[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S868-S869]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      NOMINATION OF TULSI GABBARD

  Mr. SCHUMER. Madam President, this week, Senate Republicans will 
force a pair of nominees through the Senate they know perfectly well do 
not merit confirmation. But Republicans will confirm them anyway 
because Donald Trump is strong-arming them into submission.
  Today, Senate Democrats are here on the floor to oppose one of those 
two nominees, Tulsi Gabbard. She has been nominated by the President to 
serve as Director of National Intelligence, the No. 1 intelligence 
officer of the entire Federal Government.
  By now, there is no question about whether or not Ms. Gabbard is 
qualified to lead America's intelligence Agencies because by any 
objective measure and by every objective measure as well, she is not 
qualified.
  From the moment she was nominated, both Democrats and Republicans 
were puzzled by this choice. Of all people Donald Trump could have 
picked to oversee national intelligence, he picked someone known for 
repeating Russian propaganda and getting duped by conspiracy theories. 
Do Republicans honestly think this is the best person for the job of 
all the other so many qualified people?
  Fifty-two Republicans voted last night to advance her, but I know 
both sides of the aisle still remain troubled by this nominee. I hope--
I pray--for the sake of our country, of our security, Republican 
colleagues think very carefully before casting their vote. I hope they 
think about the safety of our people, the concerns of our allies, and 
the threats--the threats--posed by the likes of Putin and Xi and others 
before casting their vote.
  Every single Democrat, I am proud to say, will oppose the nomination 
of Tulsi Gabbard because we simply cannot in good conscience trust our 
most classified secrets to someone who echoes Russian propaganda and 
falls for conspiracy theories. It is alarmingly dangerous--dangerous--
not just bad but dangerous--to trust someone like that. The job of 
national intelligence is a matter of life and death. The job is to 
oversee all 18 of the Nation's intelligence Agencies.

[[Page S869]]

  DNI would be the top intelligence adviser to the President of the 
United States. It would be their job to decide what intelligence 
reaches the President's desk and what does not. Few positions in 
government carry the burden that DNI will carry every single day.
  The person who serves as DNI, therefore, cannot be someone 
controversial; they cannot be someone who has to literally convince 
Senators to ignore their checkered past, to ignore their conspiratorial 
views, and, essentially, ask Senators to hold their nose while they 
support her. And that is what Tulsi Gabbard has had to do with so many 
Senate Republicans.
  Who is kidding who? Who are our Republican colleagues kidding when 
they talk about that she is a good choice? It is incredible. It is 
incredible given her long list of frailties and dishonesty and 
conspiracies. There should never--never--be a shred of doubt that the 
DNI is qualified, informed, and shows sound judgment. Tulsi fails to 
meet--she wouldn't meet a low bar, but this job has a very high bar 
because it is so important to our security.
  The Director of National Intelligence must be fluent in the truth--
fluent in the truth. But Ms. Gabbard speaks the language of falsities 
and conspiracy theories.
  Shortly after--listen to this, America. This is who they want to put 
in. This is who Donald Trump wants to put in, someone who, shortly 
after Russia invaded Ukraine, Gabbard infamously spread a false 
conspiracy theory. She suggested that the U.S. was supporting bioweapon 
laboratories in Ukraine without a shred of evidence.
  You know where this myth came from, Donald Trump? From Russia. It was 
spread to justify Putin's invasion. That alone is more than enough to 
be disqualified for anyone seeking to become the top intelligent 
adviser to the President of the United States.
  But the world is inside-out, turned topsy-turvy, upside down by 
Donald Trump. And it is confounding that America is at this point and 
even more confounding that our Republican colleagues at this point are 
going along with someone they know is so patently bad for this Agency. 
They should be ashamed of themselves. There are certain times when you 
have to buck up. And with Ms. Gabbard, this is one of them.
  The Director of National Intelligence must be strong against 
America's adversaries. But Ms. Gabbard has spent years sympathizing not 
with America's allies--oh, no--but with the likes of Putin and Bashar 
al-Assad. Nobody who plans a secret face-to-face meeting with Bashar 
al-Assad while in the middle of slaughtering his own people should be 
in this job. You can't possibly claim to be strong against America's 
adversaries after Assad used chemical weapons against his own people. 
This list goes on and on. It is almost fictional, it is so bad.
  After Assad used chemical weapons against his own people in 2017 and 
2018, Tulsi Gabbard turned against U.S. intelligence and sided with 
fringe conspiracy theorists to cast doubt on these two specific 
incidents.
  I want to be clear on how strange and troubling this episode was. On 
the one side, you had the entire U.S. intelligence ecosystem and the 
intelligence of the French Government and the organization for the 
Prohibition of Chemical Weapons all saying the same thing: Assad used 
chemical weapons against his own people in both 2017 and 2018. These 
findings were not just conjecture; they were based on satellite 
imaginary, witness accounts, medical experts. In other words, the kind 
of intelligence data that Ms. Gabbard would be responsible for 
evaluating on this important job.

