what the heck is that? except once again, , turning inward and looking at the people, the brave people who are working in the doj and fbi and look at them and saying, are you next? these are crazy times. i now turn to my colleague, senator padilla. >> thank you, senator hirono. in addition too a lot of the specific concerns about kash patel and how he would be as a fbi director, i feel compelled to remind us of the moment that we're in right now. in the first two weeks of the second trump administration, the chaos that has been created. we seen efforts by the administration to unlawfully freeze federal funding. threatening payment to housing

programs, social security, medicare, beyond, et cetera. we have seen unprecedented access by the world's richest man, enabled by the richest president in history, to access the treasury departments database, threatening not just payment for putting at risk everybody. in america's personal information -- >> we've only this year but you can finish watching on c-span.org. we will take you live now to the u.s. capitol where today the senate votes to limit debate on the nomination of tulsi gabbard to be the director of national intelligence. that vote is scheduled for 5:30 p.m. eastern time. you are watching live senate coverage here on c-span2.

on capitol hill. lord, help us to see your image in each other and to draw strength from an awareness of your sovereignty. empower us to serve with the spirit of humility and gra

gratitude. remembering that to whom much is be expected. lord, strengthen our senators. give them the wisdom to know your will and the courage to obey your precepts. may they comprehend your vision for our nation and world, becoming instruments for your glory. lord, fill them with your power, so that no weapon formed against them will prosper. help them to view the shortcomings of others with patience and to be grateful for the exemplary virtues they witness each day. we pray in your glorious name.

amen. the president pro tempore: would you please join me in the recitation of the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the presiding officer: the leadership time is reserved. morning business is closed. under the previous order, the senate will proceed to executive

session to resume consideration of the following nomination which the clerk will report. the clerk: nomination, office of the director of national intelligence, tulsi gabbard of hawaii to be director. mr. grassley: madam president. the presiding officer: the president pro tempore. mr. grassley: one short issue to just make mention and then i want to pay tribute to an iowan. this week we're going to vote on the secretary of agriculture to be confirmed for the cabinet. that person was voted out of committee unanimously. so i think it's ridiculous for the minority, for a committee where every democrat and every republican voted for this

nominee to have even one minute of debate. it all to be proved by unanimous consent -- approved by unanimous consent. it may not be but at least i express my opinion and i gave a rationale why that should be done. we shouldn't be spending 30 hours of debate on somebody that's been approved unanimously by the agriculture committee. so today i pay tribute to an outstanding iowan who celebrated her 65th birthday february 9. an astronaut and patriotic american, peggy witsan has never stopped reaching for the stars. her hometown is located ring gold county. that community of beacon field is community building, is also

the birth place of another iowan icon, the ivy super mamarket, famous in about seven midwestern states. peggy witnesson spent -- pitson send 165 days in space, more than any other american astronaut or woman in the world. this year she's heading right back to space for historic fifth space mission. by all accounts, she's driven to help humanity. we don't often think about space travel as helping humanity but she does it from tracking cancer

cell growth to developing therapies that save an extend the quality of life here on earth. so there is something very heavenly that has some earthly good. this united states senator is proud to wish my fellow iowan peggy, happy birthday. peggy, maybe you continue to defy graft and -- gravity and achieve stellar good things for many years to come. and i'm sure she will. i yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

as left failures in the underlying security of freedom the constitution. the most obvious example of one of these is our invasion based on complete failure of intelligence. this led to the death tens of thousands and undermining the stability of european allies and strengthening of al qaeda and others transiting around. not once but twice the fbi intelligent doing divine presidency also portrayed him.

in so-called evidence. only lincoln but the emphasis intelligence officials that the information helps when the election. james klapper denies the existence internet records. not oversight and lied about doing it and yet has never been held responsible. fbi powerful political reasons with traditional mass and

radical traditional methods. twenty-four hours i criticized her nomination, is based on domestic terror watch list. the, there are more examples. the bottom line is a must and. president george reelection cemented from the american people to break the cycle of failure and weaponization intelligence community and begin to restore trust those nomination. i will do my very best fulfill its mandate in the laserlike focus on our mission. i'll begin by think the example

in my own personal views collected and analyzed reported the buys little. i listen the army because of the terror attacks on relevant and volunteered to serve the medical unit 22 years in uniform and africa and u.s. army reserve center in oklahoma, missouri and arkansas returned congress in foreign affairs into my experience in the halls of congress challenges and highly classified in the know firsthand

how timely intelligence and intelligence failures and abuses. address those failures w. the strong leadership is confirmed will bring my experience leading the intelligence they want priorities says the global threat environment and identify work absences and short revised political objectives is. the presiding officer: without

objection. mr. thune: madam president, this week the senate will be korning its 14th nominee tulsi gabbard for director of national intelligence. she's a patriot, motivated by service, and she's been serving her country and community since she was 21 years old when she was elected to the hawaii state legislature. like many americans of her generation, she felt called to serve her country after the attacks of september 11. and after her first session in the hawaii legislature, is he enlisted in the army national guard. the following year she dropped her reelection campaign to volunteer to deploy to iraq, the first of three deployments that she's made. it was after her second deployment, now as an officer and platoon commander, that she set her sights on national and global issues, eventually being elected to the u.s. house of representatives. madam president, tulsi gabbard has worn the uniform of our

country for the last 22 years, leading american soldiers in some of the most dangerous parts of the world. she also served eight years in congress, including on the homeland security, foreign affairs, and armed services committees. by her own count, she's taken an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states at least eight times. madam president, as both a military officer and policymaker, ms. gabbard has been a consumer of intelligence. she knows a good decision depends on the best information. she knows that the cost of bad information is measured in lives lost. madam president, in recent years, there have been some significant intelligence failures, and these failures aren't confined to one agency or one part of world. the intelligence community needs to refocus on its core mission, collecting intelligence and providing unbiased analysis of that information. that's what tulsi gabbard is committed to ensuring if she is

confirmed to be dni. i believe she has the knowledge and leadership capabilities to get it done. madam president, i'm also grateful that ms. gabbard has expressed a willingness to right-size the office of the dni. when this position was created by congress in the wake of 9/11, it was designed to be a sort of quarterback, if you will, for the intelligence community. it was designed to be a lean organization, focused on coordination and ensuring all the elements of the intelligence community are communicating and working together toward a common purpose. but it quickly became much larger than intended, and it has become a bureaucracy unto itself. so i am glad that ms. gabbard plans to focus on identifying and eliminating redundancies and inefficiencies to restore the office to what it was originally designed to be. i was also very pleased to hear ms. gabbard say at her hearing

section 702 is, and i quote, essential for our national security, end the question. this foreign intelligence collection program is a tee cool used to identify -- a key tool used to identify threats to americans home and abroad. i was also pleased that ms. gabbard intends to prosecute leakers to the full extent of the law. in an i did and -- in a day and age when anything and everything ends up on the internet, it is essential we have zero tolerance for those who deliberately compromise classified information, around we must safeguard our sensitive sources and intelligence collection methods. madam president, tulsi gabbard is a patriotic american. she believes strongsly in the -- strongly in the mission which which she'll be tasked, keeping america safe. you don't have to take my word for it. take it from americans who served alongside ms. gabbard during her 22 years in uniform, from the people who have put

their lives in her hands. as one wrote, and i quote, her exceptional qualifications, coupled with a proven track record of leadership and unwavering commitment to safeguarding our national interests, renderler the un -- render her the unequivocal choice for this critical position, end quote. from another, i quote again, i know tulsi will be fully committed to protecting all americans during this pivotal moment in american history, end quote. well, madam president, sounds like what we need in a directors of national -- in a director of national intelligence, and i look forward to confirming ms. gabbard this week. madam president, i yield the floor, and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

people and keep our country safe. as you said in opening statements, in recent years people were trusted with classified information went on to abuse politicized that trust. october 2020, 50 intelligence officers held top-secret parents and wrote a letter and made false claims about hunter biden's russian disinformation. an example of intelligence and credentials. >> yes, i do. it is an example of what needs to end and why the american people elected president trump to bring about these reforms. >> the past position and security clearance in the future. i want to be fair such abuses are just a problem on the left. in 2020 former national security

advisor he published a book in the conversation of the president on national security matters including highly classified information and didn't submit this for review sure national security goods were protected. the degree they undermine the trust? will you commit no one who abuses past position and risks exposure classified information was a book for review in getting approval for publication will hold security clearance or trust classified information? >> yes. >> let's move on to reform. congress envisioned a small coordinating agency the direct rather than replicate the now 18 agencies that make up our intelligence community. over the years dni has sprayed to an organization nearly 2000 people, more than half of whom

are not detailed from the agency but rather a career of bureaucrats and develop centers of their own analysis. what you commit today to work with this committee to restore to its original size and scope? >> yes, i look forward to working with you and the committee is confirmed, assess the current status of who's working to make sure of its effectiveness. >> to support for policy proposals eliminating back to their home? mimic yes, look forward to working with you as we assess where od and i should the empire

building we've seen. >> yes, i've had the opportunity to review the history of od and i ambassador offers director of national intelligence as well as others to observe this position and a number of conjuring factors and sensors and offices like recently eliminated office of di and other areas that i need to assess. >> i recognize the mixture

should. >> until more nominated to be dni -- e presiding officer: we a. mr. durbin: i can unanimous consent to suspend the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. durbin: madam president, last week, pam bondi was sworn in as the highest law enforcement officer in the united states of america. she is now the united states attorney general. unfortunately, as many of us feared, attorney general bondi took immediate steps to undermine the integrity of the department of justice. president trump, after bondi was confirmed, even said, quote, i

know i'm supposed to say she's going to be totally impartial with respect to democrats. i'm not sure if there's a possibility of totally, unquote, president trump. on day one in office, attorney general bondsy created a so-called -- attorney general bondi created a so-called -- a task force to investigate the activities of all departments and agencies exercising criminal and civil enforcement authority over the last four years. bondi said she would, quote, investigate the investigators, and, quote, prosecute the prose prosecutors, and now she's doing exactly that. to seek the, quote, retribution, against political enemies, real and perceived, that president trump has repeatedly threatened. i wish i could say i'm surprised by attorney general bondi's actions, but last week i stood at this very spot, sounding the

alarm just before her confirmation vote. the writing was on the wall. attorney general bondi has made it clear that her foremost loyalty is to one person, president trump. and she kept her promise on day one, after being sworn into office by associate justice clarence thomas of the supreme court. bondi's directive is only one step in misewing the powers of -- misusing the powers of government to carry out president trump's rhett rib lusions -- rhett rib uses -- retributions of those he considers enemies. do dozens of senior law enforcement officials were purged. many are reportedly being reassigned to immigration cases for which they have little or no expertise. last week, fbi law enforcement

personnel across the country had little over 48 hours to answer a survey about their work on any case related to the january 6 attack in the capitol, including whether they handled arrests, led operations, testified in trials and more. consider this for a moment, i don't know if you were here, madam president, on that day, but those of us who were will never forget it. an insurrectionist mob left a rally for president trump, came to capitol hill, crashed down the doors and windows, invaded the capitol, started beating up on the capitol hill police. the net result, four policemen died, 140 were seriously injured. they took chrome of the -- control of the united states senate and house chambers. they posed for pictures in the chair you're sitting in. they went through my desk and other desks too. it was their day. the so-called tourists, so-called political prisoners. i've said on the floor before, i've thought about this many

times, if we were told that in the house of parliament in london that a mob had beaten down the wooden door and taken control of the house of commons, what would have been the reaction in the united states? first, incredulous. that can't happen. england is a powerful nation, it's got a rich history. a mob took over parliament? that's exactly what happened january 6, a mob took over the congress of the united states, invade the capitol building like the british in the war of 1812, and forced control at the expense of a croat of people -- of a lot of people who were prepared to die to defend us that day. it was a horrible incident, a horrible chapter in american history. now, the trump administration is setting out to erase that history. the soviet revisionists would look at this with some pride, to think that politicians in america are engaging in the same historical rewrite they did for so many decades, and this

rewrite is to erase january 6 as a reality, to whitewash it, to describe it as something it isn't. how they'll ever overcome the hours and hours of videotapes, which verify exactly what happened that day, i don't know, but they're going to saturday by cleansing the ranks of those in law enforcement who had anything to do with the 1600 criminal defendants charged because of that day. apparently, they want a disclosure of these names, of all those who took the assignment given them in the department of justice or the fbi, to investigate that crime of january 6. at the fbi, at least six fbi executive assistant directors have been removed, including those who oversaw the national security branch, the intelligence branch, and the crim that cyber response and -- criminal cyber response and services branch. the trump administration removed the special agent in charge of four major field offices and the assistant director of the washington field post office.

