Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise to oppose the nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be Director of National Intelligence.

In its first few days in office, the Trump administration has been remarkably cavalier and incompetent in its handling of our national security affairs--shutting off foreign aid; threatening Panama, Greenland, and Canada; calling for the mass deportation of Palestinians from Gaza. And just last week, it was reported that the CIA sent an unclassified email, listing all employees it had hired over the last 2 years, in order to comply with an Executive order from President Trump.

One former Agency officer called this a ``counterintelligence disaster.''

The President's choices to lead our national security Agencies have also not inspired confidence.

The Director of National Intelligence, or DNI, serves a critical role in leading the intelligence community and in collecting analysis so that the President, Congress, and decisionmakers across the U.S. Government have the best and most timely information for our national security. Indeed, the office was created after 9/11 to better coordinate analysis across the intelligence community. The position of DNI requires someone of great experience, character, judgment, and the confidence to speak truth to power, especially when the findings of the intelligence community differ from the policy objectives of the administration.

While I respect Ms. Gabbard's military service, including overseas deployments, she does not have a demonstrated record of experience to qualify her to lead the intelligence community. As DNI, she would oversee 18 different organizations, tens of thousands of military and civilian personnel, and an annual budget of more than $100 billion. She has never even served in an intelligence role, much less led a global intelligence enterprise.

More concerning than Ms. Gabbard's lack of experience is her record of erratic statements and actions, many of which have run counter to the interests and findings of the intelligence community.

In 2020, Ms. Gabbard and Congressman Matt Gaetz cosponsored a resolution calling on the Federal Government to drop all charges against Edward Snowden. Snowden was a contractor who was indicted for espionage and for publicly releasing the details of some of our most sensitive intelligence efforts, including those that were conducted jointly with foreign allies and partners, before Snowden fled to Russia.

Former Deputy DNI Sue Gordon responded to Ms. Gabbard's defense of Snowden by saying:

It reflects a lack of understanding of who we are, and it reflects a lack of respect for what we do. Unauthorized disclosures of intelligence are always bad. Don't go with the good or bad, any good outcome or whether he was right or wrong. . . . He not only harmed intelligence, he harmed our allies and partners, and he harmed our businesses by what it allowed China to assume about that. There is nothing justifiable about what he's done. None.

Let me be clear: Edward Snowden's betrayal has cost American lives.

He is a traitor by every definition of the word.

As the chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Cotton, has said in the past, Mr. Snowden is an ``egotistical, serial liar and traitor whose unauthorized disclosures of classified information have jeopardized the safety of Americans and allies around the world. Snowden's close and continual contact with Russian intelligence services speak volumes. He deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.''

Yet, during her confirmation hearing, Ms. Gabbard was repeatedly asked whether or not she believed that Snowden was a traitor. I think colleagues on both sides of the aisle were stunned that she not only refused to do so but that she continued to defend him.

Our national security leaders consistently emphasize that the greatest advantage we have over our adversaries is our network of allies and partners, including those who share intelligence with us. If Ms. Gabbard is confirmed as DNI, I have serious concerns about whether or not our allies and partners will trust her with their nations' most sensitive intelligence given her past actions.

I am also concerned about the pattern of statements over the years by Ms. Gabbard peddling what the intelligence community has found to be Russian propaganda.

For example, at the outset of Russia's illegal invasion of Ukraine, as eloquently described by the chairman of the Armed Services Committee, Ms. Gabbard stated:

       This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if [the] Biden administration [and] NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of NATO, which would mean U.S. [and] NATO forces right on Russia's border.

After Ukraine bravely withstood Russia's initial assault, the Kremlin began a campaign of misinformation designed to legitimize its illegal war. These themes were repeatedly amplified by Gabbard in her public comments, including with respect to the widely disputed Russian allegation of a U.S.-funded covert biological weapons program in Ukraine.

As our former colleague Mitt Romney tweeted at the time she made these bogus claims, ``Tulsi Gabbard is parroting false Russian propaganda. Her treasonous lies may well cost lives.''

In reviewing Ms. Gabbard's statements, the New York Times found:

       Ms. Gabbard honed her pro-Russia views on [Tucker] Carlson's show on FOX News before his program was canceled. She became a regular guest and occasionally filled in as host when Mr. Carlson was away. Clips from her appearances on Mr. Carlson's show that repeated Kremlin talking points were quickly picked up by Russian state media.

       In some cases, she echoed story lines that Russia's propagandists created, which the Russians then recycled on their own media as evidence that the conspiracy theories they had manufactured were true. For the Kremlin, it was a virtuous cycle.

Ms. Gabbard has been roundly and appropriately criticized for her unannounced 2017 trip to Syria, where she met with Syria's then-President Bashar al-Assad. She justified that trip by saying:

       We've got to be able to meet with anyone that we need to if there's a possibility that we could achieve peace.

Ms. Gabbard's decision to carry out an unofficial trip to Syria in the midst of a civil war--a conflict in which Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons against his own people--showed incredibly poor judgment. Her visit did nothing to advance the cause of peace but, rather, helped to legitimize Assad's brutal dictatorship. 

Just months later, Ms. Gabbard criticized President Trump's decision to use military force to deter further chemical weapons use by Assad and even expressed skepticism about whether Assad had actually used chemical weapons.

Madam President, it would be the height of charity to say that Ms. Gabbard has consistently demonstrated poor judgment on critical national security matters, but it is more than just that. Ms. Gabbard clings to her misjudgments even when she is shown to be wrong. That is a disturbing character flaw for this critical role.

Above all else, the DNI must be unquestionably loyal to our national interests and trustworthy with our national secrets. The intelligence they control has life-or-death consequences.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle--some of whom have indicated great discomfort with Ms. Gabbard and her troubling disregard for America's security interests--appear willing to vote for her confirmation despite their misgivings.

At this critical moment, all Senators must honestly answer these questions: Given everything you know about Tulsi Gabbard, do you trust her with life-or-death national secrets? Can you look members of our intelligence community in the eye and say that you believe Tulsi Gabbard will serve and protect them and this Nation?

I have seen enough to know my answer, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.