer
    to understanding where this came from?
        Ms. Gabbard. Based on my understanding there has not been
    any definitive reporting from the intelligence community on the
    source and cause for these anomalous health incidents.
        Senator Wicker. Okay. Well, perhaps if you would like I
    could follow-up on the record.
        Ms. Gabbard. I'd look forward to that.
        Senator Wicker. I think there is some more public
    information that is recent about that.
        Thank you, Ma'am.
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
        As I acknowledged at the outset, it is the custom of this
    Committee to allow a follow-up question for Senators who remain
    present at the end of the regular 5-minute round of questions.
        I remind everyone, this is a follow-up question not a 5-
    minute round of questioning. We will have Ms. Gabbard in a
    closed session in which each of us will have yet another 5-
    minute round of questions.
        Is there any Senator who wishes to be recognized for a
    follow-up question?
        Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Gabbard, there is an area that I believe is still
    uncertain and this is what my question is about. Earlier this
    week, the Trump administration illegally attempted to withhold
    federal funds from a broad range of organizations. I am
    interested in knowing what you would do if President Trump told
    you to withhold congressionally approved funding from the
    intelligence community inspector general. So my question is, if
    President Trump orders you to withhold appropriated funds from
    the inspector general, will you refuse that illegal order?
        Ms. Gabbard. I don't believe for a second President Trump
    would ask me to do something that would break the law.
        Senator Wyden. That is not what I am asking. I am asking,
    if you are asked about an illegal order, what will you do? You
    can say ``oh, it will never happen.'' What will you do if you
    are dealing with an illegal order?
        Ms. Gabbard. My commitment has been and will be if
    confirmed as Director of National Intelligence to comply with
    the law.
        Chairman Cotton. All right, Senator Wyden.
        Senator Wyden, you've asked two question.
        Senator Wyden. I am asking the question.
        Chairman Cotton. You asked two questions instead of one
    question.
        Now, are there other Senators that would like a follow-up
    question?
        Senator King.
        Senator King. I would like to follow up on my line of
    questioning about Edward Snowden and understand how you
    analyzed the facts leading up to your 2020 bill providing him
    with a pardon. There was a House committee report which granted
    was redacted, but under the heading ``What Damage Did It
    Cause'' were 5 and \1/2\ pages of redacted material.
        I thought that would have raised a question in your mind.
        Secondly, Edward Snowden, out of 20 countries that don't
    have extradition treaties with the U.S., he chose to go to
    Russia and become a Russian citizen. Given that information,
    how did you decide to introduce a bill providing him with a
    pardon?
        Introducing a bill in the United States Congress is not the
    same as a tweet or a commentary on a podcast.
        I am concerned about your apparent lack of interest in the
    scope of Edward Snowden's traitorous activities.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I answered some version of this
    question many times in this hearing already. My foremost
    concern has been, remains, and will continue to be in upholding
    my oath to the Constitution, to support and defend Americans'
    Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. If confirmed as
    Director of National Intelligence, I am committed to ensuring
    that we protect our Nation's secrets by implementing a number
    of actions that I have outlined so that those who have concerns
    about programs within our intelligence community that we don't
    have another Snowden-like leak, and they are able to raise
    those concerns either directly with Congress or through any one
    of a number of legal paths that are available. I think it is
    also important and in line with many of the bipartisan concerns
    I have heard in this Committee in security clearance
    classification reform in narrowing severely those who have
    access to the most sensitive and compartmentalized intelligence
    reporting and capabilities.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Bennet.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, and thank you for your
    generosity, Mr. Chairman, in allowing us to have a second
    question.
        Thank you again for hanging in there with this discussion,
    Colonel Gabbard.
        The House Intelligence Committee review of the Snowden
    disclosures found that not only he was a traitor but since
    Snowden's arrival in Moscow he has had and continues to have
    contact with Russian intelligence services.
        You can see the deep concern on both sides of the aisle
    here. You had in your opening statement all kinds of complaints
    about former officials in the intelligence agencies, the United
    States press and journalists, the media, Democrats, which
    suggested that you weren't being treated fairly with your
    coming here--no condemnation at all for this. Which leads me to
    wonder why it is so hard for you to say that Edward Snowden was
    a traitor to our country. And the question I guess I have for
    you is, how, if you can't say that you feel that the concerns
    that this Committee has that we need somebody here who will
    actually honor their oath, as you said. Maybe I should make it
    easier for you.
