[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S835-S837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Tulsi Gabbard

  Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Tulsi 
Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence.
  In its first few days in office, the Trump administration has been 
remarkably cavalier and incompetent in its handling of our national 
security affairs--shutting off foreign aid; threatening Panama, 
Greenland, and Canada; calling for the mass deportation of Palestinians 
from Gaza. And just last week, it was reported that the CIA sent an 
unclassified email, listing all employees it had hired over the last 2 
years, in order to comply with an Executive order from President Trump. 
One former Agency officer called this a ``counterintelligence 
disaster.''
  The President's choices to lead our national security Agencies have 
also not inspired confidence.
  The Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, serves a critical role 
in leading the intelligence community and in collecting analysis so 
that the President, Congress, and decisionmakers across the U.S. 
Government have the best and most timely information for our national 
security. Indeed, the office was created after 9/11 to better 
coordinate analysis across the intelligence community. The position of 
DNI requires someone of great experience, character, judgment, and the 
confidence to speak truth to power, especially when the findings of the 
intelligence community differ from the policy objectives of the 
administration.
  While I respect Ms. Gabbard's military service, including overseas 
deployments, she does not have a demonstrated record of experience to 
qualify her to lead the intelligence community. As DNI, she would 
oversee 18 different organizations, tens of thousands of military and 
civilian personnel, and an annual budget of more than $100 billion. She 
has never even served in an intelligence role, much less led a global 
intelligence enterprise.
  More concerning than Ms. Gabbard's lack of experience is her record 
of erratic statements and actions, many of which have run counter to 
the interests and findings of the intelligence community.
  In 2020, Ms. Gabbard and Congressman Matt Gaetz cosponsored a 
resolution calling on the Federal Government to drop all charges 
against Edward Snowden. Snowden was a contractor who was indicted for 
espionage and for publicly releasing the details of some of our most 
sensitive intelligence efforts, including those that were conducted 
jointly with foreign allies and partners, before Snowden fled to 
Russia.
  Former Deputy DNI Sue Gordon responded to Ms. Gabbard's defense of 
Snowden by saying:

       It reflects a lack of understanding of who we are, and it 
     reflects a lack of respect for what we do. Unauthorized 
     disclosures of intelligence are always bad. Don't go with the 
     good or bad, any good outcome or whether he was right or 
     wrong. . . . He not only harmed intelligence, he harmed our 
     allies and partners, and he harmed our businesses by what it 
     allowed China to assume about that. There is nothing 
     justifiable about what he's done. None.

  Let me be clear: Edward Snowden's betrayal has cost American lives. 
He is a traitor by every definition of the word.
  As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Cotton, has 
said in the past, Mr. Snowden is an ``egotistical, serial liar and 
traitor whose unauthorized disclosures of classified information have 
jeopardized the safety of Americans and allies around the world. 
Snowden's close and continual contact with Russian intelligence 
services speak volumes. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his 
life.''
  Yet, during her confirmation hearing, Ms. Gabbard was repeatedly 
asked whether or not she believed that Snowden was a traitor. I think 
colleagues on both sides of the aisle were stunned that she not only 
refused to do so but that she continued to defend him.
  Our national security leaders consistently emphasize that the 
greatest advantage we have over our adversaries is our network of 
allies and partners, including those who share intelligence with us. If 
Ms. Gabbard is confirmed as DNI, I have serious concerns about whether 
or not our allies and partners will trust her with their nations' most 
sensitive intelligence given her past actions.
  I am also concerned about the pattern of statements over the years by 
Ms. Gabbard peddling what the intelligence community has found to be 
Russian propaganda.

[[Page S836]]

  For example, at the outset of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, 
as eloquently described by the chairman of the Armed Services 
Committee, Ms. Gabbard stated:

       This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if 
     [the] Biden administration [and] NATO had simply acknowledged 
     Russia's legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's 
     becoming a member of NATO, which would mean U.S. [and] NATO 
     forces right on Russia's border.