the attorney general has issued a memo firing a dozen career. given your significant role in prosecuting the president, i do not believe the leadership of the president can trust you in implementing the president's agenda faithfully. the bureau has career public servants who have resisted the push from trunk officials -- trump officials. it was the -- i'm not mistaken, it was the largest criminal prosecution in history. and i think that many assistant attorneys general and members of the fbi were in some role in pursuit is no surprise whatsoever. so now the trump administration wants these people to be outed, publicly disclosed, names and addresses. this weekend the bureau turned

over the personal details of thousands of the fbi personnel. thankfully a temporary court order was issued on friday that is keeping the department of justice from revealing those names. is there any danger to these women and men who swore allegiance to the united states's constitution and pursued the official duties of the department of justice? why of course there is. the previous inhabitant of the fbi told us that the situation is grim when it comes to domestic terrorism in the united states. so is he suggesting that perhaps the proud boys and the oath keepers can't wait to get this list the trump administration has produced? a list of those who did their duty under the constitution and pursued these cases on janjan january 6? i'm afraid that's a fact. that temporary court order is the only thing between these white nationalistic extremist groups and the men and women who dedicated their lives to law

enforcement. tomorrow fbi probationary agents stationed around the world are are required to submit justification for their continued employment. this could lead to firing up to 3,000 federal law enforcement officials. don't tell me you want to fight crime and stop narcotics and then dismiss 3,000 fbi and department of justice officials. these mass layoffs force retirements and involuntary reassignments of experienced department of justice officials represent an outright attack by president trump. america will be less safe because of this political charade that's going on in the department of justice. these mass layoffs of these experienced people mean that your family, your town, your neighborhood will be less safe. the purge is already leading to widespread disruption and delay in prosecutions, investigations,

and sensitive operations. the joint terrorism task force has been asked to focus on president trump's immigration-related initiatives, which mean valuable resources and personnel are being shifted away from state, local, and federal partners fighting foreign and domestic terrorism. america failses a heightened threat landscape, these removals or reassignments are crippling across the country. the loss of potentially thousands of federal law enforcement jobs will put a burden on local field offices, slow ongoing casework, increasing unemployment rates nationwide of law enforcement and harm local economies. president trump may claim to back the blue. he may pose with men and women of law enforcement. but apparently he's only interested in doing so when it's politically convenient and consistent with his political agenda.

before ms. bondi's confirmation, my concerns about how she would lead the department were based on her history as president trump's personal lawyer. but the leadership of pam bondi, the attorney general, is no longer hypothetical. her directives and actions are now impacting a lot of innocent people and a lot of good americans who dedicated their lives to public service and law enforcement. we need to work together on a bipartisan basis to push back against these attacks on the department of justice and fbi to protect the national security of the united states. madam president, i'll take the floor in a day or two to describe what's going to happen next when it comes to kash patel, a man who has no experience which merits his selection as director of the fbi. he has the temperament of a politician who is stalking his opponents. i don't make that up i just basically read his book. it spellsout in detail, including his infamous enemies

list of some 60 people that he considers to be part of the deep state, or whatever his characterization may be. to give this men a 10-your tenure as director of the fbi and the power of that agency with thousands of investigates and individuals is to invite trouble, trouble for this generation and the next. he is going to do things in that position which are not consistent with the values that people at the fbi have brought to that work for more than seven or eight decades. that's why it is very important we watch it carefully. madam president, i yield the floor. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

your idea americans abroad? >> thank you, i agree with your assessment and speaks to the need for all dni to existing reader as identified in gaps so we are able to get ahead of these threats coming around after trying to assess, why did we not know about the sooner so

we could take action. >> i'm going to try to get questions and. if you could reciprocate, would be appreciated. the appellate intelligence committee, additional reform to protect the privacy of law-abiding americans. in your written response to generally be required undertake section 702, is this your current position? >> it is and as you will note, i noted some circumstances which there may be other options but i want to make a note simple

requirement will be a policy decision all of you will make. >> time is short, i'm glad you answered to support a words. 702 involves a loophole included that could allow the government anyone access to a wi-fi router or cable box to secretly participate. do support eliminating this language? >> i have to look more into that and assess safeguards come back. >> a massive loophole i hope to hear you will be supportive of my efforts. can the president of the united states refused to fund inspector general appropriations from

congress i'd like a yes or no. >> i don't know about legal authority but i understand the essential role inspectors general length and look forward to empowering to fulfill that responsibility. >> congress either has the power of the first or doesn't and i think in your answer you recognized independent obligation to follow the row in your response to your questions, the department of justice restricting the collection of records. will you reconfirm? >> i believe strongly in the first amendment which protects free press so you will say you will continue to support.

>> i believe strongly in defense of the first amendment. >> restrict records of called the records on going to except you are not changing your position. at that time i think for one more question and mandate mechanisms to allow encryption or private technologies. he reconfirmed their opposition, is that still your position? >> yes, elise down a dangerous path that undermines americans rights and civil liberties. >> your being very helpful in answering so quickly.

report concerns including unauthorized classified information. do you agree whistleblowers must have a clear path they don't need a mission? >> the answer is clearly yes. but like to say a couple of others, make sure we don't have a legal unconstitutional programs usually enact top-secret and every single person understands their rights including coming to you and the direct hotline should they choose to take that path. >> would use court

declassification of the full report likable even nancy. i have not seen the site cannot make an honest. >> congratulations your service to our nation i hope you take to heart the exploding bureaucracy not only generally but in director of national intelligence. that rule is not made easier or effective by a large bureaucracy. do you believe the president of the united states and the intelligence available?

>> i would say it is the director of national intelligence responsibility to make sure the president had access to all intelligence so he can make the best decision for our country. >> will be the one freezing on a daily basis, correct? >> that is correct. >> 60% information by collection of the note to. i've heard your comments to senator biden and others, the importance of use in front of the president so we don't have group which is dangerous particularly in the collection areas and i appreciate your

agreeing presenting policy makers including this is very important. are you aware the courts that have looked at section 702 based on the fourth amendment and any potential for it that the fourth amendment is not implicated by search of collective intelligence. >> i am aware. >> and you disagree with that? >> will begin to say, his previous question is number one, the decision about warrant requirement will be yours -- >> he will be the director of national intelligence and they will be wanting to hear from you. you are not a policymaker but

you will inform us. he do agree the warrant is not required? i am aware that my commitment we uphold the fourth amendment right protecting against in many ways, the devil is in the details visions under title i where why aren't is required. >> title i is different, i agree. >> excuse me, if i was misused in the case of carter page and an fbi lawyer lied -- what would be necessary to establish probable cause to judge to

obtain a warrant? >> again, that is not for me to say, that's for you all to decide in the eternal general to weigh in on. >> do you know whether that is a practical workable solution? >> the center of the debate in probable cause required to get a warrant and why it will continue to be a conversation. >> the cia director said during his testimony he believed a warrant is not only required by law but was impractical. do you disagree or agree? >> i will be in a better position from the practical implications it confirmed. my commitment remains to a whole constitution.

>> forward the warrant sought? foreign intelligence surveillance or another article three? >> the foreign intelligence surveillance. >> are you aware they felt a warrant not required? >> i am aware. >> thank you. >> you travel to syria and lebanon january 2016. they accompanied you in syria. 2008 the party participated in a former lebanese prime minister and in beirut, when did you become aware of the links?

>> thank you for your question. for clarification, i paid for my own expenses and travel on that trip. i was not aware of any accusations of lebanese americans associations until after the trip occurred. >> that's when you reimbursed -- >> correct. not because of -- i wanted to make sure there was no perceived conflict of interest. i addressed this question to these lebanese americans who organized the trip and they heavily denied association with that group. >> there is not a great deal in public record about what you and josh are all asad discussed in

january 2017. a great deal of interest from the american people about what was discussed so what did you talk about pressing on things like issues of chemical weapons, torture and the killing of so many tax. >> yes, i, upon returning from the trip, i met with people like then leader nancy pelosi and i talked to them and answered about the trip and i was surprised no one from the intelligence community or state department reached out or showed any interest whatsoever and i would have had a fauci and a number of topics were discussed and i asked him about his own

actions in the use of chemical weapons and the tactics used against his own people. >> were you able to extract any information? >> no and i didn't expect to but this was important to address. >> according to your report, after, in october of 2011 we will prepare suicide bombers already in your countries if you bomb syria or lebanon. what was the goal of what did you accomplish? >> before going on the trip and during my time in syria and

lebanon, i met with different leaders, muslim leaders and various christian and catholic leaders there in the region. i did that both in syria and lebanon to hear about the concerns or thoughts were in regard to war at the time. >> were you aware of threats of suicide bombers in the united states? >> i was not and have not heard that until today. >> the people you met with on the trip? >> the itinerary was created by former congressman dennis, his constituency traveled with to syria and lebanon a number of times before some of the individuals i met with were looked at prior to the trip and others came up during the trip that were unexpected.

>> in hindsight, would you feel the trip is good judgment? >> yes. i believe leaders whether in congress or president of the united states can benefit greatly by going and engaging, it's on the ground learning and listening directly with people adversaries or friends. >> who is responsible for the war in ukraine? >> putin were in ukraine. >> thank you. >> i want to extend condolences to the laws of life and people who have lost loved ones. i appreciate you for saying this. you are asked in your

questionnaire about your priorities, iran and hamas and hezbollah and you mentioned russia but the only thing you said about russia is ending the war with russia. when you talk about russia, what are your policy authorities and ending the war? how you seek russia as a threat to the united states? >> it confirmed as director of national intelligence, it will be paramount for me to assess where intelligence gaps may exist for so i can provide the president and all of you but the most accurate full picture of that threat assessment to directly answer your question. it is a complex environment.

russia remains strategic competitor. there are a number of concerns as well as how decisions and policies made by this body and the president will impact our own national security which is my foremost concern. >> i want to make certain in no way russia could pass either your mind or your heart or policy recommendations you would make or not make. >> i'm offended by the question because my sole focus commitment and responsibility is about our own nation and security in the interest of the american people and carrying out the responsibilities of the director of national intelligence get confirmed, no country, group or individual will get a pass and my fulfilling the responsibility providing the full picture so

you can make the best decision for the safety, security and freedom of the american people. he will have my commitment to be objective, a political and i hope you understand my commitment to our country. >> i do. you've answered my question and what i wanted to hear and in the manner. he will tell us if there's a threat and the details of the threat. >> yes, senator. >> how will you restructure the framework to better align president trump security goals? >> this is a discussion it confirmed, i look forward to having with president and national security advisor based on the threat assessment and the president's priorities. he spoken about a number of priorities in different parts of the world. i would work with them on the

national intelligence framework will serve as the foundation for the intelligence elements under od and i. >> what you have to make in that regard? >> from where i sit, i don't believe i can make recommendations. i take that responsibility seriously and wouldn't want to shortchange him without the due diligence and work to make sure recommendations are well-founded. >> as united to confirm political neutrality required to ensure you tell the white house but they need to hear and not what they want to hear. a follow-up, how would you handle intelligence reports from various members of the intelligence theory and present a broad picture? >> thank you for the question.

i hope you have confidence in my ability to extract all it takes from what my role will be as director of national intelligence. serving in the national guard and army reserve even while holding political office, a brick wall between the two and i have fulfilled that is a will as director of national intelligence confirmed. i know the president values. i will make sure intelligence community responsibilities and the fees are not only allowed but encouraged and where they present themselves and make sure the president and policymakers are aware. >> would you agree if it exists on both sides of the issue, in

this place called washington d.c., the efforts you will make and be sure all information is presented nonpartisan direct manner based upon the facts? >> yes, i agree and you have my commitment. it is essential for all the job faith and trust. >> a dni to tell the truth. >> i have a long record of speaking truth to power and will continue document. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to applaud and express my concern appreciation for your service both military and in congress, very challenging areas. hawaii of all places a year end

a half russia, did you have contact with him through telephone calls, e-mails? >> not at any time. >> you introduce a bill in 2020 is that all charges be dropped where is the factual basis? >> i recall in that bill from publicly available information. >> were you aware there was a committee in 2016 fax ...

i do not recall specifically at that time, but i am aware of the report that was reported publicly. i did not have access to the republic report that it was based on. >> senator, i do not recall. i remember reading a lot of materials prior to that dale. >> the bipartisan committee report the first item, edward snowden perpetrated the largest conclusion him.ress to essentially pardonly givetatements have been reflect

>> is member of congress i take seriously, the declaration of war and our responsibility that is acting a way that he came out and intelligence gave the process of preparing a strike on american citizens and is folks at this time and i guess the question that i have asked, they will sit with the president will provide options to the president and say, here are the options, that you could take. when you presented a slow strike, at that time and looking back at it now and retrospective think this is not that you take and here's how to be able to do

a. and confirmed as director of national intelligence, i would make sure that the president has all of the objectives analysis, and including, all of the options and actions that he has available to him, which should exist alongside and whether possibly to the options what they may be in my own personal views, have no place in that assessment of that providing, and this president advisors with all the options available. >> and thank you. >> thank you mr. chairman and i would like to repeat my colleagues question to you and thank you for being here. and to answer these questions and for your service was at worse known traitor to the united states of america.

