-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, at some point, the Senate will vote on the nomination of John Ratcliffe to be the Director of the CIA. I am here to outline for just a few moments why I oppose this nomination.

Let me begin by saying I often vote for nominees who have different policy views than I do. However, my concerns with Mr. Ratcliffe are much deeper than that.

In 2020, I opposed his confirmation to be Director of National Intelligence because I believe his partisanship and willingness essentially went to the proposition of doing what would please Donald Trump. Unfortunately, his actions as head of National Intelligence only confirmed my concerns. Today, I want to focus on John Ratcliffe's commitment to the law and his truthfulness with Congress. I will give a couple of examples to illustrate my concerns.

In 2019, the Congress passed a law requiring the Director of National Intelligence to submit an unclassified report on who was responsible for the brutal murder of Washington Post reporter and U.S. resident Jamal Khashoggi. In 2020, after John Ratcliffe was nominated to be the head of National Intelligence, I asked him at his confirmation hearing whether he intended to follow that law. He responded that he needed to take a look at the underlying intelligence to see what could be released, and that is not the same as saying he would do as the law required.

After Director Ratcliffe was confirmed as DNI, he decided that nothing more could be declassified about the murder of Jamal Khashoggi. The effect of that decision was to cover up the fact that Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman approved the operation to capture or kill Khashoggi. The public only has the facts today because after the 2020 election, then-head of National Intelligence Avril Haines abided by the law and released the report.

But while John Ratcliffe was Director of National Intelligence, the Saudi leadership was protected from public accountability. While he was Director of National Intelligence, Director Ratcliffe wrote to multiple Members of Congress saying that he had completed his review of the intelligence and determined that nothing more could be released. Despite the fact that the Congress passed a law, Director Ratcliffe insisted that there was only marginal public interest in declassification. He said this in three letters to me, to Acting Chairman Rubio and Vice Chairman Warner, and to the chair of the House Intelligence Committee. To me, this raises questions about John Ratcliffe's commitment to the law.

Basically, I have concerns about his truthfulness with the Congress. As part of this nomination process, I submitted a written question asking him why he didn't obey the law. He responded that a review had been necessary to determine what could be declassified and I quote here:

This review was not completed until after I left office.

Madam President, that statement by Mr. Ratcliffe just wasn't true. Mr. Ratcliffe wrote three letters to the Congress saying that the review had been completed. That fact was even included in the ODNI's representations to a court in a FOIA case.

So here is why I am opposing the Ratcliffe nomination. If John Ratcliffe is willing to make representations to the Congress that are contradicted by what is in the public record, imagine how easy it would be for him to misrepresent classified matters behind a veil of secrecy.

There are other aspects of John Ratcliffe's record as DNI that are troubling. He said during his confirmation hearing he would tell truth to power. The record suggests otherwise. For example, at the end of September 2020, he released intelligence about Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. That was even though the intelligence community didn't know if it was accurate or the extent to which it was fabricated or exaggerated by Russian intelligence. Needless to say, this was a major break from standard practice, and it is hard to escape the conclusion that it was done for partisan political purposes, particularly given the timing.

I asked Mr. Ratcliffe whether he had ever taken any actions that were actually in conflict with the positions of the President. His response was simply to offer nothing.

Madam President, my concerns in 2020 that John Ratcliffe was too partisan to be confirmed as the head of an intelligence Agency have been validated by these specific examples I have cited today. As I said, he also now has a record of ignoring a law passed by the U.S. Congress and then misrepresenting basic facts about that decision.

So when the Senate does vote on the Ratcliffe nomination, I want the record to show that I strongly oppose the nomination.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WYDEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to express my strong opposition to Republicans' so-called Born-Alive bill.

I want to commend Senator Murray and all my colleagues who have done so much good work on this. This is not the first time the Senate has debated this bill on the Senate floor, and I doubt it will be the last.

Republicans claim this legislation will protect women and children. The foundation of this Republican bill is that babies are forced to go without basic medical care after they are born. This is a disgusting, stomach-churning lie that is pedaled to fearmonger the American people.

No child born alive in the United States is denied the healthcare they need to survive. It is already illegal to do so. In reality, what this bill does is turn what is already an impossibly difficult situation for countless expecting parents into a living hell.

Imagine you and your spouse get the good news that you are expecting. You are over the Moon until a few months later when you get the worst news you could possibly imagine receiving during pregnancy. For reasons out of your control, your baby has developed a terminal medical condition and will not survive once they are born. On top of that, to force the mother to continue carrying the baby to term would most likely be deadly for her.

Many women and couples are all too familiar with the gut-wrenching decisions that come next. What a statement about Republican priorities that this is one of the first pieces of legislation brought to the Senate floor just a few hours after Donald Trump was sworn into office.

Republicans talk a big game about being ``pro-life'' and being the party of family values. Their actions show reality couldn't be any further from the truth. For example, the Republicans recently blocked a bipartisan expansion of the child tax credit that would have really helped to lift kids out of poverty. Now they are gearing up to cut food stamps so kids go hungry. They put Medicaid and health insurance for millions of children on the chopping block.

If Republicans really care about helping women and children, they would be using their new-found majority to vote on legislation that cuts housing and childcare costs or grocery bills and keep moms safe.

Let me close this way, Mr. President, and colleagues. This deeply flawed Republican Born-Alive bill is the real Republican agenda on full display. While Republicans are full steam ahead with their crusade against reproductive freedom, all my colleagues who are here today, led by Senator Murray, are focused on fighting inflation, bringing down costs, getting to work for working families. I am proud to be associated with their efforts.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source