  After Ukraine bravely withstood Russia's initial assault, the Kremlin 
began a campaign of misinformation designed to legitimize its illegal 
war. These themes were repeatedly amplified by Gabbard in her public 
comments, including with respect to the widely disputed Russian 
allegation of a U.S.-funded covert biological weapons program in 
Ukraine.
  As our former colleague Mitt Romney tweeted at the time she made 
these bogus claims, ``Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian 
propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.''
  In reviewing Ms. Gabbard's statements, the New York Times found:

       Ms. Gabbard honed her pro-Russia views on [Tucker] 
     Carlson's show on FOX News before his program was canceled. 
     She became a regular guest and occasionally filled in as host 
     when Mr. Carlson was away.
       Clips from her appearances on Mr. Carlson's show that 
     repeated Kremlin talking points were quickly picked up by 
     Russian state media.
       In some cases, she echoed story lines that Russia's 
     propagandists created, which the Russians then recycled on 
     their own media as evidence that the conspiracy theories they 
     had manufactured were true. For the Kremlin, it was a 
     virtuous cycle.

  Ms. Gabbard has been roundly and appropriately criticized for her 
unannounced 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with Syria's then-
President Bashar al-Assad. She justified that trip by saying:

       We've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if 
     there's a possibility that we could achieve peace.

  Ms. Gabbard's decision to carry out an unofficial trip to Syria in 
the midst of a civil war--a conflict in which Bashar al-Assad was using 
chemical weapons against his own people--showed incredibly poor 
judgment. Her visit did nothing to advance the cause of peace but, 
rather, helped to legitimize Assad's brutal dictatorship.
  Just months later, Ms. Gabbard criticized President Trump's decision 
to use military force to deter further chemical weapons use by Assad 
and even expressed skepticism about whether Assad had actually used 
chemical weapons.
  Madam President, it would be the height of charity to say that Ms. 
Gabbard has consistently demonstrated poor judgment on critical 
national security matters, but it is more than just that. Ms. Gabbard 
clings to her misjudgments even when she is shown to be wrong. That is 
a disturbing character flaw for this critical role.
  Above all else, the DNI must be unquestionably loyal to our national 
interests and trustworthy with our national secrets. The intelligence 
they control has life-or-death consequences.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle--some of whom have 
indicated great discomfort with Ms. Gabbard and her troubling disregard 
for America's security interests--appear willing to vote for her 
confirmation despite their misgivings.
  At this critical moment, all Senators must honestly answer these 
questions: Given everything you know about Tulsi Gabbard, do you trust 
her with life-or-death national secrets? Can you look members of our 
intelligence community in the eye and say that you believe Tulsi 
Gabbard will serve and protect them and this Nation?
  I have seen enough to know my answer, and I urge my colleagues to 
vote against this nominee.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Banks). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Michigan.
  Ms. SLOTKIN. Mr. President, I rise today as a very new Senator, a 
freshman Senator, to talk about the confirmation prospects for the 
nominee for the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.
  I think context matters here. I am the first CIA officer to ever be 
elected to the U.S. Senate. Before I ran for office in Michigan, I had 
a career in national security. I am what is called a 9/11 baby. I 
happened to be in New York City on my second day of graduate school 
when 9/11 happened. It changed my life. I decided to go into national 
security.
  I got recruited by the CIA right out of grad school and then was 
quickly sent on my first of three tours in Iraq alongside the military, 
providing intelligence to the U.S. military to deal with the groups 
that were shooting at U.S. forces and plotting against the U.S. 
homeland.
  I worked in national security roles very proudly in both 
administrations, Democratic and Republican. I worked in the White House 
for George W. Bush, and I was there the Friday that he left office and 
the Monday that Barack Obama walked in. I did the same job for two very 
different Presidents, one for each party. I went on to be a Pentagon 
Assistant Secretary of Defense. But in between all of that time, one of 
the things I got to do was help stand up the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence.
  I was the intelligence briefer in Baghdad for Ambassador John 
Negroponte, who was the first Ambassador to Iraq under the Bush 
administration. I would provide him intelligence briefings early, early 
in the morning.
  One day, he came back from a trip to Washington and said: I am going 
to be nominated to be the first Director of National Intelligence. It 
is this completely new position. It is a position that has been created 
because of the failures of 9/11, our failures to anticipate the attacks 
of 9/11, to put the pieces together between the FBI, the CIA, the 
military, all those who had a piece of the story but didn't have a 
place and a venue to combine it all together to anticipate the most 
devastating attacks on the U.S. soil since Pearl Harbor.
  I came home and happened to be one of those first employees to set up 
the Director of National Intelligence. I think I was employee No. 5. I 
was John Negroponte's first special assistant. So I was his, you know, 
body person, helping him set up that office.
  So when I talk about the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard, I don't do it 
willy-nilly. I don't do it without a background on these topics. And I 
believe that the people who should be taking the positions that are 
critical for national security should be people of competence and 
character.
  What does the Director of National Intelligence do? The Office was 
created, as I said, to combine all of the different threads of 
information at the 17 different intelligence community Agencies that we 
have to prevent intelligence failures like we had on 9/11.
  This is a serious position. This is a position that in the past has 
been in the Oval Office every morning with the intelligence briefings 
provided by the Agencies. This is the position that in the dead of 
night makes consequential decisions on the security and safety of 
people here.
  Most Americans have no idea the number of threats we still thwart 
every single month against our homeland. We sleep well at night because 
the intelligence community is working together to prevent those 
threats, along with our partners and our allies and our military.
  So, for me, I want to know that the person who is going to be woken 
up in the middle of the night to make those last-minute decisions--do 
we move on that intelligence? do we act based on that threat?--that 
they are someone, again, of competence and character, and what I have 
seen from Ms. Gabbard does not meet that threshold.
  She has, first of all, repeatedly questioned the integrity of the 
intelligence community. She has gone after the intelligence community 
that she hopes to lead.
  She has labeled tens of thousands of intelligence personnel as deep 
state without even a semblance of understanding of what they do every 
day to keep her safe.
  She has questioned the findings of the intelligence community.

