-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, do you remember where you were on September 11? Most Americans do. I do. I was right outside that door. I was in a meeting at 9 in the morning. And as we had the meeting, we looked down the Mall. We were watching a little television set, and we saw these planes flying into skyscrapers in New York.

Nobody could quite understand what was going on. First, we thought it was an accident, as most people probably felt the same way. Then, when the second plane hit, we knew there was more.

Then, there came a moment when somebody said: Look down the Mall.

We looked down the Mall and saw black smoke billowing across the Mall here in Washington from the Pentagon, because a plane had crashed into the Pentagon.

And there was this moment where people didn't know which way to turn, where to get answers, what was going on. Someone came racing into the room and said: Evacuate the Capitol Building. Another plane is coming directed toward this building.

We all raced out down the steps and stood on the lawn outside, didn't know which way to turn, had no idea what was going on.

Tourists were coming up to me because I had a suit and tie on and saying: Where are we supposed to go?

I told them where the Metro stations were and pointed in several directions.

That is a day you won't forget.

Most of us, I am sure, felt at that point that we had to figure out what happened first and to stop it from ever happening again.

So where did we turn? First, we turned to law enforcement, for obvious reasons. That is who you call--9-1-1--to see if they can give you any information, give you any advice, keep you safe.

But also in this town, you think: We hope our intelligence Agencies, the ones that collect information, know who those people were so we can stop them from ever doing this again.

Those intelligence Agencies are critical, not just for the security of this country but the survival of this country.

In the wake of September 11, the most historic terrorist attack in our Nation's history, we learned the hard way that Agencies within the intelligence community need to be good, effective, and coordinate what they are doing. So we embarked on several projects--and one that I was a small part of--in rewriting the laws creating intelligence Agencies and making sure that each of our intelligence Agencies, as good as they are, speak to one another.

It seems so obvious. They need to coordinate. But they had what they called smokestacks where they kept their information to themselves and didn't share it with other Agencies. Well, that changed. It changed the whole attitude towards intelligence and coordinating information.

We created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It oversees 18 different intelligence Agencies that span the CIA, Defense Department, State Department, Energy Department, and others. It is now essential to modern safety in America. Yet the President, Donald Trump, has selected a person to run this critical Agency, coordinating 18 different intelligence Agencies, who has little or no experience leading this critical American security apparatus. Her name is Tulsi Gabbard.

During President Trump's first term, he made clear of his fondness for certain leaders in the world that were controversial, such as Viktor Orban of Hungary, Vladimir Putin of Russia, and Kim Jong Un of North Korea. So he ends up picking a person to run his intelligence network who shares a similarly terrible judgment on critical leaders.

Tulsi Gabbard, a former Congresswoman, is infamous for spending time with despots and autocratic leaders of the world, including Vladimir Putin of Russia and Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and traitors to the United States like Edward Snowden.

Her fondness for these oppressive, anti-democratic regimes does not go unreciprocated. They know her, they like her, and they say quite a few things about her. Let me show you one of these posters.

Hosts of Russian state media have cheered her nomination. Russia is cheering her nomination as Director of National Intelligence because it will ``dismantle America.'' Some on Russian state channels have even referred to her affectionately as their ``girlfriend.'' Russian state TV also called her a Russian ``comrade'' in Trump's emerging Cabinet. A pro-Putin propagandist, Vladimir Solovyov, once called Gabbard ``our friend.'' Later, when asked if she was ``some sort of Russian agent?'' he replied, of course, ``yes.''

What is going on here? This woman wants to head up the intelligence Agencies, and she is being cheered on by the Russians?

In a glowing profile in a Russian state newspaper, it said of Tulsi Gabbard, ``The C.I.A. and F.B.I. are trembling,'' noting that Ukrainians consider her ``an agent of the Russian state.''

Imagine that--the person tapped to head America's intelligence community being called a puppet of an adversary's country by that very same country. It seems too ridiculous to be true, but I am sorry to say that it is.

To merely join America's intelligence community, never mind lead it, candidates have to go through a vigorous background check and earn a security clearance. I will just tell you that based on what she has done since serving in Congress, she could not pass a routine security clearance. If Tulsi Gabbard were applying for an entry-level position, her relationship with Russia alone would disqualify her for the job. Why, then, would we trust our entire intelligence network to the No. 1 friend of our No. 1 enemy? Why, then, would we want to put that sort of person in charge?

Given the examples that abound of Tulsi Gabbard proving publicly, shamelessly, and carelessly her sympathies for nations that undermine U.S. interests and security, that is unexplainable and irresponsible.

Perhaps this is summed up best by one of her people who worked with her for years. Here is what he had to say, according to The Atlantic magazine:

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

And to head up all of our intelligence Agencies? It is as controversial as choosing Kash Patel to head up our Federal Bureau of Investigation--no experience which qualifies him, nor does she have any experience either.

You see, our allies depend on us as much as we depend on them for security and to share critical intelligence. Now they are looking at us in disbelief that we would let someone like Tulsi Gabbard, with such an appalling record, anywhere near the leadership of the intelligence community.

Intelligence professionals from Canada and the United Kingdom-- members of the critical Five Eyes intelligence alliance along with the United States, Australia, and New Zealand--have expressed concern about even working with her if she is in charge. In order to keep Americans safe throughout the world, we need to have the trust of our allies and their cooperation.

This position she is aspiring to at DNI does not just impact the collection of intelligence; it also impacts the action taken on it. Because of this, I have great concern about the impact Tulsi Gabbard's confirmation would have on our support of Ukraine in defending itself against Russia.

Since Russia's full-scale invasion, Gabbard has taken Russia's side many times, claiming, in reference to Ukraine and Russia, ``Russia had legitimate security concerns.'' The words of Tulsi Gabbard. And then she blames NATO, our alliance--one of the most significant security alliances in the world.

Let me be clear. Supporting democracies has not historically been a partisan matter. For example, contrast Tulsi Gabbard's nonsense with former President Ronald Reagan's clear-eyed understanding of the danger of the communist Russia empire.

Nearly 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan stood at the Brandenburg Gate in West Berlin and famously challenged the Soviet Union to ``tear down this wall.'' Reagan understood the true nature and threat of the Russians.

We have all seen the horrific costs of Russia's war in Ukraine and increasing attacks on NATO allies. Is there a deal to be made to end this war? Perhaps. Doing so must be with the best intelligence available, a clear eye about who we are negotiating with and for, and long-term guarantees of the security of Ukraine, of Europe, and the transatlantic alliance.

One would think any American President navigating such difficult waters would want a top official to serve as the head of National Intelligence. Tulsi Gabbard fails that test. She would not be qualified for an entry-level position within the intelligence community and is certainly not qualified to lead it, period.

Some of the President's Cabinet nominees are hard to imagine because they are so unqualified, but for the position of Director of National Intelligence, putting someone unqualified in charge is not funny at all; it is life-or-death dangerous.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source