>> i will also repeat my answer, he broke the law. >> will you said earlier, that you are offended by questioning. mr. cornyn: i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be rescinded. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: last week the senate voted to confirm chris wright as president trump's secretary of energy. the united states has been blessed with incredible natural resource and it's something, frankly, that it seems like president biden sought to deny the american people the benefits of that endowment with his best natural resources, and president trump is going to reverse those policies and make sure we take full advantage of it for many reasons. i was proud to support secretary's wright's nomination, and i can't think of a better candidate to oversee the implementation of one of president trump's key campaign

promises, to unleash american energy in a new golden age of prosperity. under four years of the biden administration, americans suffered from burdensome energy prices resulting in -- from his backward approach to energy policy. we know that inflation was part of what was driving those high energy prices, but also the refusal to take advantage of what god has given us in terms of natural resources. from day one, president biden prioritized the view of climate radicals while the interest of texas families and our national security were apparently an afterthought. his first action was to revoke the permits for the construction of the keystone x pipeline, a project that would have allowed us to move crude oil. because the pipeline was not

built on a timely basis, it be didn't mean the crude didn't come, it meant it was put into risk rating 2.0 cars and -- railroad cars and shipped in a way that was not as safe or efficient as a pipeline would be. president biden signed the inflation reduction act. while this did nothing to reduce inflation, it did create mass subsidies for electric vehicles, most of which, average american working families cannot afford to buy. but it is a carve choice for many high-income coastal elites of it wasn't enough to subsidize electric vehicles, in 2024, the biden administration finalized a rule requires two-thirds of new cars on the market to be electric or hybrid by 2032.

the biden administration made clear that their end game was to end gas-powered cars. now, most americans who buy a car keep it for an average of about ten years, and president biden basically wanted to force them into buying something that was not their preference but was going to be subsidized by hardworking families, again, a vehicle that many of them could not themselves afford. it's hard to see this is anything but an affront to those hardworking families back home in texas or alabama or anywhere else in the country. it's not just the cost that we're talking about here. president biden press for fast adoption to electric vehicles was a gift to our greatest strategic adversary.

that's because china controls the supply chains for a majority of the critical minerals required to produce e.v. batteries. 75% of lithium ion batteries, 70% of cathode required for e.v. vehicles and 50% of the processing facilities for lithium, kcobalt and graphite ae in china. the united states produces none of these critical minerals and does not process them, which is committedly a difficult and -- admittedly a difficult and sometimes dirty process. but in china they process 90% of the world's critical minerals and they don't care too much about the consequences. president biden's insistence

from gas powered vehicles to electric vehicles put our national security concerns and working families in the back seat to xi xiaoping and climate radicals. but he didn't stop with electric vehicles. last january, president biden issued a pause on all american exports of liquefied natural gas in order to conduct a study on the environmental impact. well, i can tell him what the study has shown, what experience has shown is that natural gas has driven down the number of carbon emissions that previously occurred because of the broad use of coal. so natural gas is really a much cleaner source of energy. of course, this pause on exports had major repercussions in texas which is one of the leaders of the lng industry. a 2023 study from the national

association of manufacturers found out liquefied natural gas contributes $43.8 billion to our gdp. it supports more than 200,000 jobs and generates $11 billion in federal, state, and local tax revenue. in texas alone, the oil and gas industry specifically supported more than 1278,000 -- 178,000 direct and indirect jobs in 2023 and purchased nearly 100 billion dollars in goods and u.s. services. but president biden's pause on exports was not the only time the biden administration chose to pick a fight with texas over energy. last fall the d.c. circuit court issued a ruling that revoked a permit for the lng export terminal at the port of brownsville. this export terminal and related project had already been

approved by the federal energy regulatory commission. just one of the projects affected by this ruling would have created 6,000 jobs and more than $18 billion of investments in south texas. but the d.c. circuit sent them back to the drawing board insisting that they needed to, quote, adequately consider the environmental justice impacts, close quote, of these developments. these were for projects that had already been approved by the federal energy regulatory commission. of course we already know that liquefied natural gas is one of the cleanest sources of energy and of all the places in the world to source lng, the united states of america has the highest standards. but environmental considerations aside, this war on american energy exports is a direct conflict with our national security priorities. prior to the pause on lng, the

united states was supplying energy to our european allies. this, of course, allowed them to rely far less on russian energy sources to keep the lights on and keep their houses warm. by turning off our lng spigot, president biden sent a gift to vladimir putin in the fortunately of another source of revenue. and of course it's the revenue that comes from the sale of energy in russia that putin uses to fund his war machine, which has resulted in the death of hundreds of thousands of russians and ukrainians. president biden's energy agenda put texas workers and their families and our national security last. choosing instead to bend a knee to foreign adversaries and to radical climate activists. but thankfully that's not where the story ends. president trump and secretary

wright are now at the helm. and president trump has lost no time in righting the ship to put american consumers and our national security first. president trump is already off to the races to unleash a golden age of energy dominance in a number of important ways. on the first day of his presidency, he reversed president biden's disastrous lng pause. this will allow our allies to access to the oil and natural gas that comes from texas projects in the gulf of america, rather than relying on our adversaries. furthermore, it's not just texans and our european allies who can benefit from president trump's and secretary wright's agenda. by reforming the permitting process, we can make sure that everyone within the united states has access to our abundant domestic energy supplies. and it will bring prices down as

president trump has said is important in his fight against 40-year high inflation under the previous administration. unfortunately, some of our new england states, notably states like maine and massachusetts, are still reliant on foreign fuel, and that's because of the lack of pipelines that would take the lng and transport it up into that part of the united states. due to stringent shipping requirements from the jones act, it's more costly to transport natural gas from the gulf of america to new england than it is for these states to import fuel from foreign countries. the jones act was intended to protect u.s. shipping, but in this case it has the unintended effect of decreasing our energy independence. i have no doubt that commonsense permitting reforms can right this wrong. i look forward to working with president trump and his administration to unleash american energy through an

all-of-the-above approach so that texas and the gulf of america can once again supply the nation and the world with reliable, affordable energy. the biden administration's energy policies line the pockets of america's adversaries to appease climate radicals while hardworking americans were stuck with the check. but president trump has promised a golden new age, and i look forward to making texas and america the center of that. madam president, i yield the floor and i'd note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

i'm pricing of the telecom companies, in an area of significant and great concern. >> and some of your past statements that were relevant to china, are concerning because i do not think it fully

appreciates china's perspective for the united states for example with regard to tiktok. past statements have essentially said that requiring domestic ownership of tiktok in violation of civil liberties in the national security concerns are completely and can you explain what you have it on tiktok statement with a pre- position on previously made it not as a member of congress as you consider the legislation on tiktok, were centered around the protection of americans first amendment rights and the lack of data privacy legislation, frankly that would apply to tiktok facebook acts and all of these different social media applications that collect on us as the users of these applications and there were other provisions within that legislation not granted very vague and grandiose authorities to the president on deciding which private companies are or

are not a national security threat to have us talk about trying to specifically because this is where i want to make sure that you understand what is at stake. >> had concerns over many years the turnouts infrastructures to manipulate the infrastructure and use of her spying and use it to honor off and actually address some of the most recent cyber attacks in china had relevant participation in the challenge of type turnouts tiktok they can spy on the united states of america people anything all of data from her children and he can change the narrative about what people are talking about through the algorithms and it was a great misinformation, and influence very easily and you understand why is so important that we require domestic or no hundred ownership of tiktok. >> understand the concerns and i would just reiterate some of my concerns that is stated in the past about how this really is an

issue about the data privacy because so much of what is collected by all of these even u.s. ownership. >> will i'm just concerned while i get it and think that is a bigger issue for progress to wrestle an emollient for that conversation but i want you to appreciate china what is your view with regard to talk wanted do you think it that it is something that your intelligence efforts will understand how important our relationship is with time want specifically to manufacturing chips many fiction president trump is most recently whenever center of knowledge of some time on your statement, particularly about the chipset to make sure that the domestic production is innocence of that we have this pointing we have a national security get your public statements products affected they were very negative and appreciate how important it and independence is for national security beholding to china and beholden to taiwan and in a place where we can't do her own

national intelligence. >> and yes, i fully support the investment in building and strengthening our own domestic capabilities and if i recall the legislation a lot of other provisions and it that had nothing to do with the production and of our own capability and i felt were a distraction away from control obstacle towards achieving that. >> will recommend to the president can we continue to invest in a semi- connector industry the united states for our own independence as well national spaghetti. >> yes base my recommendation on a number of these all of these issues is end and if confirmed that based on the full assessments of the intelligent and unintelligent the president understands ramifications and the potential costs pretty when the policies positions that he will make and all of you will make. >> and lastly i want to return to the fill money strike at the time you said that it was

illegal and president trump did what was illegal would cause significant problems down the line what is your position on dow strike and will you be able to advise the president and future issues with regard to national security. >> with those run issues that arise with regard to the work hours not been consistent on did not have access to all of the information behind a strike, and a time in my concerns work that may be in escalatory action president trump was right there was no escalation beyond that his policies towards iran turned out to be effective for own national security. >> will do you disagree with the president is taking you when the protections for those who were now being targeted in retaliation this week such as secretary pompeo. >> cannot answer that without being able to look at the intelligence assessment and the threat assessment it for that or other decision. >> thank you and senator young, good to see you nice visit in

the office appreciate you being here today is clear and the visit in the we share a lot of concerns about and advise regime change and intervention and about the weaponization in certain instances for domestic law enforcement and until authorities come up about something edward snow then which we may not agree. has been recognized overseas with the numbers one and a half million classified documents and assure them of the president into china and russia and he have any response to the bipartisan findings the house intel committee which stated it that he caused tremendous damage it to national security including the military event and intelligence program with great interest to americans adversaries not giving opportunity to respond hopefully briefly. >> thank you. and as i've said before commanders not a lot and i do

not agree with how he chose to release information and the extent of the information intelligence, that he released it braided community health centers. the syracuse community health center and the hometown health center in schenectady. these community health centers do amazing work, amazing work. they provide good, effective, efficient health care for so many people. in new york state about 2.4 million people get help from the community health centers. in central new york that i visited in syracuse, about 80,000. in the capital region why albany is, 110,000. when president trump instituted his freeze, his funding freeze, it sent shock waves through

these two centers and hundreds of others across the country. all of a sudden payments frozen, funding frozen. no reasoning, no logic, nothing. they wondered do they have to lay off people? could they pay the rent? they wondered if they could give health care for someone who had a two-week plan, maybe the doctor shouldn't prescribe it in week one because it wouldn't be around, money wouldn't be around in week two. they depend on federal funding. they get somewhere between 15% and 20% of their funding. they've been going on since the 1960's, and delivering great, efficient health care. all of a sudden, this funding freeze drops on them like a ton of bricks, and it wasn't just community health centers. veterans organizations, mental health organizations for people, head start in western new york,

two of our head starts in rural western new york closed, and 200 families, 200 families had to struggle to find what to do. you know, when you're a single mom or dad, or even a mom and dad, two-parent family, and there's nobody there watching the kids, no head start, what are you going to do? should i stay home from work? maybe risk salary being docked, even losing my job? it was horrible. this occurred across the country. now, thank god people rebelled. thank god people made their voices heard, and the funding freeze was rescinded. but the damage still is there. there is a health care center where i visited in syracuse, in the mohawk valley, that funding of $71,000 on a thing they were

building, stopped. five centers in virginia closed. and funding is still intermittent in health care centers throughout new york state and throughout the country. cruel, unfair, awful. these programs help people. no, they don't help the billionaires. get it. i get it. but they help average folks and poorer people get the health care they need. they help them see a doctor so that preventive care can happen, which we all know saves us money. they're a shining example of public service that does enormous good for millions of fam families. and to anyone who says that these are examples of inefficiency or waste? visit one.

visit some of the scores of them in new york. they're the most efficient, effective deliverers of health care in the country. they serve people who need it the most, and they're effective. let's say you have three kids, a single mom, and your kid has a 104 fever with probably strep throat, and you got to see a doctor before it gets worse. you go to a community health center. you don't sit in a waiting room six hours and file endless papers like in a 40789. they take care -- like in a hospital. they take care of you right away, and it makes it a lot easier to get health care and makes people want to get that health care their kid might need. yet we're still hearing it, these great health care centers, funding delayed, funding not coming, funding late. and they depend on this funding.

they don't have a six-month plan. they get funds from the federal government every two weeks. that pays the rent, that pays the salaries, that buys the supplies they need. you shut it off for a week and the whole thing could face a real problem. and so, i went to syracuse and albany and demanded that, number one, this administration say they're no longer fooling around with the money that these community health centers need, this they get it right away. two, they give an explanation why it was cut off. what did they do wrong? help people get health care that they need? and third, we senate democrats are demanding that the funding for these centers overall, which runs out on march 14, because as

you know, madam president, there was a bipartisan agreement to fund them fully for the year, democrats and republicans, and donald trump and elon musk said, even before they were in office, musk is not in office but before trump was in office and musk was working with him, they told the republicans don't fund it, don't fund this health care package. so now we're waiting till march 14. but that is a chc, community health care center cliff. if we don't renew that funding, many, many will close. millions in people in america, getting good health care, often pretendtive, dealing with the immediate problems, will not get it, at all! so, those are the three things -- stop fooling around with the funding, keep the flow going. number two, explain what anyone

did. why did they stop this funding? and third, fund us so we don't go over the health care cliff. this was bipartisan. my guess is you, madam president, probably supported it. but when donald trump and elon musk said get that funding out, kill the deal, that's what republicans did. i made it clear in syracuse and in albany that this cannot happen. it's infuriating and it has nothing to do with inefficiency. our hospitals, by the way, our big hospitals, like chc's, because that means their emergency rooms are not o overflowed with people who could be taken care of in a much more effective, efficient way. so i want to make a final point here. we hear from donald trump, jd

vance, elon musk, and doge, all they want to do is get rid of waste and inefficiency. when you look at community health centers, that's utter nonsense. utter, utter nonsense. there isn't very much inefficiency at them. no one has ever said it was, that they were inefficient. in fact, most people will look at it, say they're the most efficient providers at a lower cost with less to do in health care, less paperwork, less all of this, than other places. so, anyone who thinks that this doge experiment is simply at getting rid of waste, baloney. baloney. we know what it's about -- cut. doge is using a meat axe and cutting things that are vital to people. why? why is all this happening? because a careful look at

inefficiency in government, even with a new administration that might want to look at it a little differently, would not just cut everything. not just cut everything. and the bottom line is, it's all to cut $2.5 trillion, $2 trillion. we know what they're doing. and unfortunately, too many of our republican colleagues are going along. they're making these cuts so they can give the very wealthiest people in america a bigger tax break. take a working class family getting health care, say, you don't get it anymore so m mr. ultrabillionaire can get more tax breaks. come on. that's what's going on here, and it's across the board. we saw what they did with a.i.d.. well, one program a.i.d. is working on, as i

understand it, is dealing with ebola in the middle of african. it's cut out the program. what if ebola spreads around africa and even here? most people think that's a very good program. most people thought pepfar did a lot of good. but they cut it all. they didn't point out, say, this is inefficient, that is inefficient, and cut it. but that's keep the good stuff. uh-uh. cut it all, and we know why once again. it's because the billionaires want even a bigger tax break. so, my visit to chc's, the two chc's i visited, hometown in schenectady and syracuse health care, in syracuse, were very moving to me. i saw dedicated people who want to help people. i saw patients come in and get decent health care.