        Edward Snowden did not honor his oath to the Constitution,
    which is what you just said was the most important duty, most
    important obligation that you have in this role. Why is he
    being treated like a folk hero by you instead of the traitor
    that he was?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, as I said my focus and what should be
    of relevance to you and everyone watching is what I will do as
    Director of National Intelligence to work with you to make sure
    there is not another Snowden-like leak, given the paramount
    importance of our national security and keeping our Nation's
    secrets. I laid out a number of ways that I intend to do that
    if confirmed in fulfilling my responsibility in this role.
        Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted
    to continue along with regard to China because it is such an
    important part of your portfolio. And I know on Armed Services
    you had hearings over the last 15 years about the architecture
    and how they are building up space capabilities, sea
    capabilities, and air force capabilities--every capability they
    possibly could, and that aligns more with their malign
    influence and with their ambition with regard to Taiwan. It
    just creates a very dangerous scenario and concerning one.
        And so I want to ask you about Japan, because recently
    about a year and a half ago, 13 months ago, you said you didn't
    think it was wise to allow Japan to build up their own defense
    architecture, and you thought it was shortsighted.
        Can you speak a little bit about that? Because our alliance
    with Japan is so important in our ability to defend against
    malign activities in China, not only geographically but because
    for the last 50 years they have been close allies--allies we
    rely on. We share intelligence. We share operations. They are a
    great ally. So what was your concern about, and have your views
    shifted in that regard?
        Ms. Gabbard. Thank you for the question, Senator.
        I agree, Japan has been a strong ally of the United States.
    In a different capacity as a Member of the Hawaii National
    Guard I've gone and conducted training missions in Japan with
    the Japanese Self-Defense Force. Their forces and their
    Constitution have been primarily focused on self-defense.
        The concerns that I had raised previously had to do with
    really looking at the bigger picture in the context of the
    history with Japan and China and recognizing the implications
    of what--how this kind of shift from a self-defense posture
    that Japan has had constitutionally to a more offensive posture
    could result in escalation.
        And given the history, we need to acknowledge what the
    ramifications could be to our own security interests. And that
    is something that I am looking forward to being able to provide
    to all of you and to the President, if confirmed as Director of
    National Intelligence, is that in-depth analysis and
    assessment, so that various policies or actions that you all or
    the President are considering are fully thought through given
    that broader context of nuance of history and the complexities
    that exist within the Asia Pacific region, having grown up
    there, I am very familiar with.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
        Senator Kelly.
        Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Colonel Gabbard, when Russia was denying Assad's use of
    chemical weapons, they accused the U.S. of supporting
    terrorists. This is a line that Putin used frequently during
    the Syrian civil war as he supported Assad. Syrian officials
    made similar comments. They did it repeatedly. They did it in
    public. They did it at the United Nations.
        In 2016, you gave an interview in which you said, and this
    is a quote: ``The U.S. is providing direct and indirect support
    to terrorist groups in order to overthrow the Syrian
    government.'' In 2019 on the Democratic presidential debate
    stage, you said of President Trump: this is a quote, ``This
    current President is continuing to betray us. We were supposed
    to be going after al-Qaida, but over the years now, not only
    have we not gone after al-Qaida, our President is supporting
    al-Qaida.''
        So I am interested to hear what was your goal in saying
    these things, and did you consider before saying them the
    motives of Iran and Russia, what their motives might have been
    before making these claims?
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, as someone who enlisted in the
    military specifically because of al-Qaida's terrorist attack on
    9/11 and committing myself and my life to doing what I could to
    defeat these terrorists, it was shocking and a betrayal to me
    and every person who was killed on 9/11, and their families and
    my brothers and sisters in uniform, when as a Member of
    Congress I learned about President Obama's dual programs that
    he had begun, really to overthrow the regime of Syria and being
    willing to through the CIA's Timber Sycamore program that has
    now been made public, of working with and arming and equipping
    al-Qaida in an effort to overthrow that regime, starting yet
    another regime change war in the Middle East.
        DOD Train and Equip Program, again begun under President
    Obama, has widely been known, looked at, and studied, that
    ultimately resulted in over a half-billion dollars being used
    to train who they called ``moderate rebels'' but were actually
    fighters working with and aligned with al-Qaida's affiliate on
    the ground in Syria, all to move forward with their regime
    change and not acknowledging what was obvious at the time and
    what has unfortunately borne true, which was that a regime
    change war in Syria, much like the regime change wars in Iraq,
    the toppling of Gaddafi and Mubarek, while these are all
    dictators, would likely result in the rise of Islamist
    extremists like al-Qaida taking power.
        I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime. But
    today, we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of
    Syria, as I said, who danced in the streets to celebrate the 9/
    11 attack, who ruled over an Idlib with an Islamist extremist
    governance and who has already begun to persecute and kill and
    arrest religious minorities like Christians in Syria.
        Senator Kelly. I understand.
        Ms. Gabbard. Why that is acceptable to anyone is beyond me.
