[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S840-S841]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Tulsi Gabbard

  Mr. COONS. Mr. President, trust--trust is at the very center of our 
national security: the trust that we share with allies and partners 
around the world; the trust that the American people have in us and in 
our armed services and in our intelligence services; the trust that 
vital allies have that causes them to share with us information about 
threats, challenges, opportunities. That is the very foundation of our 
national security.
  And today, I rise to warn my colleagues about the risks to our 
national security posed by the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the 
Director of National Intelligence.
  As ranking member of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, 
I have a significant involvement in our Nation's intelligence 
apparatus. And over the course of the confirmation hearings and the 
debate here on the floor about former Congresswoman Gabbard, I have 
concluded that she has an alarming record, revealed more fully in her 
confirmation hearings but also in a review of her speeches, her 
travels, her positions.
  As a Democrat, as a Congresswoman, as a candidate for President, as a 
supporter of President Trump, she has gone quite a distance. She has 
defended Edward Snowden. Snowden is widely viewed by folks in our 
intelligence community, our national security apparatus, our Armed 
Forces, and many here as a traitor who betrayed some of the most 
important secrets that are critical to keeping the United States 
secure.
  She would not, in her confirmation hearings, answer the question: Is 
Edward Snowden a traitor?
  Ms. Gabbard bemoaned the rise of HTS in Syria, which recently 
overthrew the brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad, without mentioning the 
fall of Assad. She talked about how tragic it was that HTS overran 
Damascus, without mentioning the side benefit of the fall of a brutal 
dictator. And in her confirmation hearings, she repeatedly dodged 
pointed and relevant questions about FISA and section 702, key tools 
for our intelligence community.
  All of this is in keeping with a longstanding record as an apologist 
for authoritarians and even enemies of the United States. She has 
repeatedly blamed the United States and NATO for Russia's full-scale 
invasion of Ukraine in 2022.
  And I will tell you, as someone who is about to go to the Munich 
Security Conference this weekend with a broad and bipartisan delegation 
from this body and from the House: I will never forget being at the 
Munich Security Conference just before Russia invaded Ukraine broad 
spectrum. They had been in eastern Ukraine at that point for years. 
They had occupied Crimea and then launched a war into the Donetsk, the 
Donbas, the eastern part of Ukraine.
  But it was just days after the Munich Security Conference, in 
February 2022, that tens of thousands of Russian troops--whole 
divisions--poured over the line in a broad-spectrum invasion that 
included brutality against civilians, bombardment of the entire 
nation--ultimately, cruel acts of violence against women and children, 
fully documented in the press and courts around the world.
  And yet Ms. Gabbard blamed the United States and NATO for provoking 
this invasion by Russia of a sovereign nation--a nation where the 
United States, in writing, guaranteed its territorial sovereignty in 
the 1994 agreement that led to them giving up their nuclear weapons.
  Ms. Gabbard visited Syria and met with Bashar al-Assad for several 
days, in 2017, and relied on pro-Assad sources to cast doubt on 
accounts of his use of chemical weapons against his own people.
  She has a long history of repeating pro-Kremlin talking points and 
has become a favorite on Russian state media. She appears frequently 
because she frequently is attacking the United States in Russian state 
media.
  Mr. President, this body will all too soon take up the confirmation 
of Tulsi Gabbard. We should not proceed. We should not vote for her. 
Our Nation faces massive threats that are growing day by day. Our 
Nation is facing threats around the world--from North Korea and Iran, 
from China and from Russia--and we need an intelligence service 
equipped to respond to these challenges.
  Can we trust Tulsi Gabbard to lead our intelligence services and to 
respond to these threats? I cannot. We cannot, and we should not. This 
body should not vote to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as the next Director of 
National Intelligence.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democratic whip.
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do you remember where you were on 
September 11? Most Americans do. I do. I was right outside that door. I 
was in a meeting at 9 in the morning. And as we had the meeting, we 
looked down the Mall. We were watching a little television set, and we 
saw these planes flying into skyscrapers in New York.
  Nobody could quite understand what was going on. First, we thought it 
was an accident, as most people probably felt the same way. Then, when 
the second plane hit, we knew there was more.
  Then, there came a moment when somebody said: Look down the Mall.
  We looked down the Mall and saw black smoke billowing across the Mall 
here in Washington from the Pentagon, because a plane had crashed into 
the Pentagon.
  And there was this moment where people didn't know which way to turn, 
where to get answers, what was going on. Someone came racing into the 
room and said: Evacuate the Capitol Building. Another plane is coming 
directed toward this building.
  We all raced out down the steps and stood on the lawn outside, didn't 
know which way to turn, had no idea what was going on.
  Tourists were coming up to me because I had a suit and tie on and 
saying: Where are we supposed to go?
  I told them where the Metro stations were and pointed in several 
directions.
  That is a day you won't forget.
  Most of us, I am sure, felt at that point that we had to figure out 
what happened first and to stop it from ever happening again.
  So where did we turn? First, we turned to law enforcement, for 
obvious reasons. That is who you call--9-1-1--to see if they can give 
you any information, give you any advice, keep you safe.
  But also in this town, you think: We hope our intelligence Agencies, 
the ones that collect information, know who those people were so we can 
stop them from ever doing this again.
  Those intelligence Agencies are critical, not just for the security 
of this country but the survival of this country.
  In the wake of September 11, the most historic terrorist attack in 
our Nation's history, we learned the hard way that Agencies within the 
intelligence community need to be good, effective, and coordinate what 
they are doing. So we embarked on several