and yet it's on the chopping block. that's not what america voted for, madam president. that is not what america voted for. so, i hope we will have a bipartisan coalition to fund our health centers. and i also hope that this administration, whether it comes to community health centers or so many other good programs across the board, will not freeze their funding, will not just say we're cutting you, will look at things carefully. there is inefficiency. use a scalpel. get rid of it. but don't cut everything. again, it seems the logic is very simple. they're really not interested in making the government more efficient. they just want to cut certain huge amount of money. they don't care where it comes

from, 2.5 trillion, 2 trillion, 1 trillion, regardless of the consequences for working families. it's a shame. it's a shame. now, on our whistleblower portal, so, today, we senate democrats have a very simple message to the american people, and that is if donald trump won't stand up for the rule of law and senate republicans won't lift a finger to hold him accountable, senate democrats will. so today, i joined with a number of my colleagues to announce a new senate democratic whistleblower portal to help fill the void donald trump created by firing the government's independent watchdogs. the whistleblower portal will give civic servants and people of good will the chance to report on potential wrongdoing in government, abuse of power, threats to public safety. donald trump has tried to wipe the government clean of all

transparency and accountability. that's why they got rid of so many of the i.g.'s, for instance. but senate democrats won't let him. we believe in transparency. we believe in accountability. donald trump has tried to reshape our entire democracy, to fit his unlawful impulses and serve his personal political interests. senate democrats won't let him. and so, we have the whistleblower portal. we're urging americans who see some real wrongdoing being created by this doge thing to report it. we want -- i think all americans want government to be trans transparent. we all agree that ensuring accountability is vital. but thus far, this new administration has done the opposite. to

today, with the whistleblower portal, we senate democrats are taking one step to help keep accountability and transparency alive. and one more thing on the upcoming republican tax cuts, when the budget committee meets in a couple of days, basically there's a great debate between house and senate republicans, should it be one bill or two bills? let me tell you, the real issue is what are they going to cut that hurts working americans to fund the billionaires, whether it's one bill or two bills -- not fund, but to give greater tax cuts to the billionaires. defunding the national institute of health? cutting that back, where health researchers are telling us that it will impede cancer research and the great research we've done that helped the american people live healthier and longer? defunding things like chc's

which i just mentioned? so much else. all for one reason. so let's not -- i would say to my fellow americans, don't get caught up in this gobbledygook, one bill or two bills. we all know the sbill is the same, cut, cut, cut, even vital programs that help working americans to give tax breaks to the wealthy. that's what we'll see in this first step, when the budget committee marks up its bill, supposedly on wednesday. one bill, two bills? no. it could be 50 bills, i don't care. it all comes down to the same thing -- the end goal for republicans to pass gargantuan tax cuts for donald trump and their billionaire friends. cut the daylights out of

everything else. medicare, medicaid, school lunches, medical research. the american people are going to learn this as we move fused, and i don't think they're going to like it. -- and we move forward, and i don't think they're going to like it. i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

when i woke up that morning, it was several hours. the first thing i saw when waking up was that horrific footage of the airplanes attacking the twin towers in new york city.

you obviously read a lot about it during the 24 plus years. there is a general consensus that was massive intelligence failure that caught us all by surprise. surprise. was a problem in our intelligence failure. >> there is no question about it , senator. >> okay. based on your reading, okay, could you elaborate? >> yes, absolutely, senator. we looked back at the reporting in the assessments it was very clear that there was piping of

information and intelligence that occurred at many levels at the highest but also the lowest levels. information that was collected by the cia was not being shared. almost ship passing in the night where there is immigration of those in immigration being shared, it is highly likely that the horrific attack could have been prevented. >> that is the reason your position was created. there is been some discussion this morning. i have not been able to listen and. i understand that there is been some discussion about reforming the office of bni to eliminate redundancy and increase effectiveness. do you worry that in doing so it may be getting back to the same problem.

it was created given my limited vantage point not being in the seat, i am concerned that there are still problems with stove piping that need to be addressed unnecessary bureaucratic layers may be contributing to that problem. coming in and being able to take fresh look given my experience in my background will be essential to making sure that it is accomplishing the reason why it was created in the first place. >> i have a lot of suggestions about how to make the department of defense more efficient also. i would caution you before i move on to that other quick question, as we are trying to eliminate overlaps that we avoid getting back to the thing that

created your agency to start with. let me ask about the 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? >> thank you for this question. it has been deeply concerning. for the first time this was discovered so long ago to where we are today, they have failed to identify the source and the cause for the syndrome as it is commonly known, even as many people in service consequence of it. i look forward if confirmed to addressing this. of course, making sure that

those that have been impacted are getting the care that they need and deserve but getting to the truth behind how and why this has occurred. >> are you saying that we are not any closer to understanding where this came from? >> based on my understanding, there is not been infinitive reporting on the source and cause for the anomalous health incidents. >> okay. well, perhaps i could follow up on the record. >> i look forward to that. >> i think there is more public information that is recent about that. thank you. >> senator. the custom of this committee to allow a follow-up question for senators who remain present at the end of the regular round of questions. this is a follow-up question, not a five minute round. they will have another five minute round of questioning. is there any senator that wishes

to be recognized? >> there was an area that i believe is still uncertain. 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 could do with president trump told you to withhold funds from the intelligence community inspect your general. so my question is, if president trump orders you to withhold appropriated funds from the inspector general, will you refuse that a legal order? >> i do not believe for a second president trump would ask me to do something that would break the law. >> that is not what i'm asking. i am asking if you are asked about in a legal order, what will you do? you can say it will never happen , what will you do if you are dealing with in a legal order. >> my commitment has been and

will be as director of national intelligence to comply with the law. >> senator white, you've actually asked two questions. >> i'm not asking a question. >> i said there was one question aloud. are there other senators that would like a follow-up question? senator kaine. >> i would like to follow-up on my lineup of questioning, understand how you analyzed the facts leading up to your 2020 bill providing him with a pardon there was the house committee report which granted was redacted, but under the heading what damage did it because were five and a half pages of redacted material. i would've thought that would have raised the question in my mind. edward snowden, about 20 countries that don't have extradition treaties with the u.s. he chose to go to russia become a russian citizen. given that information, how did you decide to introduce a bill providing him with a pardon? it 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 activities. >> senator, i have answered this , 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 old to the constitution to support and defend american's fourth amended it constitutional rights. if confirmed as director of national intelligence, i am committed to ensuring that we protect our nation secrets by implementing a number of actions i have outlined so that those that have concerns about programs within our intelligence community that we do not have another snowden like lead 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 important and in line with many of the bipartisan concerns i've heard from this committee and security classification, security clearance and classification reform, and narrowing severely those who have access to the most sensitive and compartmentalized intelligence reporting and capabilities. >> okay. senator bennett. >> thank you. thank you for your generosity, mr. chairman. thank you again for hanging in there with this discussion, colonel. the house intelligence committee review of the snowden disclosures found not only that he was a traitor, but since his arrival in moscow, he has 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 and the intelligence agencies, the united states press, the journalist, the media democrats, suggesting you were not 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 that i guess that i have for you is how, if you cannot 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 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 trader that he was? >> senator, as i said, my focus and what should be of relevance to all of 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 importance of our national security and keeping our nations secrets. i have laid out a number of ways that i intend to do that if confirmed in fulfilling my responsibility in this role. >> thank you. >> senator jill brandt. >> thank you, senator. i wanted to continue in regard to china. such an important part of your portfolio. i know you've had hearings over the last 15 years about the architecture and how they are

building up space capabilities, air force capabilities, every type of capability a possibly could and that aligned with the foreign influence and their ambition with regard to taiwan, it just creates a very dangerous scenario and a concerning one. i wanted to ask you about japan because, recently, about a year and a half ago, 13 months ago, you said you did not think that it was wise to allow japan to build up their own defense architecture and you thought that it was short sighted. can you speak a little bit about that? our alliance with japan is so important in our ability to defend against the activities of china. not only geographically but because for the last 50 years have been close allies. allies that we rely on. we share intelligence, we share operations, they are a great ally.

what was your concern about and have you had any views that have shifted in that regard? >> 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 national guard. i have gone and conducted training missions in japan with the japanese self-defense force. their forces and their constitution has been primarily focused on self-defense. the concerns that i had raised previously had to do with really looking at the bigger picture of the context of the history with japan and china and recognizing the implications of what, how this kind of shift may self-defense posture that japan has had constitutionally to a more offense of 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 are the president are considering are fully taught through given that broader context of nuance of history and the u.s. is providing indirect support to terrorist groups to overthrow the syrian government. in 2019 of the democratic presidential debate stage to set of president trump this current president is continuing betray us. we are supposed to be going after al qaeda but over a year now not only have we not gone al qaeda, or president supporting al qaeda so i'm interested to

hear what was your goal did you consider the motive of iran and russia with the motive might have been? >> as someone who enlisted in the military to doing what i could to defeat. in the regime of syria and willing cia sycamore program that has been made public with army and effort to overthrow

that regime and under president obama widely looked at study that ultimately resulted in the billing dollars used to train who they call moderate levels were fighting working with apparatus affiliate on the ground syria move forward with their regime change not acknowledging was obvious at the time and came true which was a regime change wars and iraq and while these are dictators would likely rise like al qaeda in power. i shed no tears for the fall of the asad regime but today we have now in charge of syria who

danced on the streets to celebrate 9/11 attack extremist governments and has already begun to persecute like christians and syria. why that's acceptable to anyone is beyond me. >> i appreciate your answer and thank you. the tendency russian and and in some cases i think will get into a closed session iranian discount intelligence. >> every american deserves to know and are on government for providing support former enemy al qaeda. that should not be acceptable by anyone.

>> one of the things i love about this committee, this has always been bipartisan. i court and commend you of your service have heard this morning and individuals advice on attack not taking american heavy ties. we heard this morning on your trip you weren't aware they paid

for the and they had ties to the assyrian party. you do know who they were and understand that. we can have a difference of opinion on tik tok i feel strongly that it is a national security threat. the value answered in favor and you back to horvath. one faculty legislation called him a traitor been watched by

allies around the world. stepped out that you wouldn't take the same position he walked away not talking about the conference business pay, i just want to get this off and reimbursed but did you pay for the trip? >> a nonprofit organization coordinated to set up the meeting.

>> so you didn't understand your trip was paid for? >> the nonprofit pay for the trip. >> enormous ties somebody america sanctioned. i imagine we can get into this the due diligence required something i find troubling. >> is not indication that anything was done vote on that trip think every time and testimony and for your service. the most nominees before the committee a large number of

letters materials in support of and opposition and i will submit all of those for the record. it's my intention to hold a vote on the nomination as soon as possible. do so by close of business tomorrow, friday, january 315:00 p.m. eastern time. let me explain what will happen next. as for to the door behind me and everyone else will remain seated capitals police will secure the door so nobody else leaves the room preparation 1:00 p.m.

session is adjourned.

the director of national intelligence. the petri someone who is motivated by service and serving her country and community is 21 years old when elected to the state legislature. like many americans she felt altered service country after her first session and listed in the army national guard doctor reelection having to volunteer

deployed to iraq. the first of three deployments news after her second appointment as an officer commander she set her sights on making an impact on national and global. informed uniform the last 22 years. foreign affairs and armed services committee. taken an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states at least eight times. but the military officer the policymaker from a consumer of intelligence and is a good decision in the cost measured in life lost and intelligence

failures. they are defined to one part of the world. we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. warner: madam president, i ask that the proceedings under the quorum be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. warner: madam president, i rise this afternoon in opposition to the nomination of tulsi gabbard to be director of national intelligence because nothing less than our national security is currently on the line. i'm going to start by saying that i have nothing but respect for ms. gabbard's many years of service to our nation both in uniform and as a representative for hawaii. i don't question ms. gabbard's patriotism. i oppose her nomination because i question her judgment. now many may not understand the important role that the director of national intelligence plays. if confirmed, ms. gabbard will

lead the 18 agencies of the intelligence community. she will also serve as the principal advisor to the president, the national security council, and the homeland security council for all intelligence matters related to national security. and in this role as well, she will be responsible for over $100 billion between the national intelligence program and the military intelligence program. now the stakes here have become all more critical in recent days. in the past couple of weeks, president trump has several directives that could irreparable harm our nation's ability to defend itself against the many threats we face. at the fbi some of our most

experienced agents, who protected us for decades from terrorists, drug traffickers, spies, violent criminals have all been unceremoniously fired. thousands more may have reason to fear they may be next based on the vindictive list apparently being assembled of every fbi official who was involved in the investigations on the capitol riots january 6. not just the fbi, it is the cia, dsa, ngo, alphabet agencies that most folks don't fully appreciate or understand, but every one of these agencies -- i'm hearing from intelligence officers and analysts with irreplaceable skills are unfortunately being indiscriminately pressured to resign or retire.