    It shouldn't be.
        Senator Kelly. Certainly, I understand, and I appreciate
    your answer and thank you. My concern has to do with the
    tendency to repeat Russian and Syrian and even in some cases--I
    think we will get into a closed session--Iranian information
    and to discount what comes from our intelligence community.
        Ms. Gabbard. Senator, every American deserves to know that
    people in our own government were providing support to our
    sworn enemy, al-Qaida. That should not be acceptable by anyone.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Kelly and Ms. Gabbard.
        In conclusion, Senator Warner.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        You know, one of the things I love about this Committee,
    and I know folks who are here for Ms. Gabbard may not fully--
    this has always been a bipartisan committee. And my friend
    Richard Burr who said we always kind of follow the truth. One
    of the things I was always proud of, from the very challenging
    Russia investigation was, you know, people would come in. They
    didn't know whether the staffer was a Democrat or Republican
    because we were all looking out for the same thing.
        Ms. Gabbard, I support and commend you for your service,
    but we have heard this morning taking some individual's advice
    on chemical attacks, not taking the American intelligence
    community and as we subsequently discovered had iffy ties, not
    enough due diligence. We heard this morning on your trip to
    Lebanon that you were not fully aware that the folks who
    originally paid for the trip had these relations and ties to
    the Syrian party.
        I know I have asked you, and I understand on the trip that
    you said you met with two Shia religious figures, and you
    didn't know who they were. I can understand that, although I
    can't imagine Shia religious figures that in the back alley
    didn't have ties to Hezbollah.
        And we can have a difference of opinion on TikTok. The
    chairman and I feel very strongly it is a national security
    threat.
        On 702, I am candidly confused. I thought you answered
    Senator Wyden that you are in favor of a warrant. Senator
    Cornyn got you to back off of that. And now, on Edward Snowden,
    you won't back off of ``brave,'' you won't back off your
    legislation. You won't call him a traitor. And I think again
    this is being watched by our allies around the world. And even
    RT has been tweeting about it today, blasting me and the men
    and women of the intelligence community. I don't know how they
    are going to have confidence that if someone under your
    leadership, if somebody else stepped out that you wouldn't take
    the same position that you have not walked away from on Mr.
    Snowden.
        So, my last question, and this was in some of the press,
    and I believe you and your husband took a trip to Rome last
    summer. I am not talking about the conference. I think you
    didn't ask who paid for the trip. I just want to get this off
    the record right now, not if you and your husband reimbursed,
    but did you pay from the trip at the outset, or who paid for
    it?
        Ms. Gabbard. There was a nonprofit organization that was
    coordinating with the Vatican to set up this meeting that was
    centered around peace and security interests in the Western
    Hemisphere.
        Vice Chairman Warner. I don't want to go into that.
        Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. That paid for the trip.
        Vice Chairman Warner. So you don't understand your trip was
    paid for by a gentleman named Pierre Duvalier and the Clemente
    Foundation?
        Ms. Gabbard. The nonprofit----
        Vice Chairman Warner. I understand there are extensive
    records.
        Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. Paid for the trip.
        Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Duvalier has enormous ties to
    Konstantin Malofeev, and I am mispronouncing his name, but who
    is somebody that America has sanctioned.
        I am sure we can get into this in the classified hearing.
    But in the due diligence that is required before we take these
    trips or make these assumptions is something that I find very
    troubling.
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Warner. That same New
    York Times story reported there was no indication that Ms.
    Gabbard did anything wrong on that trip.
        Ms. Gabbard, thank you for your time and your testimony.
    Thank you most importantly for your service to our Nation. Like
    I said at the outset, there is no secret that this nomination
    has generated more attention and interest than most nominees
    before this Committee.
        We have received a large number of statements, letters and
    other such materials in support of and in opposition to Ms.
    Gabbard's nomination. I will submit all of those for the
    record.
        For the benefit of Senators, it is also my intention to
    hold a committee vote on Ms. Gabbard's nomination as soon as
    possible. Therefore, for planning purposes, any Senator who
    wishes to submit questions for the record after today's
    hearing, please do so by close of business tomorrow. That is
    Friday, January 31, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time.
        Now let me explain what will happen next. The committee
    security and Ms. Gabbard's security will escort her and her
    immediate party out of this room through the door behind me.
    Everyone else will remain seated in this room. The Capitol
    Police will secure that door so no one else leaves this room
    until Ms. Gabbard has reached her break room in preparation for
    the closed session.
        We will convene in that closed session in approximately 30
    minutes. That is 1:10 p.m. This open session in adjourned.
        (Whereupon the session was adjourned at 12:42 p.m.)
        [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              [all]