  And then on the other side, on the other side of all these 
intelligence experts and all this evidence, you have Tulsi Gabbard 
relying on the judgment of an individual who had appeared on Russian-
funded propaganda outlets. That is who she relied on, someone who 
appears on Russian-funded propaganda outlets, puts out this crazy 
theory against all evidence of every intelligence Agency in the U.S. 
and other countries. And Gabbard goes for it.
  She was trying to shield Assad for his inhumane conduct because she 
met with him. She supported Assad.
  I have to say, I have never heard--never heard--of a nominee for any 
intelligence Agency who was so ready and willing to question the 
findings of America's own intelligence operations, yet accepts Russian 
disinformation so easily without the same kind of skepticism.
  And, of course, I am deeply troubled by Ms. Gabbard's long record 
showing weakness against Russia when it comes to Putin's invasion of 
Ukraine.
  On the night Russia invaded Ukraine--a horrible night--and launched 
the first full-scale invasion of a sovereign nation in Europe since 
World War II, what was Ms. Gabbard doing? She was on Twitter at 11:30 
blaming NATO and the U.S. for starting the war.
  This is the head of national intelligence? Give me a break.
  She was saying that the war could have been avoided had NATO and the 
U.S. just accommodated Putin. That is who we are going to have as the 
head of DNI when we deal with our adversary Vladimir Putin. Russian TV, 
of course, aired Tulsi Gabbard's comments shortly thereafter.
  And now--and now--with all this evidence, Republicans want to make 
this person the top U.S. intel chief. Who could believe it? Where is 
all our rightwing friends in the hawkish community? Where are the 
editorial pages of these rightwing newspapers?
  When Ms. Gabbard had the opportunity to repair her image before the 
Senate Intel Committee and ease the deep worries Senators from both 
sides of the aisle had about her, she only exacerbated the worries. She 
refused to state the very obvious truth about Edward Snowden: that he 
is a traitor--a traitor--who stole sensitive intelligence and now lives 
in Russia under the watchful eye of Russian security services. We had 
so many of our Republican colleagues denounce Snowden, and now they 
vote for Ms. Gabbard. Incredible.
  I can't imagine what our allies were thinking, watching Tulsi Gabbard 
testifying, refusing to do something as simple as condemning Edward 
Snowden. I fear the great erosion of trust between the United States 
and our allies, whose intelligence we rely on to keep America safe. We 
have a good sharing arrangement with them. I fear that erosion should 
Gabbard be confirmed.
  Senate Republicans know very well that Gabbard has no business 
advising the President on matters of classified intelligence. They know 
her judgment is way off the mark--way off the mark. They know her 
troubling history of pushing conspiracy theories and repeating Russian 
propaganda.
  So deep down, this nominee is about one very simple question: What do 
Senate Republicans care more about? Doing the right thing for national 
security, making sure a known conspiracy theorist, a believer in false 
information, someone who has no fact-based analysis of anything--do 
they care more about doing the right thing for national security? Do 
Republicans care more about doing the right thing for national 
security? Or doing whatever is necessary to keep Donald Trump happy? 
The American people will know the answer tomorrow.
  I yield the floor.

                          ____________________