and reportedly, senior law enforcement and national security officials are being asked to take political litmus tests, such as was the 2020 presidential election was stolen and whether the january 6, 2020 attack was an inside job. jobs are being eliminated in flagrant defiance of the constitution and the law. while unvetted, unqualified doge bros have leaked sensitive company secrets to a competitor. another proudly declared himself a racist and said he would not mind, quote, if gaza and israel were both, quote, wiped off the face of the earth.

that individual, i under, has actually been rehired after he initially quit. these doge bros are illegally boroughing in classified and other sensitive information, jeopardizing our national security and violating america's privacy. to take one recent example of what's at stake here, just last week, the cia sent an e-mail using an unclassified system. an unclassified system to the white house listing the names of all recently hire employees. this, again, from the cia. it takes months to get a cia employment security clearance and then a year to train. and suddenly -- this happened evidently to comply with an

executive order to -- these 200-plus individuals, and i can assure you, the last letter of a name, an appropriate a.i. tools based on where these folks are working, you can find out their identities. and these agents may be burned before they even start their career. now, i know that many of my republican colleagues profess to take the issue of unclassified servers very seriously indeed. it's a whole litany of attack on this earlier. but the fact is beyond the counterintelligence risk of foolishly exposing these officers' names, using channels known to be targeted by adversary actors, to dismiss recently recruited and trained cia officers also imperils the

long-standing bipartisan efforts by the senate intelligence committee to actually modernize and streamline the agency's hiring process. because we need to make sure that we continue to recruit and retain talented young officers when it comes to con 0 fronting the growing national threats posed by the prc. we need leaders in the intelligence committee and throughout government who are prepared to stand up to these short-sighted attacks to attack our workforce at the expense of our national security. unfortunately, i don't believe ms. gabbard is such a leader. nor is she well suited by experience or judgment to serve as director of national security. dni is a position of great importance and significance for national security. created after one of our worst security failures in our nation's history, 9/11.

when congress established this position, in many ways due to the efforts of my good friend susan collins, it mandated in law any individual nominated for the position must have, and i quote, extensive national security expertise. as i noted previously, the dni was created to fill this gap after 9/11 because this mission is to share intelligence not only between the 18 entities that make up the american i.c., but also to work with our allies because it is predicated, this sharing of information, sharing of intelligence with our allies is predicated on trust. there's no agreement. trust that we and our allies will protect each other's secrets. yet, repeatedly ms. gabbard has skewed our adversaries -- exc excused our adversaries worst

actions. for example, she blamed nato for russia's 2022 invasion of ukraine. despite a unanimous assessment of the trump department's doic, she said that bashar al-assad used chemical weapons against his own people, i don't know if it was to defend those dictators or if she was unaware of the intelligence and how our statements would be perceived. in any case, it calls into question her judgment. and if she has what it takes to build and develop the trust relationships necessary to give not only our i.c. workforce, but equally important, to give our allies confidence that they can share their most sensitive intelligence with us. make no mistake about it.

if our allies stop sharing that intelligence, we will be less safe. to offer just one example, last summer intelligence sharing between the united states and austria saved countless lives by disrupting a terrorist attack at a taylor swift concert. underscoring the importance of these relationships. ms. gabbard has also been publicly outspoken in her praise and defense of edward snowden, someone who betrayed the trust and jeopardized the security of our nation. the have as majority of -- the vast majority of the information he stole and leaked, before i would mind you, he ran off to high tail in both china and russia, most of this information, i can assure you, had nothing to do with america's privacy, but did compromise our nation's most sensitive collection sources and methods.

in many ways, we're still paying a price for snowden's betrayal and it is beyond dispute that his actions put our men and women in uniform in places like iraq and afghanistan at risk. yet, ms. gabbard has celebrated snowden as a, quote, brave whistleblower, and advocated his pardon. someone that my friend, tom cotton, called a traitor who should, quote, rot in jail for the rest of his life. a week ago at the hearing, member after member, particularly my republican friends, gave her chance and again to just be willing to call out snowden as a traitor. she repeatedly declined. instead she said, and i quote, the dni has no role in determining whether or not

edward snowden is a whistleblower. not only did she seem to believe did someone who divulged national secrets to russia and china should be celebrated as brave and not denounced as a traitor, she does not seem to understand the d nifrn's role in whistleblower determinations. in fact, the dni has a significant role in transmitting lawful whistleblower complaints to the intelligence committees. it would be irresponsible to confirm someone lo cannot distinguish -- who cannot distinguish between complaints made lawfully and those that are not. further, it is the statutory responsibility of a dni to, quote, protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. what message would it send to an intelligence workforce to have a

dni who would celebrate staff and contractors deciding to leak our nation's most sensitive secrets as they see fit? now, let me move to another issue of pressing relevance to this nomination. that's section 702 of foist. this bill -- fisa, this bill, this tool, it's hard to overstate the importance, the information that we derive from this tool is responsible for about 60% of the intelligence in the president's daily brief. and it's been instrumental in disrupting everything from terrorist attacks to fentanyl trafficking to foreign cyberattacks. now, many in congress have at various support reforms to 072 to better balance security and civil liberties, but, again, ms. gabbard has gone so much further. not only did she vote against reauthorizing 702, she

introduced legislation to repeal the whole thing and called its very existence, quote, a blatant disregard for our fourth amendment constitutional rights. now, i do understand that after she was nominated to be dni, she had a conversion and expressed a change of heart, that's welcome, but it's not credible. last may she criticized the reforms that were put into 702. just last may she criticized those very reforms she now credits with changing her mind as, again, the reforms she called them, quote, made the law many, many times worse. now, the dni is responsible for making annual certificationings under -- certifications under section 702, without which all collection under the law will

cease. and the law itself is up for reauthorization in just over a year, a process typically led by the dni. i have no confidence in ms. gabbard's commitment to either task. nor is it the only issue where she demonstrated poor judgment that should be disqualifying for the role. during an ill-advised trip to syria and lebanon in 2017, ms. gabbard had terrible judgment in meeting with bashar al-assad where al-assad was using gas and other chemical weapons against his own people. on that same trip she met with amed hassum, but in 2011, he threatened to commit suicide attacks in the united states. at the confirmation hearing,

ms. gabbard claimed not no know -- to know about his past, but reporting following the clear that our staff made her aware of his history at the time of the trip. if she simply googleled this guy -- googled this guy that would have revealed about his past. what does it say about his past that he would have a threat against america. just last summer she accepted a trip to italy that was paid for by the foundation of pierre devout. and at her confirmation hearing, she seemed unable to recognize why the national security interests of the united states might be better protected if tiktok, a social media app that reached into the homes of millions of americans was

actually under american ownership rather than subject to the controls of the prc and ultimately the communist party of china. the world today is more complex and more dangerous than ever before, and we need serious people with the experience, expertise and judgment to navigate that complexity. unfortunately, ms. gabbard is not such a nominee. a vote in favor of her confirmation is an endorsement of president trump's lawless efforts to hollow out our national security workforce and her confirmation will further strain the alliances that have kept our country safe for decades. therefore, i urge my colleagues to oppose ms. gabbard's nomination. with that, i yield the floor.

. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from ohio. a senator: i ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum call with respect to the gabbard nomination be waived. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we, the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of tulsi gabbard of hawaii to be director of national intelligence signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory

quorum call has been waived. the question is, is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of tulsi gabbard of hawaii to be the director of national intelligence shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. ms. baldwin. mr. banks. mr. barrasso. mr. bennet. mrs. blackburn. mr. blumenthal. ms. blunt rochester. mr. booker. mr. boozman. mrs. britt.

the clerk: mr. budd. ms. cantwell. mrs. capito. mr. cassidy. ms. collins. in taking time to join us today.

my husband, family and friends fellow veterans and medal of honor recipients, thank you for your love and support. i am grateful to president trump his providence and nominating me to serve our country as director of national intelligence at a time intelligence community is at an all-time low. admitted a few years ago you take on the intelligence, they are getting back at you. for too long of a nice intelligence is led to failures in undermining national purity freedom china and the constitution. the most obvious example of one of these based upon total fabrication of failure fabrication. this decision led to the death of tens of thousands of americans and millions of people in the middle east among mass

migration, the utilization undermining european allies in the rise of strengthening al qaeda and other the other samples. the fbi and intelligence agencies are politicized by opponents to undermine presidency mostly portrayed him despite. spy on trump campaign advisor can. seeing as they are so-called. biden campaign advisor tony blinken was the emphasis for the former senior intelligence officials dismissing hunter biden's laptop this information specifically to help biden when the election. former dni committee in 2013

denied the existence of program the facilitated millions of americans intimate records and never was held accountable. cia spy on congress to thought oversight and not about doing it and yet has never been held responsible. the fbi abuse power for political reasons surveilled athletes producing additional land labeling them radical traditionalists. twenty-four hours after criticizing kamala harris and her nomination was based on a terror watch list. sadly, there are more examples and the bottom line is this. clear mandate in the american people in this cycle of failure in the intelligence community and restore trust charged with

critical past. it confirmed as dni, i will do my very best the bill this mandate important leadership to theuc intelligence focus on our ensuring the safety, security and freedom of the imagine people. pfizer, will begin by leading by example and leave my home personal views of the door collected, analyzed and reported without bias, prejudice political influence. i enlisted in the army because ofey the terror attacks on september 11 on to insert a medical after 20 middle east and africa and they serve as a

manager oklahoma, missouri and arkansas in foreign affairs it might military and in the halls of congress gave understanding of challenges engaging world leaders and highly classified intelligence. i know firsthand how essential accurate unbiased family intelligence are then of the heavy cost of failures and abuses. he led the to address intelligence years of 9/11 the bow strong leadership still is today. and, i will bring my enfranchised intelligence in my

day one priorities will be assessed a global threat environment, integrate intelligence and increase intelligence and political action collective analysis support the president's policymakers. the intelligence community and ensure their focus on the formation the collection and analysis. i will work to rest and transparency and accountability. this is national security and all assessed version across the dni ventura focus of sources for national security. meetings that had bipartisan

station about intelligence failures is for information. october 7 hamas terror attacks failures as the source. it confirmed, look forward to working with you to address these issues. ensuring safety and security is a leadership mandate. it confirmed commit to you in the american people i will do my best to find the truth in a moderately literal presidential bid advisors decisions for

safety security and freedom of the american people. i want to were the american people my love for the people not recognizing the absurdity of it at five different puppet mastersri president trump and failed. the american people elected to jump with the victory in the mandate of change. what unsettles my refusing to to

be thell puppet. i hate that we have leaders that oppose extremists, minimize the so-called rebels and jake sullivan led the religion quote al qaeda is on our side and syria. it is no controlled by jihadists dance on the street 9/11 who's responsible for the killing of many american. democrat senators in the past resorted but bigotry against president trump's nominees like amy connie. and i condemn those actions as a democrat in action and must be condemned by all of us.

and they shall never be required in public trust under the united states. they are using bigotry but this time trying to implement religious bigotry against dualism. anyone sincerely interested in knowing more about my personal past, i welcome you to go to my account on x and i will share my topic. if confirmed, i will continue to live by the oath sworn at least eight times in my life both in uniform and as a member of congress. i will support and defend the constitution of the united states against all enemies, foreign and domestic and bear true faith.

i look forward to your question. >> a few reminders before we begin. i will not tolerate destructions or disturbances. these are in favor of position. a few reminders to my colleagues five-minute rounds. most action and any question alluded to ask you to hold the question on the setting. >> house under the understanding

is the only time this judgment. they are all entrusted with the information keep our country safe. as you said in an opening statement, we've seen too many instances of people trusted with classified information and went on and politicized that trust. october 2020, 54 intelligence officers, many of them still held top-secret parents and wrote a letter to make false claims about hunter biden's laptop likely being russian disinformation.