[[Page S841]]

projects--and one that I was a small part of--in rewriting the laws 
creating intelligence Agencies and making sure that each of our 
intelligence Agencies, as good as they are, speak to one another.
  It seems so obvious. They need to coordinate. But they had what they 
called smokestacks where they kept their information to themselves and 
didn't share it with other Agencies. Well, that changed. It changed the 
whole attitude towards intelligence and coordinating information.
  We created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It 
oversees 18 different intelligence Agencies that span the CIA, Defense 
Department, State Department, Energy Department, and others. It is now 
essential to modern safety in America. Yet the President, Donald Trump, 
has selected a person to run this critical Agency, coordinating 18 
different intelligence Agencies, who has little or no experience 
leading this critical American security apparatus. Her name is Tulsi 
Gabbard.
  During President Trump's first term, he made clear of his fondness 
for certain leaders in the world that were controversial, such as 
Viktor Orban of Hungary, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Kim Jong Un of 
North Korea. So he ends up picking a person to run his intelligence 
network who shares a similarly terrible judgment on critical leaders.
  Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman, is infamous for spending time 
with despots and autocratic leaders of the world, including Vladimir 
Putin of Russia and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and traitors to the 
United States like Edward Snowden.
  Her fondness for these oppressive, anti-democratic regimes does not 
go unreciprocated. They know her, they like her, and they say quite a 
few things about her. Let me show you one of these posters.
  Hosts of Russian state media have cheered her nomination. Russia is 
cheering her nomination as Director of National Intelligence because it 
will ``dismantle America.'' Some on Russian state channels have even 
referred to her affectionately as their ``girlfriend.'' Russian state 
TV also called her a Russian ``comrade'' in Trump's emerging Cabinet. A 
pro-Putin propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, once called Gabbard ``our 
friend.'' Later, when asked if she was ``some sort of Russian agent?'' 
he replied, of course, ``yes.''
  What is going on here? This woman wants to head up the intelligence 
Agencies, and she is being cheered on by the Russians?
  In a glowing profile in a Russian state newspaper, it said of Tulsi 
Gabbard, ``The C.I.A. and F.B.I. are trembling,'' noting that 
Ukrainians consider her ``an agent of the Russian state.''
  Imagine that--the person tapped to head America's intelligence 
community being called a puppet of an adversary's country by that very 
same country. It seems too ridiculous to be true, but I am sorry to say 
that it is.
  To merely join America's intelligence community, never mind lead it, 
candidates have to go through a vigorous background check and earn a 
security clearance. I will just tell you that based on what she has 
done since serving in Congress, she could not pass a routine security 
clearance. If Tulsi Gabbard were applying for an entry-level position, 
her relationship with Russia alone would disqualify her for the job. 
Why, then, would we trust our entire intelligence network to the No. 1 
friend of our No. 1 enemy? Why, then, would we want to put that sort of 
person in charge?
  Given the examples that abound of Tulsi Gabbard proving publicly, 
shamelessly, and carelessly her sympathies for nations that undermine 
U.S. interests and security, that is unexplainable and irresponsible.
  Perhaps this is summed up best by one of her people who worked with 
her for years. Here is what he had to say, according to The Atlantic 
magazine:

       She was willing to do or say whatever. It was [like] she 
     had [absolutely] no moral compass.

  And to head up all of our intelligence Agencies? It is as 
controversial as choosing Kash Patel to head up our Federal Bureau of 
Investigation--no experience which qualifies him, nor does she have any 
experience either.
  You see, our allies depend on us as much as we depend on them for 
security and to share critical intelligence. Now they are looking at us 
in disbelief that we would let someone like Tulsi Gabbard, with such an 
appalling record, anywhere near the leadership of the intelligence 
community.
  Intelligence professionals from Canada and the United Kingdom--
members of the critical Five Eyes intelligence alliance along with the 
United States, Australia, and New Zealand--have expressed concern about 
even working with her if she is in charge. In order to keep Americans 
safe throughout the world, we need to have the trust of our allies and 
their cooperation.
  This position she is aspiring to at DNI does not just impact the 
collection of intelligence; it also impacts the action taken on it. 
Because of this, I have great concern about the impact Tulsi Gabbard's 
confirmation would have on our support of Ukraine in defending itself 
against Russia.
  Since Russia's full-scale invasion, Gabbard has taken Russia's side 
many times, claiming, in reference to Ukraine and Russia, ``Russia had 
legitimate security concerns.'' The words of Tulsi Gabbard. And then 
she blames NATO, our alliance--one of the most significant security 
alliances in the world.
  Let me be clear. Supporting democracies has not historically been a 
partisan matter. For example, contrast Tulsi Gabbard's nonsense with 
former President Ronald Reagan's clear-eyed understanding of the danger 
of the communist Russia empire.
  Nearly 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in 
West Berlin and famously challenged the Soviet Union to ``tear down 
this wall.'' Reagan understood the true nature and threat of the 
Russians.
  We have all seen the horrific costs of Russia's war in Ukraine and 
increasing attacks on NATO allies. Is there a deal to be made to end 
this war? Perhaps. Doing so must be with the best intelligence 
available, a clear eye about who we are negotiating with and for, and 
long-term guarantees of the security of Ukraine, of Europe, and the 
transatlantic alliance.
  One would think any American President navigating such difficult 
waters would want a top official to serve as the head of National 
Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard fails that test. She would not be qualified 
for an entry-level position within the intelligence community and is 
certainly not qualified to lead it, period.
  Some of the President's Cabinet nominees are hard to imagine because 
they are so unqualified, but for the position of Director of National 
Intelligence, putting someone unqualified in charge is not funny at 
all; it is life-or-death dangerous.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Vermont.