[[Page S837]]

  I think more egregious than anything, she has shown a repeated 
preference for our adversaries over the intelligence community and the 
United States of America. Most notably, a surprise trip to visit the 
now-ousted President of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
  Imagine the decision making that goes into planning a secret trip to 
visit a man who has killed thousands of his countrymen, thousands of 
relatives of Michiganders that I represent; a man who we know has used 
chemical weapons, violating international law, devastating communities; 
a man who has seemingly sat aside as insurgent groups, terrorist groups 
took territory in his area and allowed them to project attacks into 
neighboring states and to plot against the U.S. homeland.
  She makes the decision to go and visit this man, throw flowers at his 
feet, do public TV with him, go publicly and show her support. Now, I 
don't know if she is just deeply naive. I don't know if in some twisted 
way, she thought that this was her way of being helpful. But whether 
she did it out of naivete or she did it knowing what this man has done 
and the implications of her actions, either way shows a complete lack 
of judgment.
  The same goes for her seeming glorification of Vladimir Putin. It is 
hard to understand, coming from the country that defeated the Soviet 
Union in the Cold War, that we would put a woman in charge of our 
entire intelligence community who has shown over and over repeated 
interest in Vladimir Putin, taking his side of the argument, wondering 
what he has done right and our intelligence community has done wrong.

  Can you imagine what it feels like to be a member of the intelligence 
community right now, with everything going on, with all of the 
discrediting of what they have done and what they do every single day, 
and now this woman is going to be in charge of this Agency? It is an 
insult to people who have dedicated their lives and put themselves in 
harm's way, to have her confirmed into this position.
  Now, we have watched her flip-flop on a bunch of issues, right? 
Issues that Democrats and Republicans have concerns with. You know, she 
used to have a lot of concern about what is called section 702 of the 
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. She fought against it. Now she 
is somehow for it. I am not saying people can't change, but I am just 
saying someone who doesn't have the backbone to stand up and be clear 
with their principles--I am having a hard time imagining them lead in 
the heat of the moment, when you are in the Situation Room and 
consequential decisions are being made.
  I think the feeling that I have about where we are in this country 
right now is that we are sort of in this fever dream. There is this 
race to discredit, to attack, to cut. And, look, I will be the first 
person to say that there is fat on the bone in the Federal Government. 
I worked in the Federal Government. There are plenty of things that can 
be reformed in the Federal Government. But the double whammy of 
attacking the people who keep us safe every day, of trying to push them 
out--I just had a Republican Member on my way here say: Hey, I just 
heard about what is going on at CIA. Are they trying to get everyone to 
leave? What about people who are in sensitive positions?
  Great question. But the other punch is to put someone in charge of 
the intelligence community that has such disdain for our allies, for 
our intelligence officers, and such love for our adversaries.
  So I urge all of my Republican colleagues to search their soul. Play 
the long game. Don't live in fear of the Trump administration and 
Donald Trump specifically. You know in your heart that these people 
aren't qualified and that the life and limb of American citizens is in 
their hands.
  So I urge all of my colleagues to vote against Tulsi Gabbard. I will 
be voting against her here later today.
  I hope that we as American citizens can come up for air from this 
fever dream and remember that reform of the Federal Government does not 
mean slashing the people that keep us safe every day.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.