>> an example of why elected president trump to bring about those reforms. >> the credentials and security clearance in the future? thank you. i want to be there is such as a problem on the left. in 2020 trumps former national security officer published a book in conversations with the president on national security matters highly classified information and didn't submit this for review to ensure national security secrets were protected. you agree they undermine trust? note abuses this position and wrists exposure of publishing a book for review in getting approval for publication and

hold a security clearance or be trusted with classified information again? thank you, let's move on to perform i mentioned in my opening statement. congress originally envisioned an agency that directs, doesn't replicate situate agencies that make up intelligence. over the years straight from this vision that publicly posts 2000 people, more than half are not detailed but are career bureaucrats. will you commit to working with this committee to restore and function? >> i look forward to working with you and the committee confirmed, i assessed the current status working in the function they fulfill its

effectiveness and elimination. >> to support policy proposals about bodie and i taxes and the intelligence work? the core mission interruptions. the responsibilities. the entire building we've seen years. >> to ambassador, look like director of national intelligence in this position. there are a number of perturbing factors to the creation that centers offices that are

recently eliminated of the ei of zero dni. in the replication. >> i salute to this country. these are some of the areas i want to pursue. first, until your nominated to be the dni's only praise the actions given.

the whistleblower, everyone in this committee supports the right legal. in this case, i'm a lot closer to chairman's words, egotistical syria trailer and deserves this for the rest of his life. simple yes or no, do you still think? >> edward snowden broke the law. i do not agree with or support all of the information and intelligence released nor the way in which he did it in the opportunities to come to you on the committee to release that

information. the fact is, he, even as he broke the law released information that exposed agree just programs within our government that led to reform. >> i take your answer in these ", please join my bipartisan legislation to you agree it was appropriate? >> once again, edward snowden broke the law. [talking over each other] >> your words still your reason, yes or no? >> i making myself clear.

edward snowden broke the law and the released information -- >> if i may just finish my thought. in this role of been nominated for, director of national intelligence, i will be responsible for protecting our nation and immediate action i would like i would simply ask you again, i agree with tom cotton, he's a traitor. for years until chosen by president trump celebrated this guy. call for him to be pardoned and charges to be dropped. i cannot imagine the director of national intelligence i would say that behavior is okay. how would we maintain the work?

the trust of our partners? let me move 2702. it's critical to national security, 60% of the information. attached a long history of opposing 702 the one thing have done is not to reform it you say you want to repeal it but now confirmation confirmed 702 vital and i'm quoting because of significant forms of been an active she's left congress. what other reforms that led you to announce 702? >> in the short time i have, i will just note that my actions in legislation were done to draw

attention to the egregious violations occurring at the time. >> please give me the courtesy of responding. he said the reform, which reforms? >> there are a number of reforms all of you and your wisdom -- >> my time is short. after reforms passed in april of 24, he went on joe rogan's podcast inmate, the bill is now law you said bill took an already bad problem made it many times worse. in my mind, it's a question of judgment, critical. i appreciate the late conversion but i'm not sure it is

sufficient. i know my colleague was to raise these sometimes amplified the points. i do not understand how you can claim nato and when sought use chemical weapons against its own people question american intelligence. imagine all about trust. one of the things i'm so proud on this committee, the most valuable work, we have a bipartisan approach to intelligence wee. have to earn e trust of the american people but respectfully, i just don't

believe on your judgment and credibility that this is the appropriate role you should be going for. >> edwards noted came out as having done it's ability great harm to national security revealing top-secret information including sensitive sources jeopardizing agency field. let me ask you, if confirmed, support or recommend a pardon or any kind of clemency for edwards noted? >> thank you for the question. if confirmed as director of national intelligence, my responsibility would be to ensure security of our nation's

not taking action for any actions related so the answer is no, is that correct? in 2020 you introduce the act that 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 top-secret information as long as it's not done with the intent to injure the united states or advantage any foreign nation. your bill would also create dissent if public disclosure information were made for several reasons among one of

which to expose gross waste of funds. i strongly oppose legislation which would hamper our ability to prosecute people to give adversary classified information. so let me ask you, you still support providing an individual's who have access to top-secret information the ability to make their own decision regarding whether the information of the state's closed even though it may cause tremendous harm to our country? >> we cannot and should not have individual vigilantes within the intelligence community making their own decisions how and where and when expose our nation

secret. the intent of the legislation he pointed out was pointed toward ensuring due process for those charged under the espionage act in the court of law. a law abused in some cases for political purposes. president obama charged more people under the espionage act all of the presidents combined. if confirmed, my soul focus in full would be our nation security which includes ensuring security of our nation secret and i would make sure we don't have any disclosure vigilantes taking it upon themselves, numerous legal has protect this information for those who feel they have concerns and i look forward to working with you and the committee making sure those protection are known by every

single person in the workforce and effectively implemented. >> so you do not support allowing individuals to make their own decisions without authorization disclose secret information. >> and i believe we have the legal structure in place for those who have concerns to address them. >> as you know, there has been speculation that you met with hezbollah, a terrorist organization iran. have you ever knowingly met with any members, leaders or affiliates of bespalov? >> no and that is an absurd accusation. >> let me ask you one final question.

... 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 i see miss this? great power competition in china, russia, definitely post threat to our country. but the terrorist threat is arguably the imminent threat according to former fbi director chris wray. if confirmed, what would be your strategy to refocus the i see on

the terrace threat to our country and to americans abroad? rex thank you, senator. i agree with your assessment to the need to exist to redirect those resources identifying that gaps ahead of the 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? want to try to get four questions in it i will be brief. if you can reciprocate, that will be very much appreciated. women talk about section 702 the surveillance acts additional reform to protect the privacy of law-abiding citizens. in your written response to

committee questions you wrote and i quote, warrants should generally be required before an agency undertakes that u.s. person query of section 702. is this your current position? >> yes it is, senator put a you will note in the written response, i noted some circumstances by which there may be an another option. a simple orange requirement is ultimately going to be a policy decision that all of you will make. i will point to history to some examples. >> time is short i am glad to do in line with your written answer. section 702 is a huge loophole that would allow the government to force anyone with access to wi-fi router or cable box to secretly participate in the warrantless surveillance program. do you support, as i do, this

language? senator, i'd have to look more in that an ss with the impact of the implementation of the existing safeguards are in come back to you in congress as you look at reauthorization. >> it is a massive loophole and i hope after you look at it you will be supportive of my efforts. inspector general situation. can the president united states refused to fund the inspector general for the intelligence community despite appropriations from congress? here i would like yes or no. >> senator, i do not know about the legal authorities. but i understand the role the inspector general's play and if confirmed to have filled the responsibilities. they either have the power of the purse or it doesn't. in your answer to me you recognize independent obligation to follow the law.

that is a constructive answer. lovey turned out to the matter of spying on journalist but you write your response to the committee question that you support the biden administration department of justice policy restricting the collection of reporters records and called for the codification of those restrictions. we reconfirm that position? >> i believe strongly in the first amendment that protects a the free press. she will in fact support the biden administration policy? >> i'm not familiar with the specific biden administration policy. but i believe strongly in the defense of the first amendment. >> the policy that restricts the collection of reported records and you've called for the codification of those records. i'm going to accept your not changing your position and i appreciate it. i've got time for one more question. will you are in congress to introduce from man dating americans phones are apps

include mechanisms to allow government to bypass encryption or other privacy technology. in your written responses to the committee questions, you reconfirmed opposition to these mandates. is that still your position? >> back doors lead down a dangerous path that can undermine american's fourth amendment rights and civil liberties. >> you are being very helpful by moving so quickly. let me turn to whistleblowers. he wrote in your response whistleblowers must have clear protective channels to report concerns include the unauthorized transmittal classified information to appropriate entities such as members of congress. do you agree whistleblowers must have a clear path to this committee and they do not need permission from agencies to talk to us that the yes or no. >> editor, 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, make sure we do not have illegal and

unconstitutional programs within the intelligence community. making sure we enact security clearance reform to limit c accs to the nation's top secrets. make sure every single person in the workforce understands the rights as legal blowers and legal channels which would include coming directly to you as members of congress in establishing a direct hotline to myself should they choose to take that path. >> one last question if i might pay would you support the declassification of the committee's full report on the cia torture program? i believe in transparency. i have not seen this. i cannot make it on its assessment for the answer. >> editor corning? >> a welcome, congratulations and thank you for your service to our nation. i hope you will take to heart the chairman's comment about the exploding bureaucracy. not only in the government

generally come in the office of the director of national intelligence. this is a critical role to be played. but, unfortunately that role was not made easier or more effective by such a large un- wilting bureaucracy. do you believe 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? >> editor, not always answer strong yes i would say it is the director of national intelligence responsibility to make sure the press has access to all the intelligence that he can make the best informed decisions for our country. >> you'll be the one briefing him on a daily basis, correct? >> that is correct. >> the president's daily brief and we have heard that is composed of about 60% of it is composed of information gleaned

by collection under section 702 of the foreign intelligence surveillance act. i've heard your comments to senator wyden and others. the importance of getting dissenting views so we do have groupthink of different collection areas. overwhelmingly the courts have looked at a challenges section 702 based on the fourth amendment? and any potential overwhelmingly said the fourth amendment is not implicated by search of lawfully collected intelligence. >> i'm aware, yes senator. >> you disagree with that?

previous widens previous issue is number one will be yours to make you will be the director of national intelligence and people will be about what we should do as policymakers admittedly you're not going to be a policymaker. you will certainly inform us. the courts have overwhelmingly held a warrant is not required, correct? rex yes i'm aware the court rulings. my commitment is to make sure that we uphold the fourth member rights of americans and protect against unlawful seizure and search for their many different ways to do this. the devil is in the detail. there are examples of how even in situations under title i or a warrant is required to

surveilled usb. >> title what is different. i agree with you on that. >> but my point, excuse me. that was misused in the case of carter page. basically it fbi lawyer lied in order to secure that warrant. what would be, what would be necessary to be shown to establish probable cause to a judge in order to obtain a warrant? >> again, senator, that is not for me too say. that will be for you all to decide and the attorney general to weigh in on. >> do you know what the elements of probable cause are and whether that's practical and workable solution? >> this is the center of the debate to be the highest 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.

this cia director john ratcliffe john ratcliffesaid during his te this committee he believed a warrant is not only required by law but is actually impractical. do you disagree with that or agree with that? >> i will be in a better position to make an assessment on the practical implications of this, if confirmed as d and i put my commitment is to pull the constitutions americans fourth amendment right. >> lowered the warrant be sought? would it be in the foreign intelligence surveillance court or some other article three? >> my understanding it would be in the foreign intelligence surveillance court. >> are you aware foreign intelligence surveillance court has held a warrant is not required? >> i am aware. >> thank you. >> thank you chairman, welcome. you traveled to syria and lebanon in january 2017.

personally paid for that trip and he and his brother accompanied you to both lebanon and syria. the brothers have links to thate syrian social nationalist party an ally of hezbollah 2008 the syrian social nationalist party participated in the us those assess the assassination of a prime minister and assisted in beirut. what did you become aware of the links between the brothers in the syrian social nationalist? >> 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 and american associations until after the trip occurred. >> that is when you reimbursed? looks correct. not because of-i wanted to make sure there were no perceived

conflicts of interest. i address the specific question to these lebanese americans who had organized the trip and they vehemently denied any associations with that group. >> there is not a great deal on the public record about what you and syrian dictator al-assad discussed for so long in january of 2017. i think there's a great deal of interest in the american people about what was discussed in that meeting. so, what did you talk about and you did you press aside on things like his use of chemical weapons, systematic torture and the killing of so many syrians? >> yes, senator. upon returning from the strip, i met with people like then leader nancy pelosi and hoyer.

talk to them and answer their questions about the trip and quite frankly i was surprised there is no one from the intelligence community or the state department reached out or showed any interest whatsoever. my take away from that trip as i would have been happy to have a conversation and give them a back brief. i will with former congressman dennis who had been there many times before who had met with assad before. a number of topics were discussed and 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 to be used against his own people. >> we able to extract? >> you know and i did not expect too. i felt these issues were important to address. >> according to your revised trip report your third meeting in syria after meeting with assad and his wife forgive me if

i'm not pronouncing that correctly. in october 2011 speech warned the u.s. and europe we will prepare suicide bombers who were already in your countries if youbomb syria or lebanon. what was the goal or what did you accomplish by meeting with him? >> before going on the trip and during my time in syria and lebanon i made it a point to meet with different religious leaders of both muslim leaders as well as various christian and catholic leaders who were there in the region. i did that in syria and lebanon to hear about them what their concerns or thoughts or with regard to the war being raised at the time. >> are you aware of his threats regarding suicide bombers the united states? >> i was not and had not heard that until today.

>> who invented the people that you met with on the trip to syria and lebanon? >> the itinerary was created by former congressman dennis his constituents who he had traveled with two syria, and lebanon a number of times before. some of the individuals i met with were looked at prior to the chip others came up during the trip that were unexpected. >> just incomplete hindsight would you view this trip has good judgment? >> yes senator. i believe leaders whether you be in congress or the president of the united states can benefit greatly by going inning and engaging boots on the ground learning, listening a meeting directly with people whether they be adversaries or friends. >> last question. who do you blame? who is responsible toward ukraine? >> putin started toward ukraine. >> thank you.

>> before you question out to extend all of our condolences in particular to the loss of life for your fellow kenneth last night and that air crash. our prayers are with all of your people plus their loved ones for. >> thank you, mr. chairman. so many people here very kind and expressing their condolences and i appreciate you saying this, and this just now. lieutenant colonel gabbard. you are asked in your questionnaire about your priorities and you listed iran and hamas, hezbollah and north korea. you also mentioned russia. but the only thing you said about russia and fully explaining why it's a priority is ending the war with russia. what your fear or policy priorities beyond ending a war?

if confirmed as national intelligence it will be paramount for me to assess where intelligence gaps may exist. so i can provide the president and all of you with the most accurate full picture of the threat assessment i think it is a complex strategic competitor is a number of concerns that have to do their nuclear weapons have the decisions and policies being made by this body and by the president will impact their own national security which is our foremost concern. >> i want to make search and in no way we'll get a pass in either your mind or your heart. or, any policy recommendation you would make or not make.

my sole focus, commitment and responsibility is about our own nation. our own security and interests of the american people. when carrying out the responsibilities if confirmed, no country, group or individual will get a pass. in my fulfilling that responsibility of providing that full intelligence picture for the youth make the best informed policy decision for the safety, security and freedom of the american people. you have my commitment to be completely objective, unbiased and apolitical to and i hope you understand my commitment to our country's interest. >> i absolutely do. we've answered my question in the manner i wanted to hear you will do this and an objective manner, provide the information necessary. and russia, if it is a threat

you will tell us so entails the details of that threat. >> yes senator brooks how would you just discuss the framework allied with president trump's national security goals? talk senator, this is a discussion of confirmed i look forward to having with the president and his national security adviser again based on the threat assessment and based on the presidents priority. he spoke about a number of different priorities in different parts of the world. i would work with them on that national intelligence priority framework which will serve as the foundation for the elements under od and i. >> any recommendations you have in mind to make to president trump without regard? works on to maturity recommendation of it to the present are fully informed. from where i sit now i don't believe i can make those recommendations. i would take that responsibility seriously without a short change and without doing first due diligence and work my

recommendations are well-founded. >> how will you, lieutenant colonel as the d and i confirmed meet the objectivity and political neutrality requirements to ensure you're telling the white house what they need to hear and know what they want to hear. the follow-up that is how we handle conflicting intelligence reports from that various members of the intelligence community and present a broad intelligence picture to the president? >> thank you for the question, senator. i hope you have confidence of wearing the uniform serving in the national guard avon holding political office but there's a brick wall between the true and i have fulfilled that obligation and uniform as i will as director of national security.

hearing different views and i would make sure that in the intelligence community's responsibilities that dissenting views are not only allowed, but encouraged. where they present themselves, make sure the president in u.s. policymakers are aware as you can make your best informed decisions. >> would you agree with me biased and prejudiced if it exists in place, exists both sides of the issue partisan sides of this called washington d.c.? goal, the effort you will make is to make certain all the information is presented in eight nonpartisan and manner based upon the facts as we know them? >> yes senator, i agree. give my commitment this is essential to the american people and all of you to have faith and trust in the intelligence products being delivered. >> one of the greatest challenges is knowing who is telling us the truth. we need a dni who tells us the

truth. >> yes, i have a long record of speaking truth to power we have a commitment if confirmed in this role. >> thank you. senator kaine? rex thank you, mr. chairman. and miss it gabbard it would to my appreciation for your service in the military and the congress. two very challenging jobs and i want to thank you for that. i noted edward snowden was in hawaii of all places for your and happy for a flight to hong kong and onto russia. did you ever meet him or have any contact with him during that period or subsequently with telephone calls, e-mails, zoom, contact with his lawyers? >> no senator, not at any time did have contact with edward snowden. >> if you introduced a bill in 2020 that was essentially hit basically said all charges should be dropped.

you had a lot of where as in that bill. first the factual basis for the whereas clauses come from? >> senator, if i recall in that bill it came from publicly available information. >> i see. >> were you aware there is a bipartisan committee report from the house intelligence committee in 2016 on snowden's activities? >> i do not recall specifically at that time. i am aware of the committee's report and executive summary reported. to have access to the classified report but that summer it was based on. that bill in 2020? senator i do not recall specifically. i remember reading a lot of materials prior to filing that bill. >> the bipartisan committee report, the first item edward

snowden perpetrated the largest most damaging public release of classified information in u.s. intelligence history really 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 program impacting individual privacy. you don't recall seeing the work of that committee? >> i'm aware of those conclusions drawn. >> your were aware now we were at the time? >> yes i was. edward snowden broke the law. there is no question about that. he should not have released all that information that because that harm. there is no question about that big. >> how many documents that he release? >> i know he took over million documents. i do not know specifically how many of the million he specifically released. >> you stated unequivocably today that snowden broke the law. but you introduced a bill in congress along with congress and matt gaetz to essentially pardon

him he broke the law but it wasn't all that serious is that we thought in 2020? >> i take very seriously of holding the constitution have sworn an oath to defend the constitution over eight times in my life. my same as in the passive and reflective of the egregious and illegal programs that were exposed in that league. bipartisan i think devon newness was the chair. the conclusion was the vast majority of these things heat release had nothing to do with constitutional rights, the fourth amendment. they were enormous compromises of our national security. >> senator i focus on raising concerns or want a egregious illegal constitutional programs that our government was conducting. that clearly violated the fourth amendment. the most important thing i hope

all of you find to be relevant here as 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 28 years of holding a security clearance of some sort myself. either secret or top secret. i have never once of violated the responsibility and privilege that comes with holding that clearance. there is not another snowden type leak in the future. >> think you testified you never saw the classified version of this report. >> is correct. >> page 22 of the report there's a heading that is not classified that says what damage did snowden cause? there's a lot of redacted material. did that not raise a red flag for you? or do not recall? >> edward snowden broke the law operate like i said i did not have access to the classified. >> did you seek access to it? >> i believe so, guess this was

quite some time ago. quick to still introduce your bill? >> i take very seriously the protection of american civil liberties union fourth amendment rights. if confirmed of director of national intelligence i would make sure there is no further snowden type leak in the future. and those who have concerns of legal channels to raise those concerns so that we do not violate and release our nation secrets. >> center king, at the time. senator lankford. >> it's good to see again, thanks for the time i got to spend together and do a lot of these issues but thank you for your service to the country both in congress, even though you were in the wrong party at the time. [laughter] and your service to the country to service including my great state in oklahoma that you have the opportunity to build a serve there. went to give an opportunity to answer a few things on it and want to set some count context. there's questions about 702 and

edward snowden it may seemed like this is repetitive scum through it. there are thousands of employees they've also taken an oath to the country in the constitution. they serve our country every day. they do not have uniform unknowns is thank you to them people do not know who they are. they everyday but their lives on the line. when edward snowden got mad at his employer that he did not get the promotion he wanted and started harvesting information, and then found some things he did not like onyx and then kept going. and then release them to media and went to china. and then went from china to russia and became a russian citizen. continue to be able to lay her out intelligence unrelated to the civil liberties and any american. and then said i have more and i can release them anytime i want.

they do not see him as brave. they see him as a traitor. the concern among so many here and what a lot of folks the intelligence committee you would have responsibility for oversight is, you want to believe the same thing but not just that he broke the law but he is a traitor. they do not want that to ever happen again all of the sources they had that they trusted and trusted them, now their lives are at risk. and, all the programs that were determined lawful, all collapsed and that intelligence was gone and the president did not have access to a lot of information or decision-making. this is a big deal to everyone here. it's helpful for them to be able to hear your heart on this. was edward snowden a traitor? >> senator, my heart is with my

commitment to our constitution and our nation security. >> hours two. >> 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's why i am committed if confirmed to join you in making sure there is no future of eight snowden type leak but i would do so by taking four specific actions. number one make sure there are no illegal and unconstitutional programs. limiting in a big way those who have access to our nation's top secret food reform. making sure every single person in that workforce knows about the legal whistleblower channels available to them. they make sure this a direct line available to me should anyone have concerns. people choose to step outside of the legal channels to raise any

concerns about programs or actions that existed in the intelligence community that are classified, there will be no excuse to do so they should be charged and prosecuted under the law cooks is he a traitor at the so we took america's secrets, release them and the public in it ran to china to become a russian citizen? >> i am focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again. >> you have the responsibility shoot counsel to the president. which is a great privilege. you already have his ear quite frankly and you have a great relationship on that part which is very beneficial. but, when president trump chose to take the strike on solo money at that same time going through an impeachment of the house. you are kind of tough on him at the time about that. you called today declaration of war. you said the sole money strike will lead to an outcome to further outline our national security. as a member of congress i take seriously declaration of war he's acting in a way that the

belgians he was purring a strike on american citizens and those folks in the field at the time. i guess the question that i have is, od and i will provide options to the president and say here are the options. 52, be th. the motion is agreed to.

mr. bennet: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from colorado. mr. bennet: are we in a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are not. mr. bennet: thank you, mr. president. i'm grateful to be on the floor here tonight with my colleague from california, senator schiff, and others to talk about the nomination of tulsi gabbard now, the successful confirmation of tulsi gabbard to be the director of national intelligence. to say the least, i never thought that we would see a moment in the history of the united states, the history of our attempt as a congress to -- to ensure that the american people and that the president

gets the intelligence they need in all these years, over all these decades, i never imagined we with would see somebody like tulsi gabbard approved on the floor of the united states senate for that job. and i wanted to get -- to speak tonight just briefly to say why i thought that was the wrong direction for the trump administration, more importantly, the wrong direction for the american people. let me say first of all, intelligence and being a member of the intelligence committee, i know this is unlike anything else we do around here because a lot of what happens, my colleague senator king from maine is here, a lot of what we have is done in secret. and one of the great privileges of being on the intelligence committee, i think in part because it is in secret, there isn't a lot of partisanship that you see in other committees,

there isn't the jockeying for position or notoriety. the people on that committee are very serious about our work and in part it is because we have a responsibility on behalf of all the senators not on the committee to translate as well was we can the intelligence needs of our country, the intelligence findings of the intelligence community and to play a very important role in oversight. because if we didn't provide that role, the intelligence agencies to run amok without the american people ever knowing about it or their representatives knowing about it. in fact the only reason we have the intelligence committee in the senate is because so many terrible decisions were made by the intelligence agencies in the post-war period in the 1950's and 1960's, some of it well intentioned, you know, during

the cold war, but a lot of it really bad judgments. it included things like the attempt to sass -- assassinate foreign leaders, and this congress decided we needed to have oversight for the intelligence community. we have an institutional structure that ensures that the american people get the best service out of the intelligence community and that the president gets the best intelligence. and that -- and that structure was put in place by people who thought it was important for intelligence agencies not to run amuck and the president to get the best intelligence possible. now we're putting somebody in the job as director of all of the intelligence agencies, the oudi, who is the coordinator for

all the intel that the president gets, congresswoman tulsi gabbard. she's had a record of public service in the congress and in the military and i don't dispute that. and i'm not calling into question whether or not she's serving the interest -- the interest of other countries. but i do want to say, and i will be brief, mr. president, i think her judgment has been have toed ordinarily -- extraordinarily, exceptionally bad. i share her view that there were profound intelligencerors in the leadup to the gulf war and the leadup to afghanistan. and in the gulf war weeks remember the weapons of mass destruction that saddam hussein had and didn't have it. i think she's learn the wrong lesson, and over and over again

when she has the opportunity to support the interests of the united states, i hate to say it, versus those of our adversaries time and time again, she picks our adversaries. or even our allies. i've heard her say how worried she is about what she describes as the remilitarization of japan, which, of course, japan is doing because of the threat from china with our very, very close cooperation. that's of concern to tulsi gabbard. she -- smee went to syria -- she 2022 syria and famously came back disputing our own intelligence agencies findings about assad's gassing of his own people. to this day she hasn't really taken that back and it makes no sense at all. but the thing that drives me the

craziest, mr. president, is that she has been an apologist for what vladimir putin has done since the day vladimir putin invaded ukraine. ukraine was a peaceful country with a peaceful border and vladimir putin was the first tyrant since world war ii ended, and we set up all of these multilateral institutions across europe and across the world to prevent the kind of hostility we had seen breakout in world war ii, and vladimir putin decided to invade a peaceful country next door to him. and in his mind he had a right to do that because ukraine has been viewed by czars for hundreds of years -- for hundreds of years as ukrainian territory. that is not how ukraine thinks, they think of themselves as an

independent country, they think of a place where history has moved on and they were sitting there peacefully when vladimir putin invaded them with no provocation at all. and on the evening that vladimir putin invaded ukraine, tulsi gabbard tweeted out at 11:30 at night, her local time, this war, referring to the war putin's invasion of ukraine, this war and suffering could easily have been avoided if biden administration and nato had simply acknowledged russia' legitimate security concerns regarding ukraine becoming a member of nato which means u.s.-nato forces right on russia's border. now, she gets mad when people read that stuff, but that's what

she said. and she says, well, don't tell people that i'm carrying propaganda for the russian government or for putin, that's not fair. i don't have to say that. but russian television put on tv in the days after the aftermath of putin's invasion the very tinge that congresswoman gabbard had said about his invasion because they saw it as something that ratified what they had done. and it was so consistent, so aligned with his position, continues to be his position today, that he thought it would muddy the waters with people around the world about what they were doing in ukraine. i believe ukraine's battle from the very beginning has not been a battle for ukraine. i think it's a battle for democracy. i think they are on the tip of the spear in a way that nobody has been since world war ii, and

the ukrainian people have been unbelievable. the ukrainian soldiers have fought magnificently. there was a view when putin invaded ukraine, mr. president, that in three days they were going to be in kyiv, the russians, and because of the bravery of the ukrainian people, because of the brave rif of -- bravery of the soldiers, many of whom have given up their lives, they have succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of anybody on this floor, of any of the monday morning quarterbacking that has happened in this capitol and other capitals around the world. and aur allies all around -- our allies all around europe and in the pacific area as well all have seen what the ukrainian people have accomplished. and when she had an opportunity to say something about the ukrainians, when she had the opportunity to stand with the united states and stand with our allies, she made another choice.

she's entitled to that choice. she's entitled to that choice just as she's entitled to her views about the intelligence failures during the gulf war. but the fact that she has the views that she has whether it's putin's invasion of ukraine or writing a bill in the house to give edward snowden a pardon, that doesn't qualify her to be the lead intelligence official for the united statesof america. i'll finish here, we work well in a bipartisan way on these issues. the american people need the president to get intelligence in a way that's trustworthy, that is not shaded in one direction or another, and we all need to be able to trust each other in the delivery of that intelligence. and i will say that i think the president in nominating

congresswoman gabbard for this position has fallen short. i voted for the cia director. this is not an issue of his appointments to the intelligence agencies. but in the case of congresswoman gabbard, i think he missed the mark. i apologize to my colleague from california for going on for so long. i will yield the floor to him. mr. schiff: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from california. mr. schiff: after tulsi gabbard was selected as donald trump's nominee for director of national intelligence, the russian newspaper was overjoyed. they wrote, the cia and fbi are trembling. sadly, the russian newspaper is probably right about that. another russian state outlet

called her a comrade. on a separate broadcast, a top putin mouthpiece, after gushing about kash patel said, and what about our girl? we have our girl there. our girl is evidently the kremlin's way of referring to our nominee, tulsi gabbard. his guest, as so as to be sure, intel intelligence? the answer was yes. r.t., another russian outlet ms. gabbard regularly read and shared articles from, took to twitter to defend her, quote, we've got your back, tulsi. yes, they certainly do. in september, it was revealed that r.t. was acting covertly on behalf of moscow to spread propaganda in the united states. not a surprise that r.t. has tulsi gabbard's back. the question is, should we?

the director of national intelligence is the nerve center of our nation's intelligence network. it is the linchpin between 18 agencies tasked with detecting and preventing threats to our national security and coordinating our intelligence resources. it's a job that requires judgment. it requires experience. it requires a high degree of trust. above all, it requires a deep and unwavering commitment to the tr truth, and a willingness to stand up to despots. yet, the nominee before us is stunningly lacking in all of these qualities. ms. gabbard's record in congress is not one of distinction in intelligence matters. she did not serve on the intelligence committee in the house. was not known for advancing meaningful legislation on intelligence in this space. when she did sign on to legislation, it was to eliminate

critically important intelligence programs, or it was to praise those who leaked classified information and did great damage to our nation, like edward snowden. she did not wrestle with the complexities of the intelligence gathering and analysis process. in fact, in the moments when her voice was heard on matters of foreign policy, it was in ways that should concern all of us. she has echoed, amplified, and at times outright defended the positions of autocrats and despots. when now-deposed syrian dictator bashar al-assad gassed his own people, she cast doubt on the findings of our own intelligence agencies. cast doubt on them, just like the russian propaganda outlets did. this after she engaged in her own form of freelance foreign policy, traveling to syria to meet with assad and get the full

scoop on his government's narrative of that murderous crusade. on her return, she positively crowed about how lovely this dictator was. quote, he wants to be seen as someone who cares for his country. well, maybe if he wanted to be seen as someone who cares for his country he shouldn't have gassed his own people. he wants to be seen as someone who would not conduct these kind of atrocities, tulsi gabbard said, except that he did. he did commit these kinds of atro atrocities. when vladimir putin launched his brutal war against our ally ukraine, she once again parroted kremlin talking points about so-called proof cases by food -- provocations by nato. she repeated that the u.s. set up secret bioweapons labs in

ukraine, and argued that the u.s., not russia, is responsible for putin's nuclear brinksmanship. this is the nominee for our intelligence agencies, not the kremlin's, this is our nominee, tulsi gabbard. this is who this president seeks to hand over the keys to our national security, to entrust here with the -- her with the nation's most closely held secrets, to be the final voice in the room advising the president on intelligence. to be, in the plain words of the law, quote, the principle advisor to the president, to the national security council and homeland security council for intelligence matters related to the national security. this tulsi gabbard, this nomination is not just unwise, it is dangerous. make no mistake, ms. gabbard is entitled to her own opinions. she can apologize for assad or

putin or any other murderous dictator to her heart's content. but we're not considering ms. gabbard for some position in which her bizarre fondness for foreign despots is beside the point. she is not the nominee for postmaster general. we're considering her for one of the most important jobs in our intelligence community. for that, tulsi gabbard is a walking five-alarm fire and must be rejected. must be. there is a reason the director of national intelligence must have the confidence of both the intelligence professionals that oversee and the non -- that they oversee and the national security establishment. because the job requires accountability. it requires trust. it requires truthfulness. in 2015, ms. gabbard joined a congressional delegation trip to the middle east, the kind so many of us in this chamber have

participated in. she visited a turkish town where countless refugees were shelterings. her guide took ms. gabbard to meet two syrian girls, aged 4 and 9 years old, who had been badly burned in a bombing by the syrian dictator's warplanes. the children's parents had been killed in that attack. these brave small children told their story to the then congresswoman. now, in this situation, i thinkfully of us would have -- i think many of us would have the same response, some form of sympathy, some form of empathy, some attempt to provide comfort to these children who saw their lives and families devoid. but -- destroyed in front of them. ms. gabbard had a very different response. by the account of the guy who was with her, she looked at the children and said, how do you

know if it was assad? what if it was isis? i should note, isis has no air force. but of course, that wasn't really the point, was it? the point was perhaps best illustrated by her guide, who was with her to that day, and to said that experience, those days with miss gabbard, he said, quote, it dawned on me that tulsi wasn't misinformed or ignorant. he said he worried instead that she, quote, had a world view that was adversarial to the united states. adversarial to the united states. think about that. adversarial to the united states. and consider whether this is the right person to be director of national intelligence. where do we draw the line with donald trump? what level of unfitness in a

nominee? what level of unconstitutionality in an executive action? what level of abject disregard of our judicial system? what national security threat or risk will it take? what action could he commit where we would be joined by our republican colleagues in saying we've had enough? where is the line? when is an action too egregious or appointment too asubsidiary, a -- absurd, a risk or threat too big? where is the line? is it disobeying a lawful court order, which this administration seems to be laying the groundwork to do? is it confirming a patently unqualified fbi director who wants to close down fbi headquarters and makes music with felons who beat law enforcement? is it a direct of hhs who doesn't believe in vaccines? or a director of national intelligence who sought to undermine vital intelligence operations and whom the russians

and others viewed as aligned with them instead of with us? where is the line? because for me, that line has been crossed a long, long time ago. i cannot, i will not support this nomination, and i urge my colleagues to think long and hard before they do, because if ms. gabbard is confirmed we will not need the luxury of hindsight. we already have the luxury of hindsight. the threats to our nation are real. those who wish us harm are busy plotting against us. there are plots to conduct attacks on u.s. soil. there are intelligence warnings about china's intentions to replace u.s. influence around the world. and about russia's relentless assaults against our friends and al allies. and in a moment when the world is watching, when our allies and our adversaries are questioning

america's stability and leadership on the global stage, we cannot afford to confirm a director of national intelligence who lacks the qualifications, the judgment, and the credibility to lead. we cannot. remember that russian broadcaster i mentioned earlier? here is some of the rest of that exchange with the guest on his show -- well, he said, with tulsi gabbard, it's not that simple. the guest replied, it might not work because what if it's not approved? the russians are worried that tulsi gabbard might not be an approved by this body. that should tell us something. people, please, do we need the kremlin to spell it out for us, what they are hoping and if they prayed would be praying for us to do.

solaviav seemingly answered that question for us live on russian tv, quote, why are you suddenly so doubtful, he asked his guest? solaviav seemed nervous about the chances for confirmation for the woman he described as our girl, tulsi gabbard. perhaps he fears that congress has more common sense than to confirm someone who prefers russia's world view over matters like ukraine's sovereignty to our own national security professionals. but do we? do we possess that basic common sense? for the sake of our country, for the sake of our nation's most sensitive classified information, and for the sake of the workforce that keeps us safe, i hope and pray that we do, that we possess the common sense to vote down tulsi

gabbard. we will soon find out. and i yield back.

.

>> ms. gabbard is a patriot motivated by service and serving her community since she was 21 years old when she was elected to the hawaii state legislature. like many americans of her generation she felt called to serve the country after the attack of september 11th after the first session in the hawaii legislature she enlisted in the army national guard. the following year, she dropped her reelection campaign to volunteer to deploy to iraq three that she has made now as an officer and platoon commander she set her sights on making an

impact on national and global issues. eventually being elected to the u.s. house of representatives. madam president tulsi gabbard has wore the uniform of our country for the last 22 years many soldiers in most dangerous parts of the world. she also served eight years in congress including service on the homeland security foreign affairs and arm service committees. by her own town, she's taken an oath to support and defend the constitution of the united states at least eight times. madam president both a military officer and policymaker -- the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent the senate be in a period of morning business for debate only with senators p permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. thune: i understand the chair has an announcement for the senate.

the presiding officer: the chair announces the presiding officer, the chair announces on behalf of the committee on finance pursuant to section 8002 of title 26, u.s. code, the designation of the following senators as members of the joint committee on taxation. the senator from idaho, mr. crapo, the senator from iowa, mr. grassley, the senator from texas, mr. cornyn, the senator from oregon, mr. wyden, the senator from washington, ms. cantwell. mr. thune: mr. president, i understand there is a bill at the desk that is due for is a second reading. the presiding officer: the clerk will read the bill -- title of the bill for the second time. the clerk: h.r. 29, an act to require the secretary of homeland security to take into custody aliens who have been charged in the united states with theft and for other purposes. mr. thune: mr. president, in order to place the bill on the calendar under provisions of rule 14, i would object to

further proceeding. the presiding officer: objection having been heard, the bill will be placed on the calendar. mr. thune: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10:00 a.m. on tuesday, february 11. that following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, morning business be closed, and the senate proceed to executive session and resume executive calendar number 18, and that all time during morning business, recess, adjournment, and leader remarks count postcloture. further, that the senate recession from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly conference meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. so ordered. mr. thune: if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order following the remarks of senator welch. the presiding officer: without objection.

mr. welch: mr. president. the presiding officer: i recognize the senator from vermont. mr. welch: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, donald trump, as we all know, won the last election in november, and he's now the 47th president of the united states. but donald trump did not, contrary to what he and the vice president want people to believe, win by anything close to a landslide. this chart shows out of a title of 155,238,302 votes, mr. thump won 77 million. kamala harris won 75 million or

48.3%. president trump won but just slightly over two million votes more than kamala harris. the difference between them was 1.5% of the popular vote. and although it was one of the smallest margins of victory in the -- since the 19th century, president trump in his inaugural address and others in the inner circle of trump repeatedly called the victory a landslide, a blowout, a mandate, historic. you know what a real landslide is? lyndon johnson in 1964 won by 22.6%. ronald reagan won by 18.2%. those are landslides. why does it matter? because facts matter. the truth matters. and we cannot survive in our

democracy without respect and much more respect for the truth. it's also really important because when one goes whether you're running for the u.s. senate or the presidency of the united states, when one goes from candidate for office to the president or the u.s. senator in office, the responsibility that we have is to all the people in our district and certainly for the president of the united st states, a responsibility to all the people in the united states. we serve all whether they voted for us or against us. but what has been happening with the assertion that this was this massive landslide is that it has become a justification for narrow policies that completely d disrespect the reality that so many other americans need to be

represented and heard and also is so narrow that even among those who voted for president trump for a variety of reasons are not getting policies they thought would be included. the america first policies so far have cut funding for programs to protect water that all americans need, clean air that we all breathe, whether it is a voter who was for trump or a voter who was for harris. we are cutting funding for medical research for cancer, cures for kids who have cancer, for food assistance to the food malnourished kids and parents who are in every district in this country. and of course most spectacularly what we're seeing is the illegal termination of the usaid program, something the courts have rescinded but the

administration is rushing pell mel nevertheless. all of this actually is in service of being able to find offsets in order to pay for the trump tax cuts that are heavily weighted to folks who are billionaires, like mr. musk and of course to our major u.s. corporations. and you know what? the folks who need a tax cut are the everyday americans who have been trying to make ends meet and are having real trouble doing that. the white house is not even trying to hide what they're doing. you have elon musk. you know, it's pretty ast aston astonishing. he owns twitter which is a source of misinformation. he's trying to buy chat gbt. he has massive government contracts for starlink and for his space program.

and he has contributed $280 million to the trump campaign. and now without any elected authority, without any advice and consent of the senate on a position that is very powerful, the so-called doge administrator, he has access to the private information of millions of information, all that confidential information about your social security and mine that's in the treasury department. so how is that happening? that is not in service of the folks who didn't vote for mr. trump? it's not even in service of the folks of people who did. but you know it's important that elections be -- and the outcomes of elections be respected. you know, this last election, just like in 2020, the people who oversaw this election, worked hard to ensure that it

was free and fair, we don't all get the outcome that we want. but it was free and fair. the difference in this election is that we on the losing side accepted the result. we didn't falsely claim that it was stolen to stop the steal narrative as president trump continues to assert about 2020 and most of his cabinet nominees do as well. we didn't try to prevent the outcome from being certified or to promote an insurrection by a violent mob, folks who actually attacked, injured people in this building and police officers, spit in their face, hit them, hit them with poles and we had police officers who died after that attack. falsely denying the outcome of an election and then using violence to overturn the result of a free and fair election absolutely subverts the democratic process and as every

american voter knows, free and fair elections like the checks and balances between our three coequal branchs of government are absolutely essential to the well-being and continuation of our democracy. you know, in the inaugural address that the president gave, i did not hear anything about child care or the cost of housing or bringing down the cost of prescription drugs and making health care more affordable. things that everyday families in every single part of this country need help with, to be able to pay those bills at the end of the month, have their checkbooks still balance. if and when the president starts focusing on those issues, i and my colleagues are absolutely ready to work with him and our colleagues on the other side of the aisle because those things, affordable broadband.

affordable health care. affordable housing and rent, some economic security, those are things every single one of us needs and the challenges that we face, whether it's red america or blue america, to try to have better policies to make that happen, are things we must be working on together, but not where what comes first, last, and always are these tax cuts that explode the deficit and go to folks who are not now paying their fair share. so as long as president trump and his allies pretend that he has this massive mandate to literally disrupt and throw out the traditions and norms and guardrails of democracy, that is something i and so many of my colleagues will resist. we can't do that. the law matters. respect for your opponents matters. and focusing on the everyday

needs of everyday people is what matters most. it's what is the goal all of us should be looking to accomplish. so, mr. president, there was no mandate, no massive mandate. there was a victory, but with victory, to describe it as this smashing mandate is a suggestion that what awaits us and has already arrived is overreach and failure. mr. president, i yield back. the presiding officer: the senate stands adjourned until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow.