Open Hearing: Nomination Hearing for Ms. Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence

[Senate Hearing 119-9] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 119-9 OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF TULSI GABBARD TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ======================================================================= HEARING BEFORE THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JANUARY 30, 2025 __________ Printed for the use of the Select Committee on Intelligence [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov __________ U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE 58-632 WASHINGTON : 2026 ======================================================================= SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE (Established by S. Res. 400, 94th Cong. 2d Sess.) TOM COTTON, Arkansas, Chairman MARK R. WARNER, Virginia, Vice Chairman JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho RON WYDEN, Oregon SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine MARTIN HEINRICH, New Mexico JOHN CORNYN, Texas ANGUS S. KING, Jr., Maine JERRY MORAN, Kansas MICHAEL F. BENNET, Colorado JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York MIKE ROUNDS, South Dakota JON OSSOFF, Georgia TODD YOUNG, Indiana MARK KELLY, Arizona TED BUDD, North Carolina JOHN THUNE, South Dakota, Ex Officio CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Ex Officio ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi, Ex Officio JACK REED, Rhode Island, Ex Officio ---------- Ryan Tully, Staff Director William Wu, Minority Staff Director Kelsey S. Bailey, Chief Clerk C O N T E N T S ---------- JANUARY 30, 2025 OPENING STATEMENTS Page Tom Cotton, U.S. Senator from Arkansas........................... 1 Mark R. Warner, U.S. Senator from Virginia....................... 4 The Honorable Richard Burr, Former U.S. Senator.................. 7 The Honorable Joni Ernst, U.S. Senator from Iowa................. 8 WITNESS Lt. Col. Tulsi Gabbard, Nominee to be Director of National Intelligence................................................... 10 Prepared Statement........................................... 14 SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL Questionnaire for Completion by Presidential Nominees............ 53 Additional Pre-Hearing Questions................................. 194 Post-Hearing Questions........................................... 310 2017 Declassified Intelligence Analysis Regarding the Assad Regime's use of chemical weapons, submitted by Senator Kelly... 320 2018 Declassified Intelligence Analysis Regarding the Assad Regime's use of chemical weapons, submitted by Senator Kelly... 324 OPEN HEARING: NOMINATION OF TULSI GABBARD, TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2025 U.S. Senate, Select Committee on Intelligence, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m., in Room SD-106, in the Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Tom Cotton, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Cotton (presiding), Warner, Risch, Collins, Cornyn, Moran, Lankford, Rounds, Young, Budd, Wyden, Heinrich, King, Bennet, Gillibrand, Kelly. PROCEEDINGS Chairman Cotton. This hearing will come to order. Ladies and gentlemen, welcome. Before we get underway today, I would like to take a brief moment to recognize the terrible loss of life that occurred just a few miles away from here last night. Our hearts and prayers are with the families and friends who lost loved ones last night as well as the brave first responders who are still on the scene. I would like to ask everyone to join us in a moment of silent prayer and reflection for the souls lost. (A moment of silence was observed.) Thank you. Next, I want to remind everyone in attendance here that while you are all welcome to observe today's hearing, I will not allow or tolerate disruptions from the audience. Audience members may not verbally or physically distract from the hearing, including by shouting, standing raising signs or making gestures that block the view of other members of the audience or the cameras for those watching on television or on line. Anyone who does so will be removed immediately by the Capitol Police and banned from return. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM COTTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS Chairman Cotton. Welcome everyone to this hearing on President Trump's nomination of Tulsi Gabbard to be the Director of National Intelligence. Ms. Gabbard, welcome to the Senate Intelligence Committee. I also want to welcome your family in attendance today, including your husband Abraham, your mother Carol, and your sister Vrindavan. I also want to acknowledge some very special friends of yours: Dakota Meyer and Pat Payne, both Medal of Honor recipients. Gentlemen, on behalf of a grateful nation, I extend my deepest thanks to you and the heroes with whom you served. [Applause.] Chairman Cotton. I also note that our next Attorney General Pam Bondi is joining us. Apparently, she didn't have enough fun at her own confirmation hearing. Ms. Bondi, welcome and congratulations. [Applause.] Chairman Cotton. Finally, Senator Joni Ernst and former Senator and Chairman of this Committee, Richard Burr, will introduce Ms. Gabbard shortly. We look forward to your remarks. It is fair to say that Ms. Gabbard's nomination has generated a bit more interest and attention than do most nominees before this Committee. But I want to stress that Ms. Gabbard has been and will be treated with the exact same respect, consideration, and professionalism that we extended to every nominee, no more, no less, no better, no worse. That is how we treated CIA Director John Ratcliffe just 2 weeks ago, and how we treated DNI nominees like Avril Haines and Dan Coats in the past. For instance, Ms Gabbard has conducted dozens of office meetings with Senators. She has completed the committee's standard questionnaire. She has answered 247 questions in writing. This is all in keeping with the committee's customs, precedents and rules. Before I address the important work ahead at the DNI, please also let me make two observations about some of the accusations about Ms. Gabbard. First, I am dismayed by the attacks of Ms. Gabbard's patriotism and her loyalty to our country. For instance, Hillary Clinton has smeared Ms. Gabbard calling her an `àsset'' of a foreign nation. Let me remind everyone that Ms. Gabbard has served in our Army for more than two decades. She has multiple combat tours and she still wears the uniform to this day. She has undergone five FBI background checks. I spent more than two hours last week reviewing the latest--putting eyes on more than 300 pages. It is clean as a whistle. It is fine that we have differences of opinions on policies and programs. I suspect some of my Republican colleagues might disagree with some of Ms. Gabbard's votes in the House of Representatives, just as I suspect some of my Democratic colleagues might criticize Ms. Gabbard's statements and actions since she saw the light and left the Democratic Party. But I sincerely hope that no one today will impugn Ms. Gabbard's patriotism and integrity. Second, I can only laugh at some critics who say that Ms. Gabbard has `ùnconventional'' views. No doubt she has some unconventional views, like her criticism of Barack Obama's regime change interventions in Egypt and Libya. But, guess what? I opposed the disastrous interventions in Egypt and Libya as well. Mubarek was a longtime American partner and Egypt was a linchpin of our security system in the Middle East. Gaddafi had been scared straight after we toppled the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. He turned over his weapons of mass destruction and cooperated against terrorists. In return we had lifted sanctions and reestablished diplomatic ties. But President Obama intervened to topple both regimes. And what came next? The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and dangerous chaos in Libya to this day. No one ever mistook Mubarek or Gaddafi as the Little Sisters of the Poor, but let's not kid ourselves, the world is a dangerous place, not a church picnic. Ms. Gabbard understands this, which is why she also saw the problem with regime change interventions in these places. The vast number of governments throughout history and still today are not Democratic. We may wish it were different and we can work to improve it, but that is the way the world is. If we only befriended nations that shared our system of government and our social and cultural sensibilities, well, we wouldn't have many friends. In a fallen world we have to take our friends where we find them. No question, stable democracies make the most stable friends, but what matters in the end is less whether a country is democratic or non-democratic, and more whether the country is pro American or anti-American. I confess that those views made be somewhat unconventional, but look where conventional thinking has got us. Maybe Washington can use a little more unconventional thinking. And I am sure that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence could use more unconventional thinking. Ms. Gabbard, I submit that, if confirmed, the measure of your success will largely depend on whether you can return the ODNI to its original size, scope, and mission. When Congress created the ODNI, we intended to put one office in charge to manage the different agencies of the intelligence community. Congress intended the ODNI to be a very lean organization that would use small staffs to execute specific tasks. Congress in no way wanted yet another unruly bureaucracy layered on top of an already bureaucratic intelligence community. Unfortunately, 20 years later, that is exactly what the ODNI has become. Incredibly, the ODNI is now larger than any agencies it was established to manage. It has 15 offices and centers which have many subunits within them. The ODNI staff is measured in the thousands when it should be measured in the dozens or maybe a few hundred. I promise that is going to change. I intend to get personnel at the ODNI back to their home agencies doing real intelligence work, not bureaucratic make-work. I also expect to cap the size of the ODNI. Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, I hope you will be a partner in these vital efforts. Another example of bureaucratic mission creep and empire building is what has come to be known in the intelligence community as DNI taxes. The ODNI levees these so-called taxes on other agencies, shifting and directing funds away from the intelligence community's core mission to the whims and fancies of any particular DNI. That practice which seems to have grown and run rampant under Director Haines is also going to stop. Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, you have a lot of work ahead of you. And as Chairman of this Committee, I am committed to ensuring that we see it all the way through. At this moment I will now recognize Senator Risch for a brief statement. Senator Risch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that and I want to thank Ms. Gabbard for meeting with me and having a candid conversation again, on the issues. Unfortunately, I have to chair the Foreign Relations Committee in our first substantive meeting today on malign influence of China here at home and abroad. So I am not going to be able to stay for this hearing and I am not going to get a chance to ask questions. However, we will have a closed session immediately following, and the questions I have trespass upon the security of our country and as a result of that they need to be done in a classified setting, in any event. So if I beg Intelligence to be excused to preside over the other committee. Good luck. I know you will do well. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. You are excused. [Laughter.] Senator Risch. I was going to leave whether you excused me or not, but thank you very much. Chairman Cotton. I will now recognize the Vice Chairman, Senator Warner, for his opening remarks. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MARK R. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM VIRGINIA Vice Chairman Warner. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and particularly for your comments at the top. I spent most of the morning out at the National Airport. I know Senator Moran was there last night. It was a horrible tragedy. The victims' families are still being notified. For those of us who live in this region, it is always kind of complicated. We have got Virginia, DC, Maryland, and a host of local jurisdictions. But last night, when this tragedy took place and I happened to be driving by National on the way home and saw all the first responders rushing to the scene. People came from as far away as Baltimore, Fairfax County. We had DOD and Federal officials there, and these first responders as always, ran towards the tragedy. There will be a time to figure out what happened and how we rectify it, but today our thoughts and prayers ought to be with the families and again thanking our first responders. Ms. Gabbard, welcome and congratulations on your nomination to be the next Director of National Intelligence. I would like to begin by thanking you for your decades of public service, both in uniform and as a Member of Congress in Hawaii. I applaud your continuing commitment to serve, should you be confirmed. Now the President has nominated you to be Director of National Intelligence. Most folks probably don't understand the importance of this position. If confirmed, you would lead 18 agencies of the IC. You will also serve as the principal adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and Homeland Security Council for all intelligence matters related to national security. And in this role you will be responsible for over $100 billion between the national intelligence program and the military intelligence programs or the MIC and the NIC as we call them here. It is a position of great importance to our national security created after one of our worst national security failures, 9/11. For that reason, when Congress established this position, thanks in large part to our colleague and our friend Susan Collins, it mandated in law that any individual nominated for this position must have, and I quote `èxtensive national security expertise.'' Now I appreciate you taking the time to meet with me and as I noted in that office before and after, I continue to have significant concerns about your judgment and your qualifications to meet the standards set by law. First, as I noted previously, the DNI was created in part to make sure we had appropriate intelligence sharing which prior to 9/11 obviously wasn't happening. The mission was to not only share information between the IC, but also with our allies. There is no legal requirement that our allies share intelligence with us. It is all predicated on trust. Trust that our allies will protect each other's secrets. It appears to me you have repeatedly excused our adversaries worst actions and instead often blamed them on the United States and those very allies. For example, you blamed NATO for Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine. You rejected the conclusion that Assad used chemical weapons in Syria, despite it being the unanimous assessment of the then-Trump administration's DoD, State Department and IC as well as the assessment of our European allies. Instead, you blamed the United States for supporting terrorist groups in Syria. Now, I don't know if your intent in making those statements was to defend those dictators or if you were simply unaware of the intelligence and how your statements would be perceived. In either case, it raises, at least for this Senator, serious questions about your judgment. It also leads me to question whether you can develop the trust necessary to give our allies confidence that they can share their most sensitive intelligence with us. Make no mistake about it: If they stop sharing that intelligence, the United States will be less safe. We have seen this as recently as this past year where because of those strong intelligence sharing between the United States and Austria, countless lives were saved by disrupting a terrorist attack that was going to take place at the Taylor Swift concert in Vienna. Second, you have been publicly outspoken in your praise and defense of Edward Snowden--someone who betrayed the trust of our Nation and jeopardized the security of our country. The truth is the vast majority of the information he stole and leaked before running off to China and Russia, might I add, had nothing to do with Americans' privacy and compromised our most important sources and methods. In many ways we are still paying a price for that. And I believe that Edward Snowden's actions put our men and women in uniform in places like Iraq and Afghanistan at risk. You celebrated Snowden as a ``brave whistleblower'' and actually put forth legislation asking for his pardon. Furthermore, when given the opportunity to clarify your position in prehearing questions you declined and instead you expressed, and I quote, ``the DNI has no role in determining whether or not Edward Snowden is a lawful whistleblower.'' What a line. That is troubling to me in so many ways. Not only did you think that someone who stole secrets and then ran off to Russia should be celebrated as ``brave,'' but you don't seem to understand the DNI's role in determining whistleblower determinations. In fact, the DNI has a significant role in transmitting lawful whistleblower complaints to this Committee. They are all laid out right here in this statute. And I would have serious concerns about confirming someone who could not distinguish between complaints that are made lawfully and those that are not. In the statute it says the job of the DNI is to protect intelligence sources and methods from unauthorized disclosure. That is a quote. I guess I am asking, what message would it send to have a DNI who celebrate the work of a member of the IC or a contractor who would on their own volition decide what is appropriate to leak? I don't understand that. Third, until recently, you had a clear and consistent record of opposing FISA 702. I know Members on this Committee already understand how important this is, but for the folks who don't, this law is critical for our national security. Literally 60 percent on average of what goes into the President's daily brief--what President Trump will read each day in assessing what is going on in the world comes from this important piece of law that allows us to seek out those foreign--foreigners abroad for coverage. And it has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It helps us prevent foreign cyber attacks. It helps us on a topic a lot of folks are talking about, fentanyl trafficking. Many in Congress and many on this Committee have tried to reform to better balance security and civil liberties; however, you have consistently gone further. Not only did you vote against reauthorizing 702, you actually introduced legislation to fully repeal the whole thing, calling it, again, quote `à blatant disregard for our Fourth Amendment constitutional rights.'' Now I understand that since you have been nominated to DNI, you have expressed a change of heart. I think that is welcome, but I have to tell you, as I try to make--and I do this on job interviews. I try to make my judgment on whether you should be confirmed, I don't find your change of heart credible because the world today is more complex and more dangerous than ever before and we need serious people with sufficient experience to be able to navigate that complexity. I hope you use this opportunity to address my concerns and with all of the Members of this Committee. I appreciate, again, your service and I am looking forward to further discussion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Mr. Vice Chairman. We welcome back Senator Richard Burr, the former Chairman of this Committee who has emerged from retirement to introduce Ms. Gabbard. But still, even in his retirement, he still seems unable to find a pair of socks. [Laughter.] Nonetheless we say thank you and welcome you back, Senator Burr. Senator Burr. Some things are always predictable, Mr. Chairman. STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BURR Mr. Burr. Mr. Chairman, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, Members of this distinguished Committee: I want to thank you for allowing me to join you today to provide my thoughts and support on behalf of Tulsi Gabbard's nomination to be Director of National Intelligence. This is my first visit back to the Senate in slightly over two years. Permit me to say, from this side of the dais, you are not as intimidating as I thought when I was on your side of the dais. When I was Chairman of this Committee, Senator Warner and I stuck to a single refrain with our staff: Follow the facts wherever they lead. Today, an anonymous person or group launching a campaign using rumors as sources and accusations as fact can drive the outcome of an election and of public opinion. I know it to be true. Remember I sat in your chair for the Russia investigation, where we found much of the influence to be the result of fictitious narratives driven by Russia. Now, some of you may be wondering why do I support Tulsi Gabbard and why am I here to introduce her as a nominee. I have experienced firsthand a coordinated attempt to influence this nominee's support in the United States Senate and with the American people. I was contacted by several national journalists shortly after the President nominated Tulsi, asking me to confirm one of the many rumors circulating about this nominee. I informed each journalist over a five-week period that the rumors shared with me was simply not true. This narrative was shared from one journalist to the next journalist to the next journalist. I assume today that they ran out of journalists. This was a coordinated effort to kill this nomination. Advise and consent is the responsibility of the United States Senate and I truly believe that each Member takes it seriously. All Members of this Committee were offered the opportunity for individual meetings with Tulsi and if you chose not to meet with her, it is on you. I have done my homework and here are the facts. Tulsi Gabbard historic's life began at birth. She is the first American Samoan-born Member of Congress, period. She graduated from Hawaii Pacific University with a degree in business administration with a concentration in international business. In 2002, at age 21, Tulsi became the youngest woman in America ever elected as a State Representative. That was not enough. In 2003, she joined the Hawaii National Guard. When deployed, in a re-election, her opponent raised the issue: Could you serve the people that elected you, if in fact, you were deployed? What did Tulsi do? She withdrew from her re-election campaign in order to continue to serve our country in the War on Terror. This would not be the first or the last time Tulsi put her country above her career. After multiple deployments and serving in the Hawaii City Council, she was elected to the United States House of Representatives where she served four terms. Throughout her political career she maintained her military service either in the National Guard or the Army reserve. Media stories and anonymous rumors have questioned her qualifications, her patriotism, and whether she can be trusted, just to name a few. I refuse to question the qualifications of a woman who has worn the uniform of her nation for 22 years and never taken it off. No fewer than five times has the Department of Defense reviewed her security clearance and extended it, every single time. If Tulsi is guilty of anything, it is that since she was born, her views, opinions, and beliefs have evolved to reflect her life's experiences. Winston Churchill once said: ``Those who never change their minds never change anything.'' She served her city, her State, her country while winning the support of the people she represented. She has fought in war, and yes, she has tried to stop wars. At the ripe age of 43, Tulsi has the life experiences that match or exceed most Members of Congress. Tulsi was serving in uniform 3 years before some of us here today voted to create the Director of National Intelligence. Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, Members of the Committee: It is my honor to support and to introduce to the Committee, Lieutenant Colonel Tulsi Gabbard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Applause.] Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Burr. Now, our colleague, Senator Joni Ernst of Iowa, has taken a few minutes out of her very busy schedule to be here to introduce Ms. Gabbard, as well. Senator Ernst. STATEMENT OF HON. JONI ERNST, A U.S. SENATOR FROM IOWA Senator Ernst. Thank you, Chairman Cotton and Ranking Member Warner, and good morning to my distinguished colleagues. I also do want to take a moment this morning to recognize the lives that were lost in the collision near DCA last night. It is a truly heartbreaking tragedy. My prayers are with the victims' families and their loved ones. Thank you. Duty, honor, service. These are not just words. They are principles that have guided Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard. As a young enlisted soldier in the Hawaii National Guard, Tulsi answered the call to duty upon her deployments to the Middle East. From graduating at the top of her class from the accelerated Officer Candidate School at the Alabama Military Academy, the first woman to do so, to serving as the youngest member of Hawaii's legislature, she upheld honor while breaking barriers both in uniform and in her civilian leadership roles. And today, Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard demonstrates her commitment to service by sitting before this Committee, prepared to answer the Nation's call yet once again, this time as the next Director of National Intelligence. Tulsi and I share similar backgrounds, both to our Nation and to our communities. We have worn the same uniforms, serving in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves, leading battalions and deploying to Iraq and Kuwait. We both had the privilege of serving in our State legislatures and in Congress, representing the people who shaped our lives and our communities. Tulsi exemplifies what it means to rise above partisanship, putting the needs of the American people over political divisions. She put her own life on the line in combat operations, and now has set aside partisan differences as a former Democratic Member of Congress to answer the call to serve in a Republican administration. The mainstream media has fought to paint their own picture of Tulsi Gabbard. But let's talk about the real Tulsi Gabbard-- the woman and the soldier who I have come to know and respect, and I have known Tulsi for the past decade. Relationships matter. In 2015, then-Congresswoman Gabbard met my dear friend Owen who was a dear friend of mine from Iowa State University. Owen was a wounded Special Operations warrior who embodies the resilience and strength of our military community. Owen was the subject of an attack in Afghanistan, where he lost his leg and his left eye serving in the war. After this attack, or during this attack, Owen was tossed into the dead pile. Owen, bleeding and in excruciating pain, cried out to his teammates, `Ì am not dead.'' Thankfully, his fellow war fighter attended to Owen, but the road to recovery was long and hard, including a stint at Walter Reed Medical Center. During this time, Owen met a warrior and patriot, Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard, who became a friend and today they remain in touch. Owen prides himself in being a very good judge of character. And Tulsi, he speaks volumes of your character. Owen's final message to me before this hearing was, ``Tulsi has maintained her integrity throughout her career. She is the same gal I met in 2015. She always makes time for our old, broken warriors.'' Colleagues, I will leave you with this. You know me. I trust Tulsi Gabbard. She will be honest with you. She will listen to your concerns. She will be receptive to your feedback. And rest assured, Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard loves this country--a fact proven by her willingness to put her life on the line to defend it. For over 20 years she has put on a uniform and checked her political views at the door with one mission in mind: to protect and defend our great United States of America. Tulsi, duty, honor, and service have marked your life. Thank you for your extraordinary dedication to our Nation, for embodying the values that make our military the best in the world, and for stepping up to serve yet once again as President Trump's Director of National Intelligence. Relationships matter. I urge my colleagues to support this nomination. My best wishes to you, Tulsi, and to your family. God bless our country. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [Applause.] Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Ernst. I know that Senator Ernst has a busy schedule, to include a hearing for Dan Driscoll, a Secretary of Army nominee at the Armed Services Committee. I am sure Senator Burr has to go on a fishing trip or something. [Laughter.] Chairman Cotton. So we will excuse both Senators from the witness table. Ms. Gabbard, before we move to your opening statement, it is the custom of the Committee to ask a series of obligatory questions to all nominees. First, do you swear or affirm to give this Committee your full and truthful testimony? Ms. Gabbard. I do. Chairman Cotton. Second, do you agree to appear before the Committee here or in other venues when invited? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Chairman Cotton. Third, if confirmed, do you agree to send officials from your office to appear before the Committee and designated staff when invited? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Chairman Cotton. Fourth, do you agree to provide documents or any materials requested by the committee in order to carry out its oversight and legislative responsibilities? Ms. Gabbard. I do. Chairman Cotton. Fifth, will you ensure that your office or your staff provide this material to the committee when requested? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Chairman Cotton. Sixth, do you agree to inform or fully brief to the fullest extent possible all Members of this Committee on intelligence activities and covert actions rather than only the chairman and vice chairman? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Chairman Cotton. Thank you for those answers, Ms. Gabbard. We now welcome the opportunity, finally, to hear from you in your own words. STATEMENT OF LT. COL. TULSI GABBARD, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE Ms. Gabbard. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, I, too, would like to start by offering my prayers and condolences to those who were killed in last night's horrific crash. Senator Warner, Senator Moran, our condolences and prayers are with you and all of your constituents. Again, Chairman Cotton, Vice Chairman Warner, and all the Members of the Committee: It is an honor to be here before you today. I've appreciated the opportunity to meet with so many of you and address your questions and concerns before today's hearing. I know they have gone, but I am grateful to Senators Burr and Ernst for their trust and their confidence and in taking time to join us here today. To my husband Abraham, my family, friends, fellow veterans, Medal of Honor recipients and patriots, thank you for your love and support. I am honored and grateful to President Trump for his trust and confidence in nominating me to serve our country as Director of National Intelligence at a time when trust in the intelligence community unfortunately is at an all-time low. Chuck Schumer admitted a few years ago, ``you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.'' For too long faulty, inadequate, or weaponized intelligence have led to costly failures and the undermining of our national security and God-given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. The most obvious example of one of these failures is our invasion of Iraq based upon a total fabrication or a complete failure of intelligence. This disastrous decision led to the deaths of tens of thousands of American soldiers, millions of people in the Middle East, mass migration, destabilization, undermining of the security and stability of our European allies, the rise of ISIS, the strengthening of Al-Qaeda and other Islamist jihadist groups and strengthening Iran. Here are just a few other examples: The American people elected Donald Trump as their President, not once but twice, and yet the FBI and intelligence agencies were politicized by his opponents to undermine his presidency and falsely portrayed him as a puppet of Putin. Title I of FISA was used illegally to obtain a warrant to spy on Trump adviser Carter Page using a Clinton campaign-funded false dossier that was so-called evidence. Biden's campaign adviser Tony Blinken was the impetus for the 51 former senior intelligence officials' letter dismissing Hunter Biden's laptop as disinformation specifically to help Biden win the election. Former DNI James Clapper lied to this Committee in 2013, denying the existence of programs that facilitated the mass collection of millions of Americans' phone and internet records, yet was never held accountable. Under John Brennan's leadership, the CIA abused its power to spy on Congress, to dodge oversight and lied about doing it until he was caught, and yet has never been held responsible. Under Biden, the FBI abused its power for political reasons to try to surveil Catholics who attend traditional Latin mass, labeling them as, quote-unquote, ``radical traditionalist Catholics.'' Personally, just 24 hours after I criticized Kamala Harris and her nomination, I was placed on a secret domestic terror watchlist called Quiet Skies. Sadly, there are more examples. The bottom line is this. This must end. President Trump's re-election is a clear mandate from the American people to break this cycle of failure and the weaponization and politicization of the intelligence community and begin to restore trust in those who have been charged with the critical task of securing our Nation. If confirmed as DNI, I will do my very best to fulfill this mandate and bring leadership to the intelligence community with a laser-like focus on our essential mission, ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. As the President's principal intelligence adviser, I will begin by leading by example, checking my own personal views at the door and committing to delivering intelligence that is collected, analyzed and reported without bias, prejudice or political influence. I enlisted in the Army because of the horrific terrorist attack on September 11th and volunteered to deploy to Iraq in 2005 where I served in a medical unit. After nearly 22 years in uniform with three combat deployments to the Middle East and Africa, I am now a Lieutenant Colonel in the U.S. Army Reserve where I serve as a battalion commander of soldiers in Oklahoma, Missouri, and Arkansas. I served in Congress for 8 years on the Homeland Security, Foreign Affairs and Armed Services committees. It's my experience in the military and in the halls of Congress that have given me a deep understanding of the complex challenges that our Nation faces, in both roles engaging with world leaders, in both roles being privy to highly classified intelligence. So I know firsthand how essential accurate, unbiased and timely intelligence is to the President, to Congress, and to our warfighters. I also know the heavy cost of intelligence failures and abuses. Senator Collins, you led the creation of ODNI specifically to address those intelligence failures of 9/ 11 and Iraq's so-called WMDs. The need for the ODNI under strong leadership still exists today. If confirmed, I will bring my experience and fresh eyes to leading the intelligence community. And my day one priorities will be: to assess the global threat environment; identify where gaps in our intelligence exist; integrate intelligence elements; increase information sharing; and ensure that unbiased, apolitical objective collection and analysis of intelligence to support the President and policymakers' decisionmaking occur. I will work to end the politicization of the intelligence community and ensure there is a clear mission focus in the IC on its core mission of this unbiased apolitical collection and analysis of intelligence to secure our Nation. I will work to rebuild trust through transparency and accountability. This is a national security imperative. And I will work to assess and address efficiencies, redundancies, and effectiveness across ODNI to ensure focus of personnel and resources is on our core mission of national security. In my meetings that I have had with many of you, you expressed bipartisan frustration about recent intelligence failures as well as the lack of responsiveness to your requests for information, whether it's the surprise October 7 Hamas terrorist attack to the sudden takeover of Syria by Islamist extremists, failures to identify the source of COVID, anomalous health incidents, UAP's, drones and more. If confirmed, I look forward to working with you to address these issues. Ensuring the safety, security, and freedom of the American people is a mandate of leadership that rises above partisan politics. If confirmed, my commitment to the President, to you, and to the American people is this: I will do my very best to find the truth no matter where it leads and share that truth with President Trump, his advisors, and you in Congress, providing you with that unbiased, timely, and accurate intelligence as you make the tough decisions that will impact the safety, security and freedom of the American people. Now before I close, I want to warn the American people who are watching at home, you may hear lies and smears in this hearing that will challenge my loyalty to and my love for our country. Those who oppose my nomination imply that I am loyal to something or someone other than God, my own conscience, and the Constitution of the United States, accusing me of being Trump's puppet, Putin's puppet, Assad's puppet, a Guru's puppet, Modi's puppet, not recognizing the absurdity of simultaneously being the puppet of five different puppet masters. The same tactic was used against President Trump and failed. The American people elected President Trump with a decisive victory and mandate for change. The fact is what truly unsettles my political opponents is I refuse to be their puppet. I have no love for Assad or Gaddafi or any dictator. I just hate al-Qaida. I hate that we have leaders who cozy up to Islamist extremists, minimizing them to so-called rebels. As Jake Sullivan said to Hillary Clinton, `Àl-Qaida is on our side in Syria.'' Well, Syria is now controlled by an al-Qaida offshoot, HTS, led by an Islamist jihadist who danced in the streets on 9/11 and who was responsible for the killing of many American servicemembers. Democrat Senators in the past resorted to anti-Christian bigotry against some of President Trump's judicial nominees like Amy Coney Barrett and Brian Buescher. I condemn those actions as a Democrat in Congress at the time, as religious bigotry must be thoroughly condemned by all of us, no matter the religion. Unfortunately, there are some Democrat Senators who still don't understand the principle of freedom of religion and article VI of the Constitution: ``[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.'' Unfortunately, they're once again using the religious bigotry card, but this time trying to foment religious bigotry against Hindus and Hinduism. If anyone is sincerely interested in knowing more about my own personal spiritual path of Hinduism, I welcome you to go to my account on X where I will share more on this topic. If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will continue to live by the oath that I have sworn at least eight times in my life, both in uniform and as a Member of Congress. I will support and defend our God-given freedoms enshrined in the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Thank you very much for your time. I look forward to your questions. [The prepared statement of Ms. Gabbard follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Ms. Gabbard. A few reminders before we begin our five-minute round of questioning. First, a reminder to the audience. Once again, I will not tolerate disruptions or disturbances either in favor of or in opposition to Ms. Gabbard. We all came to hear from Ms. Gabbard, not from you. Two reminders to my colleagues: We will have a 5-minute round of questions. Not 5\1/2\ or 6--5-minute rounds. We will also have a closed session after this hearing in which we will have another 5-minute opportunity to ask questions. Second, if any question as Senator Risch alluded to, begins to approach the line of classified material, my crack staff will advise me and I will ask you to hold the question until we get to a closed setting. Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Chairman, could I just inquire. I was under the understanding that in the open round, because this is the only time that the American people will be able to see this judgment, would you agree if certain Members need to ask a second round of questions in the public setting that would be available? Chairman Cotton. As if is our custom, if the Member waits until the end of the opening round and has a follow-up question, then we will permit that follow-up question. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, you will be entrusted with nation's most important secrets. We are all entrusted with that information to serve the American people and to keep our country safe. Unfortunately, as you said in your opening statement, we have seen too many instances in recent years of people who were trusted with classified information and went on to abuse and politicize that trust. For example, in October 2020, more than 50 former intelligence officers, many of whom still hold a Top Secret clearance, wrote a letter invoking their credentials to make false claims about Hunter Biden's laptop likely being Russian disinformation. Do you agree that was an example of intelligence officials abusing and politicizing their past positions and credentials? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I do. It is an example of what needs to end and why the American people elected President Trump to bring about those necessary reforms. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Will you commit that no one who abuses their past position and credentials in this fashion will are hold a security clearance in the future? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Chairman Cotton. Now I want to be fair to my Democratic colleagues. Such abuses are not just a problem on the left. Also in 2020, President Trump's former National Security Adviser John Bolton published a book in which he revealed sensitive conversations with the President on national security matters, including highly classified information. He didn't submit this book for review and approval to ensure that our national security secrets were protected. Do you agree that John Bolton's actions likewise undermined public trust? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Will you commit that no one who so abuses his past position and risks the exposure of classified information by publishing a book without submitting it for review and getting approval before publication will hold a security clearance again or be trusted with classified information again? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Let's move on to the topic of ODNI reform that I mentioned in my opening statement. Congress originally envisioned the ODNI to be a small coordinating agency that directs rather than replicates the now 18 constituent agencies that makeup our intelligence community. Over the years, however, the ODNI has strayed from this vision to an organization that now publicly boasts nearly 2,000 people, more than half of whom are not detailed from an intelligence agency, but rather are career ODNI bureaucrats. They've even developed centers that are producing their own analysis. Will you commit today to working with this Committee to restoring the ODNI to its original size, scope and function? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I look forward to working with you and the Committee, as I, if confirmed, assess the current status of who is working in the ODNI and the function that they fulfill to make sure of its effectiveness and elimination of redundancies and bloating. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Do you support some of the policy proposals I mentioned in my opening statement about capping the size of the ODNI, eliminating ODNI taxes, returning employees back to their home agencies to do real intelligence work? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I look forward to working with you as we assess where the ODNI needs to be in order to fulfill its core mission and function. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. And in your preparation for this hearing and this important responsibility, have you developed any thoughts that explains the mission creep and the empire building that we have seen at the ODNI in recent years? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I have had the opportunity to review the history of the ODNI, to speak to Ambassador Negroponte, the first director of National Intelligence, as well as others who have served in this position. I think there are a number of contributing factors to the creation of centers--or not centers, but offices like the recently eliminated Office of DEI within ODNI, and other areas where I need to go in and assess the replication and duplication of responsibilities that exist elsewhere in some of the other intelligence elements that ODNI has oversight over. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Colleagues, I will lead by example and yield back one minute of my time. I recognize the vice chairman. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a first. [Laughter.] And Ms. Gabbard, let me be clear, at least in my views. I salute your service to our country, but I have serious doubts about your judgment, and those are some of the areas that I want to pursue. First, until you were nominated by the President to be the DNI, you consistently praised the actions of Edward Snowden, someone who I believe jeopardized the security of our Nation and then to flaunt that fled to Russia. You even called Edward Snowden, and I quote here, `à brave whistleblower.'' Every Member of this committee supports the rights of legal whistleblowers. But Edward Snowden isn't a whistleblower. In this case, I am a lot closer to the chairman's words where he said Snowden is `àn egotistical serial liar and traitor,'' who ``deserves to rot in jail for the rest of his life.'' Ms. Gabbard, a simple yes or no question, do you still think Edward Snowden is brave? Ms. Gabbard. Mr. Vice Chairman, Edward Snowden broke the law. I do not agree with or support with all of the information and intelligence that he released, nor the way in which he did it. There would have been opportunities for him to come to you on this committee or seek the IG to release that information. The fact is he also, even as he broke the law, released information that exposed egregious, illegal, and unconstitutional programs that are happening within our government that led to serious reforms that Congress undertook---- Vice Chairman Warner. Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, we have five minutes. I take your answer. And these are your quotes: ``brave.'' ``Please join my bipartisan legislation calling for charges to be dropped against him.'' Do you disagree that that legislation was not appropriate? Do you believe he is brave or not? Do you want to take back those words? Ms. Gabbard. Once again, Senator, Edward Snowden broke the law. He also released important---- Vice Chairman Warner. I am not--we agree that Edward Snowden exposed the United States government. [Cross talk] The question is whether your legislation, in your words, are still your beliefs; yes or no, please? Ms. Gabbard. I am making myself very clear. Edward Snowden broke the law. He released information about the United States government's illegal activity. Vice Chairman Warner. Again, ma'am, I have-- Ms. Gabbard. If I may just finish my thought, Senator. In this role that I have been nominated for, if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will be responsible for protecting our Nation's secrets. And I have four immediate steps I would take to prevent another Snowden-like leak. Vice Chairman Warner. Ma'am, I would simply ask you again. I don't think you answered. I agree with Tom Cotton. He is a traitor. You, for years, until you got chosen by President Trump have celebrated this guy as ``brave.'' You called for him to be pardoned, for his charges to be dropped. I cannot imagine a Director of National Intelligence that would say that kind of behavior is okay. How would we maintain the trust of the IC and the contractors who work for it? How would we maintain the trust of our FVEY partners? I find it very troubling. Let me move to 702. I know other members are going to raise this. Members of the committee know 702 is critical to our national security. Sixty percent of the information President Trump gets every day in the PDB will come from this. You've had a long history of opposing 702. Many Members of Congress have. But one thing that you have actually done that not many have is, not to reform it but you actually said you wanted to repeal it. But now, whether it is confirmation conversion or whatever, you call 702 ``vital.'' And I am quoting, ``because of significant FISA reforms have been enacted'' since you left Congress. Ms. Gabbard, what are the reforms that have led you to now support 702? Ms. Gabbard. In the short time that I have, Senator, I will just note that my actions in legislation in Congress were done to draw attention to the egregious civil liberties violations that were occurring at that time. Vice Chairman Warner. Ms. Gabbard, I asked you a question. Please give me the courtesy of responding. You said the reforms now make you support it. Which can you cite? Which reforms---- Ms. Gabbard. There are a number of reforms to include getting---- Vice Chairman Warner [continuing]. In the new law? Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. That all of you in your wisdom-- -- Vice Chairman Warner. Right. Okay. Ms. Gabbard, my time is getting short, but I got to just tell you, after the reforms were passed into law in April of 2024, you went on Joe Rogan's podcast in May--the bill is now law--and you said, quote, ``This bill took an already bad problem and made it many, many times worse.'' Again, in my mind this is a question of judgment--702 is critical. I appreciate this late conversion, but I am not sure I buy it because you've had such a consistent position. Again, I know my colleagues are going to raise these, but rather than standing up to dictators like Putin and Assad, you know, you sometimes amplified his talking points. I mean, I just do not understand how you can blame NATO for Putin's brutal invasion of Ukraine. And when Assad used chemical weapons against his own people, you didn't condemn him. I can go through all the quotes. You actually questioned Americans' intelligence. Now you mentioned a lot about trust. One of the things I am so proud on this committee is, like my friend Senator Burr said, we always follow the truth. I say this committee is the most valuable work I do in the Senate. We have a bipartisan approach to intelligence. I think we have worked to try to keep the intelligence community and earn their trust and frankly earn the trust of the American people. But I, respectfully, ma'am--I just don't believe on your judgment and credibility issues that this is the appropriate role that you should take going forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Senator Collins. Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gabbard, Edward Snowden does stand out as having done particularly grave harm to our national security by revealing Top Secret information, including sensitive sources and methods, thus jeopardizing the agents in the field. So let me ask you a question. If confirmed, would you support or recommend a pardon or any kind of clemency for Edward Snowden? Ms. Gabbard. Thank you for the question, Senator Collins. If confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence, my responsibility would be to ensure the security of our Nation's secrets and would not take actions to advocate for any actions related to Snowden. Senator Collins. So the answer is no, is that correct? In 2020, you introduced the Protect Brave Whistleblowers Act which 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 even Top Secret information as long as it is not done with the specific intent to injure the United States or advantage any foreign nation. Your bill would also have created an affirmative defense if public disclosure of classified information were made for several reasons, one of which was to expose gross waste of funds. I strongly oppose this legislation which would hamper our ability to prosecute people who give our adversaries classified information. So let me ask you this. Ms. Gabbard, do you still support providing individuals who have access to Top Secret information with the ability to make their own decisions regarding whether that information should be publicly disclosed, even though disclosure may cause tremendous harm to our country or our allies? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, we cannot and should not have individual vigilantes within the intelligence community making their own decisions about how, where, and when to expose our Nation's secrets. The intent of the legislation that you have pointed out was pointed toward ensuring due process for those who are charged under the Espionage Act in a court of law. This is a law that has been abused in some cases and used for political purposes. President Obama charged more people under the Espionage Act than any--all other presidents combined. If confirmed as the director of National Intelligence, my sole focus and goal would be our Nation's security, which includes ensuring the security of our Nation's secrets. And I would work to make sure that we don't have any disclosures or vigilantes taking it upon themselves. There are numerous legal paths that will protect this information for those who feel they have concerns. And I look forward to working with you and this Committee on making sure that those protections are known by every single person in the workforce and effectively implemented. Senator Collins. So you do not support allowing individuals to make their own decisions without authorization to disclose secret information, classified information? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, and I believe we have the legal structure in place for those who have concerns to address them. Senator Collins. As you know, there has been speculation in the press that you met with Hezbollah, a terrorist organization affiliated with Iran. Have you ever knowingly met with any members, leaders, or affiliates of Hezbollah? Ms. Gabbard. No, and it is an absurd accusation. Senator Collins. Let me ask you one final question in the short time we have left. With Hamas, ISIS-K, the Houthis, all the Iranian proxies in Syria and Iraq, Yemen, and al-Qaida, all posing general resurgences in the Middle East, Africa, and Central Asia, I am alarmed at the lack of focus by the IC 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 IC miss this. Great power competition--China, Russia--definitely pose threats to our country, but the terrorist threat is arguably the most imminent threat according to former FBI Director Chris Wray. If confirmed, what will be your strategy to refocus the IC on the terrorist threat to our country and to Americans abroad? Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. I agree with your assessment and this speaks to the need for the ODNI to exist, to redirect those resources, identifying the gaps in intelligence so that we are able to get ahead of these 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. Senator Collins. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. Gabbard. I am going to try to get four questions in, so I will be brief. And if you could reciprocate, that would be very much appreciated. We have been talking about Section 702, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And I believe it is critical that the DNI support additional reforms to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans. In your written responses to committee questions, you wrote and I quote, ``Warrants should generally be required before an agency undertakes a U.S. person query of Section 702.'' Is this your current position? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, it is, Senator, and as you'll note in that written response, I noted some exigent circumstances in which there may be other options. But I also want to make a note that a simple warrant requirement is ultimately going to be a policy decision that all of you will make. I would point to history to some examples. Senator Wyden. My time is short. I am glad you answered in line with your written answer in support of a warrant. Section 702 also involves a huge loophole now that was included recently that could allow the government to force anyone with access to a Wi-Fi router or cable box to secretly participate in the warrantless surveillance program. Do you support as I do eliminating this language? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I would have to look more into that and assess if confirmed what the impacts of the implementation of the existing safeguards are and come back to you and Congress as you look at reauthorization. Senator Wyden. It is a massive loophole and I hope to hear after you've looked at it that you'll be supportive of my efforts. Let me turn now to the question of the inspector general situation. Can the President of the United States refuse to fund the inspector general for the intelligence community despite appropriations from Congress? And here, I would like a yes or no. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I don't know about the legal authorities, but I understand the essential role that the inspectors general play, and if confirmed, look forward to empowering our inspector general to fulfill their responsibility. Senator Wyden. Good, because Congress either has the power of the purse or it doesn't, and I think in your answer to me you recognized that you have an independent obligation to follow the law. I think that is a constructive answer. Let me turn now to the matter of spying on journalists. You wrote in your response to committee questions that you support the Biden administration Department of Justice's policy restricting the collection of reporters' records and called for the codification of those restrictions. Will you reconfirm that position this morning? Ms. Gabbard. I believe strongly in the First Amendment which protects a free press. Senator Wyden. So you will, in effect, say you will continue to support the Biden administration policy to protect journalists? Ms. Gabbard. I am not familiar with the specific Biden administration policy, but I believe strongly in the defense of the First Amendment. Senator Wyden. It is a policy to restrict the collection of reporters' records and you have called for the confiscation of those records. So I am going to accept that you are not changing your position and I appreciate it. I think I have time for one more question. While you were Congress, you introduced legislation prohibiting the government from mandating that Americans' phones or apps include mechanisms to allow government to bypass encryption or other privacy technology. In your written responses to the committee questions, you reconfirmed your opposition to these mandates. Is that still your position? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. These backdoors lead down a dangerous path that can undermine Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and civil liberties. Senator Wyden. You are being very helpful by moving so quickly. Let me turn to whistleblowers. You wrote in your response that whistleblowers must have clear protected channels to report concerns including the unauthorized transmittal of classified information to appropriate entities such as Members of Congress. Do you agree that IC whistleblowers must have a clear path to this Committee and that they don't need permission from agencies to talk to us? That is a yes or no. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, 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 is make sure that we don't have the illegal and unconstitutional programs within the intelligence community, making sure that we enact security clearance reform to limit access to our Nation's top secrets. Make sure that every single person in the workforce understands their rights as whistleblowers and the legal channels to take, which would include coming directly to you as Members of Congress as well as establishing a direct hotline to myself should they choose to take that path. Senator Wyden. One last question, if I might. Would you support the declassification of the committee's full report on the CIA's torture program? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I believe in transparency. I have not seen this and so cannot make an honest assessment for that answer. Senator Wyden. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Senator Cornyn. Senator Cornyn. Welcome Ms. Gabbard. Congratulations, and thank you for your service to our Nation. I hope you would take to heart the chairman's comments about the exploding bureaucracy, not only in the government generally but in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. This is a critical role to be played, but unfortunately that role is not made easier or more effective by such a large and unwieldy bureaucracy. Do you believe that 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? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, not only is the answer a strong yes, I would say it is the Director of National Intelligence's responsibility to make sure that the President has access to all the intelligence so that he can make the best informed decisions for our country. Senator Cornyn. And you will be the one actually briefing him on a daily basis, correct? Ms. Gabbard. That's correct. Senator Cornyn. And the President's daily brief and we have heard that is composed of--about 50-60 percent of it is composed of information gleaned by collection under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. I have heard your comments to Senator Wyden and others. You and I talked about the importance of getting dissenting views in front of the President so we don't have groupthink, which can be particularly dangerous in the intelligence collection areas. And I appreciate your agreeing that presenting the policymakers including the President with dissenting views is very important. Are you aware that overwhelmingly the courts that have looked at a challenge to Section 702 based on the Fourth Amendment and any potential warrant requirement have overwhelmingly said that the Fourth Amendment is not implicated by search of lawfully collected intelligence? Ms. Gabbard. I am aware, yes, Senator. Senator Cornyn. Do you disagree with that? Ms. Gabbard. What I began to say in answer to Senator Wyden's previous question on this issue is, number one, the decision about a warrant requirement will be yours to make. Senator Cornyn. But you will be the Director of National Intelligence and people will be wanting to hear from you about what we should do as policymakers. Admittedly, you are not going to be a policymaker, but you certainly will inform us and you do agree that the courts have overwhelmingly held that a warrant is not required, correct? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I am aware of the court rulings but my commitment is to make sure that we uphold the Fourth Amendment rights of Americans and protecting against unlawful seizure and search. There are many different ways to do this. The devil is in the details. There are examples of how even in situations under title I where a warrant is required to surveil a U.S. person---- Senator Cornyn. Title I is different. I agree with you on that. Ms. Gabbard. But my point, Senator, if I may just finish-- -- Senator Cornyn. Excuse me, if that was misused in the case of Carter Page and basically an FBI lawyer lied in order to secure that warrant. Ms. Gabbard. Which is why---- Senator Cornyn. What would be necessary to be shown in order to establish probable cause to a judge in order to obtain a warrant? Ms. Gabbard. Again, Senator, that is not for me to say. That would be for you all to decide and for the Attorney General to weigh in on. Senator Cornyn. Do you know what the elements of probable cause are and whether that is a practical and workable solution? Ms. Gabbard. This is the center of the debate--the high 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. Senator Cornyn. The CIA Director, John Ratcliffe, said during his testimony before this Committee that he believed that a warrant is not only required by law but is actually impractical. Do you disagree with that or agree with that? Ms. Gabbard. I will be in a better position to make an assessment on the practical implications on this, if confirmed as DNI. My commitment is to uphold the Constitution and Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. Senator Cornyn. Where would a warrant be sought, in the Foreign Intelligence Court or in some other Article III court? Ms. Gabbard. My understanding is it would be in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Senator Cornyn. Are you aware of the fact that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has held that a warrant is not required? Ms. Gabbard. I am aware. Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Senator Heinrich. Senator Heinrich. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome. You traveled to Syria and Lebanon in January of 2017. Bassam Khawam personally paid for that trip and Bassam and his brother Elie accompanied you to both Lebanon and Syria. The Khawam brothers have links to the Syrian Social Nationalist Party, an ally of Hezbollah, and in fact, in 2008, the Syrian Social Nationalist Party participated in the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister and assisted Hezbollah in Beirut. When did you become aware of the links between the Khawam brothers and the Syrian Social Nationalist Party? Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator, for the question. 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 Americans' associations until after the trip occurred. Senator Heinrich. And that is when you reimbursed---- Ms. Gabbard. Correct. Senator Heinrich. Because---- Ms. Gabbard. Not because of--I wanted to make sure that there were no perceived conflicts of interest. I addressed this specific question to these Lebanese Americans who had organized the trip, and they vehemently denied any associations with that group. Senator Heinrich. There is not a great deal in the public record about what you and the Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad discussed for so long in January of 2017, and I think there is a great deal of interest from the American people about what was discussed in that meeting. So what did you talk about? And did you press Assad on things like his use of chemical weapons, systematic torture, and the killing of so many of his citizens? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. Upon returning from this trip, I met with people like then-leader Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer, and talked to them and answered their questions about the trip. And, quite frankly, I was surprised that there was no one from the intelligence community or State Department who reached out or showed any interest whatsoever in my takeaways from that trip. I would have been very happy to have a conversation with them and give them a brief. I went with former Congressman Dennis Kucinich who had been there many times before and who had met with Assad before. A number of topics were covered and discussed. And to 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 that were being used against his own people. Senator Heinrich. Were you able to extract any concessions from President Assad? Ms. Gabbard. No and I didn't expect to, but I felt these issues were important to address. Senator Heinrich. According to your revised trip report, your third meeting in Syria after meeting with Assad and then his wife was with Grand Mufti Ahmed Badreddin Hassoun. Forgive me if I am not pronouncing that correctly. In an October of 2011 speech, the Grand Mufti warned the U.S. and Europe that ``we will prepare suicide bombers who are already in your countries if you bomb Syria or Lebanon.'' What was the goal or what did you accomplish by meeting with Grand Mufti? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, before going on this trip and during my time there both in Syria and Lebanon, I made it a point to meet with different religious leaders, both Muslim leaders as well as various Christian and Catholic leaders, who were there in the region. I did that both in Syria and in Lebanon to hear from them about what their concerns or thoughts were with regard to the war that was being waged at the time. Senator Heinrich. Were you aware of his threats regarding suicide bombers in the United States? Ms. Gabbard. I was not and had not heard that until today. Senator Heinrich. Who vetted the people that you met with on this trip to Syria and Lebanon? Ms. Gabbard. The itinerary was created by former Congressman Dennis Kucinich, his constituents who he had traveled with to Syria and Lebanon a number of times before. Some of individuals that I met with were looked at prior to the trip. Others came up during the trip that were unexpected. Senator Heinrich. Just in complete hindsight, would you view this trip as good judgment? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator, and I believe that leaders, whether you be in Congress or the President of the United States, can benefit greatly by going and engaging, boots on the ground, learning and listening and meeting directly with people whether they be adversaries or friends. Senator Heinrich. Last question. Who do you blame--who is responsible for the war in Ukraine? Ms. Gabbard. Putin started the war in Ukraine. Senator Heinrich. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. Senator Moran, before your questions, I want to extend all of our condolences, in particular to the loss of life for your fellow Kansans last night in that air crash. Our prayers are with all of your people back home who lost loved ones. Senator Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So many people here and throughout the halls of Congress have been kind in expressing their condolences, and I appreciate you saying this in this setting just now. Lieutenant Colonel Gabbard, you were asked in your questionnaire about your priorities, and you listed Iran and Hamas and Hezbollah and North Korea. You also mentioned Russia, but the only thing you said about Russia in fulfilling--in fully explaining why it is a priority is ending the war with Russia. When you talk about Russia, what are your fears or policy priorities beyond ending the war? How do you see Russia as a threat to the United States? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, if confirmed as the Director of National Intelligence, it will be paramount for me to assess where our intelligence gaps may exist so that I can provide the President and all of you with the most accurate full picture of that threat assessment to directly answer your questions. I think that it is a complex environment. Russia remains a strategic competitor. There are a number of concerns that have to do with their nuclear weapons as well as how the decisions and policies that are being made by this body and by the President will impact our own national security, which is my foremost concern. Senator Moran. I want to make certain that in no way does Russia get a pass in either your mind or your heart or in any policy recommendation you would make or not make. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I am offended by the question because my sole focus, commitment, and responsibility is about our own nation, our own security, and the interests of the American people. In carrying out the responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence, if confirmed, no country, group, or individual will get a pass in my fulfilling that responsibility of providing that full intelligence picture so that you all can make the best informed policy decisions for the safety, security, and freedom of the American people. You have my commitment to be completely objective, unbiased, and apolitical. And I hope you understand my commitment to our country's interests. Senator Moran. I absolutely do. You have answered my question in the manner in which I wanted to hear, that you will do this in an objective manner, provide the information necessary, and that Russia, if it is a threat, you will tell us so and tell us the details of that threat. Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. Senator Moran. How would you restructure the national intelligence priority framework to better align with President Trump's national security goals? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, this is a discussion--if confirmed--I look forward to having with the President and his National Security Advisor, again, based on the threat assessment and based on the President's priorities. He has spoken about a number of different priorities in different parts of the world. I would work with them on that national intelligence priorities framework which will serve as the foundation for the intelligence elements under ODNI. Senator Moran. Any recommendations that you have in mind to make to President Trump in that regard? Ms. Gabbard. I want to make sure that any recommendations that I make to the President are fully informed. From where I sit now, I don't believe that I can make those recommendations. I take that responsibility seriously, and wouldn't want to shortchange him without first doing the due diligence and work to make sure my recommendations are well founded. Senator Moran. How will you, Lieutenant Colonel, as the DNI, if confirmed, meet the objectivity and political neutrality requirements to ensure that you are telling the White House what they need to hear and not what they want to hear? A follow-up to that is how will you handle conflicting intelligence reports from the various members of the intelligence community and present a broad intelligence picture to the President? Ms. Gabbard. Thank you for the question, Senator. I hope that you have confidence in my ability to extract politics from what my role will be as Director of National Intelligence, because it is something I have done for almost 22 years now wearing the uniform both serving in the National Guard and Army Reserve, even while holding political office. There is a brick wall between the two, and I have fulfilled that obligation in uniform, as I will as Director of National Intelligence, if confirmed. I think the President, I know the President values hearing a lot of different views and I would make sure that in the intelligence community's responsibilities that dissenting views are not only allowed but encouraged. And where they present themselves, make sure that the President and you as policymakers are aware so that you can make your best informed decision. Senator Moran. Would you agree with me that bias and prejudice if it exists any place exists on both sides of an issue, both partisan sides of this place called Washington, DC? And the goal--the effort--that you will make is to make certain that all the information is presented in that nonpartisan, direct, and manner based upon the facts as known? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator, I agree. And you have my commitment. This is essential for the American people and all of you to have faith and trust in the intelligence products that are being delivered. Senator Moran. One of the greatest challenges is knowing who is telling us the truth, and we need a DNI who tells the truth. True? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. I have a long record of speaking truth to power and will continue that commitment if confirmed in this role. Senator Moran. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator King. Senator King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gabbard, I simply want to applaud your service both in the military and in the Congress--two very challenging jobs-- and I want to thank you for that. I noted that Edward Snowden was in Hawaii of all places for a year and a half before he fled to Hong Kong and then off to Russia. Did you ever meet him or have any contact with him during that period or subsequently with telephone calls, emails, zooms--contact with him or his lawyers? Ms. Gabbard. No, Senator, not at any time did I have any contact with Edward Snowden. Senator King. And you introduced a bill in 2020 that essentially was a pardon. It basically said all charges should be dropped. You had a lot of whereases in that bill. Where did the factual basis for those whereas clauses come from? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, if I recall in that bill, it came from publicly available information. Senator King. I see. And were you aware that there was a bipartisan committee report from the House Intelligence Committee in 2016 on Snowden's activities? Ms. Gabbard. I don't recall specifically at that time, but I am aware of that committee's report and executive summary that was reported publicly. I did not have access to the classified report that summary was based on. Senator King. Did you read that report prior to filing your bill in 2020? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I don't recall specifically. I remember reading a lot of materials prior to filing that bill. Senator King. Well, the bipartisan committee report, the first item, Edward Snowden perpetrated the largest and most damaging public release of classified information in U.S. intelligence history. It 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 programs that impacted individual privacy. But you don't recall ever seeing the work of that committee? Ms. Gabbard. I am aware of those conclusions drawn. Senator King. You are aware now. Were you aware at the time? Ms. Gabbard. Yes I was, Senator. Edward Snowden broke the law. There is no question about that. He should not have released all of that information that caused that harm. There is no question about that. Senator King. How many documents did he release? Ms. Gabbard. I know that he took over a million documents. I don't know specifically how many of those million he specifically released. Senator King. You stated very unequivocally today that Snowden broke the law, but you introduced a bill in Congress along with Congressman Matt Gaetz to essentially pardon him. He broke the law but it wasn't all that serious? Is that what you thought in 2023? Ms. Gabbard. I take very seriously upholding our Constitution, and I have sworn an oath to support and defend that Constitution over eight times in my life. My statements in the past have been reflective of the egregious and illegal programs that were exposed in that leak. Senator King. But you ignore the vast majority, as the committee found, bipartisan. I think Devin Nunes was the Chair and Adam Schiff was the vice chairman. The conclusion was that the vast majority of these things that he released had nothing to do with constitutional rights, the Fourth Amendment, but indeed were enormous compromises of our national security. You didn't seem worried about that. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I focused on raising concerns around egregious, illegal, and unconstitutional programs that our government was conducting that clearly violated Americans' Fourth Amendment rights. I think the most important thing that I hope all of you find to be relevant here is that 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 20 years, of holding a security clearance of some sort myself, either Secret or Top Secret, and I never once violated the responsibility and privilege that comes with holding that clearance. And I have a specific action plan in place to make sure there is not another Snowden-type leak in the future. Senator King. I think you testified that you never saw the classified version of this report. Ms. Gabbard. That's correct. Senator King. On page 22 of the report there is a heading that is not classified that says ``What Damage Did Snowden Cause?'' And there is a lot of redacted material. Did that not raise a red flag for you? Ms. Gabbard. Edward Snowden broke the law. Senator King. You said that. Ms. Gabbard. I did not have access---- Senator King. Did you seek access to it? Ms. Gabbard. I believe so, yes. This was quite some time ago. Senator King. But you still introduced your bill. Ms. Gabbard. I take very seriously the protection of Americans' civil liberties and our Fourth Amendment rights. If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I would make sure that there is no further Snowden-type leak in the future and that those who have concerns have legal channels to raise those concerns so that we don't violate and release our Nation's secrets. Senator King. There are about 20 countries in the world that don't---- Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator King. Your time has expired. Senator Lankford. Senator Lankford. Tulsi, it is good to see you again. Thanks for the time that we got a chance to be able to spend together and talk about a lot of these issues. Thanks for your service both in Congress, even though you were in the wrong party at the time, and your service to the country, through your service there including my great State of Oklahoma to have the opportunities to serve there. I want to give you an opportunity for you to be able to answer a few things about it and there has been a lot of questions about 702 and Edward Snowden. And it may seem like this is repetitive to be able to go through it but there are thousands of intelligence employees and folks that have also taken an oath to the country and Constitution. They serve our country every day. They are the folks that don't have a uniform on that no one ever says thank you for them and no one ever buys them lunch because people don't know who these people are, but they every day put their lives on the line and they work very hard to protect Americans. And when Edward Snowden got mad at his employer that he didn't get the promotion that he wanted and started harvesting information, and then found some things that he didn't like on it, and then kept going, and then released them to the media and went to China, and then went from China to Russia and became a Russian citizen, and continued to be able to layer out intelligence unrelated to the civil liberties of any American, and then said: I have more and I can release them any time I want. They don't see him as brave. They see him as a traitor. And the concern among so many here, and I think what a lot of folks in the intelligence community that you have the responsibility to oversight is, they want to hear that you also believe the same thing--not just that he broke the law, but that he is a traitor, because they don't want that to ever happen again. And all the sources that they had that they trusted and trusted them, now their lives are at risk. And all the programs that they had determined lawful, all collapsed and that intelligence was gone and the President didn't have access to a lot of information for decisionmaking. So this is a big deal to everybody here because it is a big deal to everybody that you will also oversee in that role as well. So it is helpful to hear your heart on this. So, was Edward Snowden a traitor? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, my heart is with my commitment to our Constitution and our Nation's security. Senator Lankford. Ours, too. Ms. Gabbard. 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 is why I am committed if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence to join you in making sure that there is no future Snowden-type leak, and I would do so by taking four specific actions. Number one, again to make sure there are no illegal and unconstitutional programs limiting in a big way those who have access to our Nation's top secrets through security clearance reform, making sure that every single person in the workforce knows about the legal whistleblower channels available to them, and making sure that there is a direct line available to me should anyone have concerns. If people choose to step outside of those legal channels to raise any concerns about programs or actions that exist in the intelligence community that are classified, there will be no excuse to do so and they should be charged and prosecuted under the law. Senator Lankford. Was he a traitor when he took America's secrets, released them to the public, and then ran to China and then became a Russian citizen? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I am focused on the future and how we can prevent something like this from happening again. Senator Lankford. You would have the responsibility to give counsel to the President, which is a great privilege. You already have his ear, quite frankly. And you have a great relationship on that which is very beneficial. But when President Trump chose to take the strike on Soleimani, he was also at the same time going through an impeachment in the House, and you were kind of tough on him at the time on that. You called it a declaration of war. You said that the Soleimani strike will lead to an outcome that will further undermine our national security. As a Member of Congress I also take seriously a declaration of war and our responsibility in that. He was acting in a way that he came out and intelligence gave--that Soleimani was in the process of preparing a strike on American citizens and those folks that were in the field at the time. I guess the question that I have is, the ODNI will sit with the President and provide options to the President and say: ``Here are the options that you could take.'' Would you have presented a Soleimani strike at that time, looking back at it now in retrospect, and say: This is an option that you could take and here is how to be able to do it. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. It is an important question. If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I would make sure that the President has all of the objective analysis and intelligence reporting to make that best informed decision, including all of the options and actions that he has available to him, which should exist alongside an assessment of what the possible repercussions or responses to those actions may be. My own personal views have no place in that assessment, in providing to the President and his advisers with all of those options available. Senator Lankford. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Lankford. Senator Bennet. Senator Bennet. Thank you. I would like to repeat my colleague's question to you. Thank you for being here to answer these questions and for your service. Was Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I will also repeat my answer. He broke the law. Senator Bennet. You said earlier that you were offended by the question that my colleague from Kansas asked which I think was his duty as somebody on this Committee to fulfill his responsibility to advise and consent. We are not here to be a rubber stamp for the President of the United States. So let me ask you again: Do you believe, as the Chairman of this Committee believes, as the vast majority of Members of our intelligence believe, that Edward Snowden was a traitor to the United States of America? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, if confirmed. Senator Bennet. When the rubber hits the road, this is not--this is not a moment for social media--it is not a moment to propagate theories--conspiracy theories or attacks on journalism in the United States. This is when you need to answer the questions of the people whose votes you are asking for to be confirmed as the chief intelligence officer of this Nation. As my colleague said, this is not about you. It is about the people that serve the intelligence agencies of the United States. Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? That is not a hard question to answer when the stakes are this high. Ms. Gabbard. Senator as someone who has served in uniform-- -- Senator Bennet. Is your answer yes or no? Is Edward Snowden a traitor to the United States of America? Ms. Gabbard. As someone---- Senator Bennet. I will go on to my questions. Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. In combat, I understand how critical our national security is. Senator Bennet. Apparently you don't. Apparently you don't. Let me ask you. I have worked very hard to put your own words here in front of the committee--not fake news, not conspiracy theories on the internet, but the actual things that you have said. On February 23, 2022, at the very moment that Russian tanks were rolling across the peaceful border of Ukraine for the first time, you tweeted at 11:30 p.m. your time: ``This war and suffering could have easily been avoided if Biden administration/NATO had simply acknowledged Russia's legitimate, legitimate security concerns regarding Ukraine's becoming a member of NATO.'' Did you say that, yes or no? Ms. Gabbard. I believe you are reading my tweet, Senator. Senator Bennet. Yes is the answer. A few months later you said on your podcast, and I quoted it--quote ``but this regime change war against Russia that the U.S. and NATO are waging via their proxy in Ukraine didn't begin when Putin invaded Ukraine. They had their eyes set on this objective long before that.'' Did you say that, yes or no? Ms. Gabbard. I believe you are reading my tweet. There's a lot more. Senator Bennet. Thank you. The answer is yes. Ms. Gabbard. You are quoting a podcast that provided much more context. Senator Bennet. I'd be happy to have a conversation with the chairman about whether I am taking anything out of context. I don't think I am. And your answer is yes. Are you aware that your comments about proxy wars and Russia's ``legitimate''--``legitimate security concerns'' to quote your own words, are in alignment with what the Russians have said to justify their invasion of Ukraine, yes or no? Ms. Gabbard. I don't pay attention to Russian propaganda. Senator Bennet. Okay. I will take that as the answer is no. Ms. Gabbard. My goal is to speak the truth, regardless of whether you like it or not. Senator Bennet. That is fine. You are used to speaking truth to power. I am shocked to hear you now say---- Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Senator Bennet [continuing]. That you are agreeing. I am not shocked because I know you said it. You are agreeing that you basically said that Putin was justified in rolling over the peaceful border of Ukraine, the first time since World War II that a free nation has been invaded by a totalitarian State and you were there at 11:30 p.m. that night to say that you were with them, not us. And let me tell you something. You say you don't know because you don't read Russian propaganda. Russian State TV then aired your comments, did you know that? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I think you should also quote the statement that I made criticizing Putin for his invasion. Senator Bennet. I would say--what I would say, Mr. Chairman, it is up to all of us. We are the Senate. We get to decide whether we confirm this nominee. Obviously we didn't select this nominee, but can't we do better than somebody who doesn't believe in 702? Can't we believe that somebody who can't answer whether Snowden was a traitor, five times today, who made excuses for Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, the first time that I am aware of any American official has done that. I am questioning her judgment. That is the issue that is at stake here. And as you said, and I totally agree, this is about our intelligence officers. And you cannot answer. Most of what we do here is in secret. This is one of the very few opportunities that you will ever have to have a conversation with this panel in public, and the record is going to be very clear about the position you took with regard to Edward Snowden, and the record is going to be very clear about your reaffirmation of the statements you made in the middle of the night when Russia was invading the free country of Ukraine. Chairman Cotton. Okay. Time is up. Senator Bennet. And I hope you will take that in consideration when we need to have this vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Senator Bennet, your time has expired. I will note that during Senator Bennet's question and answer there was two disturbances in the room. The first sounded like a cell phone. I would ask everyone on both sides of the dais if you have not silenced or turned off your cell phone, please do so now. The second disturbance was the cries of a small child. We will welcome such disturbances because the cries of an infant are the sound of answered prayers. [Laughter.] Senator Rounds. Senator Rounds. Not only here, but the answered prayers in church when they cry as well, Mr. Chairman. First of all, thank you for your service to our country. I think part of the discussion here, as you can see, we feel very, very strongly about FISA 702. We work with it literally every day. As you can also tell, we have very, very strong feelings here with regard to the actions of Edward Snowden. I want to come back and I will give you an opportunity to make any corrections or to make any other comments with regard to both of those issues that have been brought up here--but before I get into that, I want to go back into a little bit of your previous history as well. You did serve in Hawaii. You served as a Congress person for eight years. Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. Senator Rounds. And during that time you served on the Armed Services Committee. And during that time period you did carry a TS SCI clearance. You worked your way through that time period. You had an opportunity to look at a lot of information. Can you share just a little bit about the way you looked at, not just as a Member of the congressional delegation in Hawaii, but also about the time in which you were a Lieutenant Colonel serving up through and including a battalion commander? Talk a little bit about that, please. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator, for your question. In both of those roles I had exposure to different sides of how critical our national security is and the unique role that our intelligence community plays in ensuring our national security. My most recent deployment with the military was as part of a Joint Special Operations Task Force, to Djibouti and Somalia where our mission was to support the Somali government and military's focus on defeating al-Shabaab which is al-Qaida's element there within East Africa. One of the things that we came across there that I hadn't known previously even having served in Congress for eight years because it hadn't been focused on was how al-Shabaab specifically was the biggest funder al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula which, again, should be of unique concern and interest to our own national security concerns. Being able to engage with world leaders in both capacities, in uniform and as a member of Congress, being a customer of intelligence in both of those roles gives me a unique perspective. If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, to come in with fresh eyes, to come in with some of the frustrations that I experienced as a member of Congress about the lack of information we received from the intelligence community, oftentimes feeling as though everything we heard in a brief could have been read in the newspaper that morning, and the essential oversight role that all of you play here in Congress, you are unable to do so unless you are equipped with that intelligence and information. And I am committed to fulfilling that responsibility if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence. Senator Rounds. Okay. Now, when you and I first met, I told you that I thought you needed to kind of take a change in the direction you were going with regard to how you were approaching the private conversations and we wanted you to sit down and meet with some folks who were directly involved in gathering the intelligence and so forth. You did that. Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Senator Rounds. And then we came back and we sat back down again. And what those individuals who I had talked to and who I asked you to talk with shared with me that they thought you were a quick study and that you had the opportunity to look at a number of the issues that this committee considers to be extremely sensitive, 702 in particular. I've got about a minute left, but I want to give you an opportunity in front of this committee to share your position in your own words about how strong or how much it is needed with regard to a continuation of 702 and your support for it. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. Section 702 provides a unique security tool and capability that is essential for our national security. There are a number of areas that we would be blind from a national security perspective without this capability. It also must exist next to having safeguards in place to ensure American civil liberties are protected. As you know, Senator, it is illegal under 702 to target any U.S. person. There are several other sections within FISA which speak to some of the civil liberties reforms that you all passed in last year's legislation. Senator Rounds. So let me finish with this: Section 702 in its current form stays in effect for the next year. You would agree that there were reforms made which fixed a number of the items that you had a problem with in the first place; is that correct? Ms. Gabbard. It is correct, Senator. And some of those reforms that you enacted were specific to some of the legislation that I introduced back when I was in Congress, such as prohibiting the about's collection as well. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Rounds. Senator Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Gabbard, for your service both in Congress and with the U.S. military. I want to talk to you a little bit about your perspectives on China. How do you view China in your national security role? Ms. Gabbard. Our relationship with China is one that is complex, given how closely our economies are linked. There are a number of challenges and threats that need to be navigated with respect to China, some of which have come up most recently with this very serious cyber exploitation in Salt Typhoon and Volt Typhoon that seemingly took us by surprise, and the compromising of our major telecom companies is an area of significant and great concern. Senator Gillibrand. Some of your past statements that are relevant to China are concerning because I don't think it fully appreciates China's perspective to the United States; for example, with regard to TikTok. Your past statements have essentially said that requiring domestic ownership of TikTok is a violation of civil liberties and the national security concerns are complete BS. Can you explain why you have this view on TikTok? Ms. Gabbard. The position that I previously made, obviously not as a member of Congress as you consider the TikTok legislation, were centered around the protection of Americans' First Amendment rights and the lack of data privacy legislation, frankly, that would apply to TikTok, Facebook, X, all of these different social media applications that collect on us as users of these applications. There were other provisions within that legislation that granted very vague and grandiose authorities to the President on deciding which private companies are or are not a national security threat. Senator Gillibrand. Let's talk about China specifically, because I just want to make sure you understand what is at stake. We have had concerns over many years that when China owns infrastructure, it can manipulate that infrastructure. It can use it for spying. It can turn it on or off. You have actually addressed some of the most recent cyberattacks that we believe China had relevant participation. The challenge is, if China owns TikTok, it means they can spy on the United States, on the American people. It can take all the data from our children. It can change the narrative about what people are talking about through their algorithms. If it wants to create misinformation or malign foreign influence, it is very easy. So can you understand why it is so important that we require domestic ownership of TikTok? Ms. Gabbard. I understand the concerns, Senator. I would just reiterate some of my concerns that I stated in the past about how this really is an issue about data privacy because so much of what is collected by all of these even U.S. companies-- -- Senator Gillibrand. Excuse me. I get it and that is a bigger issue for Congress to wrestle, and I am all in for that conversation--but I want you to appreciate China. What is your view with regard to Taiwan? Do you think that it is something that your intelligence efforts will understand how important our relationship is with Taiwan, specifically on chips manufacturing? I think President Trump has recently decided to have 100 percent tariffs on all chips from Taiwan. In your statement, particularly about the bill--we passed the CHIPS Act to make sure that domestic production is invested in so that we have that supply chain and we have that for national security, but your public statements about the CHIPS Act have been very negative and don't seem to appreciate how important that independence is for our national security to be beholden to China, to be beholden to Taiwan, to be in a place where we can't do our own national intelligence. Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. I fully support the investment in building and strengthening our own domestic capabilities. If I recall, that legislation had a lot of other provisions in it that had nothing to do with the production of our own capability and I felt were a distraction away from and a potential obstacle toward achieving that. Senator Gillibrand. So you will recommend to the President that we continue to invest in the semiconductor industry in the United States for our own independence as well as our own national security? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator, and I would base my recommendations on a number of these--all of these issues if confirmed as DNI, based on the full assessment of the intelligence picture so the President understands the ramifications and the potential costs toward any one of these policy positions that he will make and all of you will make. Senator Gillibrand. Last, I want to return to the Soleimani strike. At the time you said it was illegal, that what President Trump did was illegal and would cause very significant problems down the line. What is your position on that strike and will you be able to advise the President in future issues with regard to national security? Ms. Gabbard. Those broader issues I raised with regard to war powers I have been consistent on. I didn't have access to all the information behind that strike at the time, and my concerns were that it could be an escalatory action. President Trump was right. There was no escalation beyond that and his policies toward Iran turned out to be very effective for our own national security. Chairman Cotton. Your time has expired, Senator. Senator Gillibrand. Can I just--Do you disagree with the President taking away the protection for those who are now being targeted in retaliation for the Soleimani strike, such as Secretary Pompeo? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I can't answer that without being able to look at the intelligence assessment and the threat assessment for that or other decisions. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Senator Young. Senator Young. Tulsi, it is good to see you. We had a nice visit in the office. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. Senator Young. And I appreciate you being here today. It was clear in that visit that we share a lot of concerns-- concerns about ill-advised foreign regime change interventions, about the weaponization in certain instances of our domestic law enforcement and intel authorities. Let me talk about something--Edward Snowden--on which we may not agree. It has been recognized he fled overseas with-- the number is 1.5 million classified documents. He shared them with the press. He absconded to China and Russia. Do you have any response to the bipartisan findings of the House intel committee which stated that ``Snowden caused tremendous damage to national security'' including to military, defense and intelligence programs of great interest to America's adversaries? I will give you an opportunity to respond, hopefully, briefly. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. As I said before, Edward Snowden broke the law and I do not agree with how he chose to release information and the extent of the information and intelligence that he released. It is my focus on the future, and I think we can all agree that we do not want to have an another Snowden-type leak, and have laid out specific actions if confirmed as DNI to do that. Senator Young. Well, it is notable that you didn't say yes, and clearly, he hurt in various ways our national security. The same House committee also reported that based on DoD assessments, should the Chinese or Russians access certain documents relating to DOD capabilities that we know Snowden stole, `Àmerican troops will be at greater risk in any future conflicts.'' Do you have any reflection on this assessment? Ms. Gabbard. I would be very concerned about that. I have not had access to the information or intelligence that led to that assessment. But anything that puts our men and women in uniform unnecessarily at risk should be a grave concern. Senator Young. I share that sentiment as a former Marine Corps intelligence officer. When we find that Americans, whether private citizens or contractors or uniformed personnel have shared sensitive designs about military technology or plans to a foreign government, however well intentioned, we rightfully throw the book at them. Snowden did just that. Yet, you have argued many times that he should be pardoned. You introduced legislation, as has been discussed here. He has been able to publicly hide, as I see it, behind this facade of being a so-called ``whistleblower,'' but he likely endangered American lives through his actions. So as the leader of the intelligence community, how would you think you would be received based on some of these past actions to support or even to pardon Edward Snowden by rank- and-file intelligence analysts and intelligence professionals? How do you think you will be received? Ms. Gabbard. I am grateful, Senator, to have received letters of endorsement in support from many current and former individuals who have worked within the intelligence community, those who worked or are still working within our military, because I believe they trust that my goal--my sole goal and interest is in our Nation's security and upholding our oath to the Constitution, and they trust that, if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I will take the very specific steps that I have laid out in informing every single person within the intelligence community about the legal pathways that they have to blow the whistle, to bring any concerns to the forefront to include coming directly to Members of Congress to limit access so that we don't have people who are E3's or E4's or people in any situation taking it upon themselves to release classified information, giving them a direct line to me to once again make sure we are all fulfilling our responsibility to secure our national security and uphold our Constitution. Senator Young. Thank you. Tulsi, was Edward Snowden false to an obligation or false to a duty? Ms. Gabbard. I don't understand what you are saying. False? Senator Young. Yes. Did he betray a duty? Did he betray the trust of the American people, which is, according to Merriam- Webster, that is the definition of a traitor. Ms. Gabbard. Edward Snowden broke the law and he released this information in a way that he should not have. He also acknowledged and exposed information that was unconstitutional which drove a lot of the reforms that this body has made over the years to make sure that Americans' constitutional rights were protected. Senator Young. For what it is worth, Mr. Snowden is watching these proceedings. He's posted on social media, even, indicating that Tulsi Gabbard ``should indicate that I harmed national security.'' This may be the rare instance in which I agree with Mr. Snowden. I think it would befit you and be helpful to the way you are perceived by Members of the intelligence community if you would at least acknowledge that the greatest whistleblower in American history, so-called, harmed national security by breaking the laws of the land around our intel authorities. So, thank you for being here. Chairman Cotton. Thank you. Senator Kelly. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Gabbard, first to say thank you for your service to this country. Ms. Gabbard. Likewise. Senator Kelly. In Congress and in the Army, and thank you for meeting with me a couple of weeks ago and for being here today. You are nominated to lead and coordinate across the intelligence community's numerous sources of collection and analytic capabilities. In a few sentences, could you describe how you make assessments and how you are going to sift through all this intelligence and make careful and thoughtful conclusions? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. There are great professionals who work within the intelligence community. I will build a strong team around me as they present the intelligence reporting to provide to the President for the President's daily brief and to respond to issues and concerns that this body has. I will welcome dissenting voices to be able to make sure that this information and intelligence is thoroughly vetted prior to presenting it, and make sure that the truth is reported, whether that truth is convenient or not. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Colonel Gabbard, and I appreciate that. The President and others are going to rely on that. I want to discuss such an assessment made by the IC. For years the U.S. analyzed evidence of numerous chemical weapons attacks in Syria. Eventually, we were able to assess that Bashar al-Assad was responsible for a number of attacks that slaughtered his own civilians. Do you accept the conclusion broadly that Assad used chemical weapons against Syrians? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, and I am on the record for years of agreeing with that broad assessment. Senator Kelly. Thank you. Among the attacks, the U.S. assessed Assad was responsible for two that occurred in Douma and Khan Sheikhoun in Syria. As a Member of Congress and as a Presidential candidate and as recently as this month in your written responses to this committee, you have cast doubt on the assessment that Assad is culpable in these two attacks. Is that still your position? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I raised those questions given conflicting information and evidence that was presented at that time. Senator Kelly. Thank you. So to help inform the public, the Trump administration released declassified intelligence in 2017 and again in 2018 showing how experts analyzed multiple types of evidence--satellite imagery, medical experts, witnesses, describing sources and showing the reasoning used to determine Assad's culpability in using these chemical weapons, including in Douma and Khan Sheikhoun in these attacks and these were the ones you questioned. I have two documents I want to submit for the record, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Admitted. Senator Kelly. Thank you. Were you aware of the declassified assessments, the ones I referenced? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, I was. Senator Kelly. As a Member of the House Armed Services Committee and Foreign Affairs Committee, did you take time to review these? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Senator Kelly. Thank you. Can you explain to me then why you doubted the intelligence community's conclusions in these two cases, Douma and Khan Sheikhoun, but not the others? And please be specific. Ms. Gabbard. These two cases were being looked at to be used as a pretext for major military movement. And another--my fear was a repeat of the deployment of another half million soldiers like we saw in Iraq towards what was the Obama administration's goal, which was regime change in Syria. The question specifically that I raised around these two came about because there were two reasons. One, that assessment was made with high confidence and low information. The information that they had came from those on the ground in an al-Qaida controlled area, and therefore were al-Qaida linked sources. And there was conflicting information that came from the U.N.'s Office on the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons inspectors as well as MIT Professor Ted Postol. Senator Kelly. So, let's talk about him. Did you look into his credentials? Ms. Gabbard. Yes. Senator Kelly. Were you aware of his appearances on ``Russia Today'' which is used by the Russians to disseminate government-approved messages? Ms. Gabbard. No. Senator Kelly. Were you aware Postol relied on a chemistry student with a record of defending the Assad regime? Ms. Gabbard. At that time, I was not. I have been made aware since. Senator Kelly. Do you consider this person or these two individuals now, do you consider them a better source for the chemistry of sarin gas in the U.S. intelligence community? Ms. Gabbard. I assessed that at the time the information--I don't know the second person you are referring to, but MIT Professor Ted Postol and the inspectors at the OPCW provided some credible questions that deserved examination. Senator Kelly. Did you attempt to weigh Postol's claims against significant evidence and assessments already conducted by the IC? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, I did. Senator Kelly. Thank you. So here's my concern, here, Colonel. When we began this, you described a thoughtful approach to analyzing intelligence and reaching conclusions. This is what we expect of our professionals. But we just kind of walked through how you came to question Assad's use of chemical weapons in these two cases with a different approach. And I don't reject seeking out differing viewpoints. We need to do that. But you started from a place of doubting the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community and then you sought out information that confirmed your viewpoint. That led you to embrace the opinions of two individuals that--I think we disagree on this--you think they had expertise. I do not and others do not. But these individuals were sympathetic to Russia and the Assad regime. It also led you to minimize or discount the overwhelming information that contradicted your viewpoint, including the expert assessments of our own intelligence community. And they don't get it right 100 percent of the time. I get that. But what I have seen makes it clear that at the same time you were skeptical of our intelligence community's assessments, you would not apply the same skepticism to information that came from sympathizers of Russia and Assad. And I think that is something that we should all be concerned about. I am sorry to go on so long. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Kelly. I want to recognizee and welcome our newest Member, Senator Budd. Although we all regret Senator Rubio's departure, we are all pleased, as evidenced by a 99-to-nothing vote, that he is now Secretary of State and also pleased that we have a great new Member on our Committee. Senator Budd. Senator Budd. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for your leadership here as well. Colonel Gabbard, nice seeing you again, and I enjoyed meeting you in my office a while back, as well as our friendship and serving together in the U.S. House. As you know, Section 3023 of title 50 states, `àny individual nominated for appointment as DNI shall have extensive national security expertise.'' You served four terms as a Member of the House of Representatives, which is a constitutional office, and throughout your tenure you were a member of the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee; is that correct? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. Senator Budd. You also served over two decades in the U.S. Army, including holding commands at multiple levels and served through administrations of both political parties; is that correct? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, Senator. Senator Budd. Throughout your time in the U.S. House and the Army, you have both been both a consumer of intelligence and a policymaker. How important is it for the intelligence community to provide timely, relevant, factual, and objective intelligence to policymakers? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, it is nothing less than a matter of our national security. Too often, in the multitude of intelligence failures that our country has seen, that objective has not been met. Now CIA Director Ratcliffe talked about in his testimony before this Committee how the CIA's own internal metrics have shown that analytic objectivity has gone down within that organization. This is the very kind of thing that I would seek to address if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, is ensuring that politics, biases, or personal views are checked at the door. I would lead by example by doing it myself and by ensuring that intelligence analysis and reporting meets the objective that the President and Congress requires, which is no politics, no personal abuses, and making sure that that objectivity in a timely, relevant fashion is brought to the President so that we can get ahead of the problems in ensuring our national security rather than being caught on our heels and being forced to respond to them. Senator Budd. Thank you for that. I think it is clear from your background and experience that you more than meet the statutory requirements for this position. I want to switch gears a little bit. There has been a lot of discussion, I think necessary discussion, about your position on Section 702 of FISA. I personally have had concerns, and I think we even talked about this when we served in the House together. I actually voted against its reauthorization when I was in the House. However, I recently voted to reauthorize Section 702 with additional safeguards to end the politicization of the tool and to ensure national--to ensure privacy and civil liberties--that they are protected. So, Ms. Gabbard, tell us how has your thinking on Section 702 developed over time and why, and, if confirmed, what will you do to ensure that these new statutory safeguards are fully implemented? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, as you pointed out, many of the concerns that we raised when we served in the House of Representatives were centered around the lack of safeguards to protect Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and civil liberties as it pertains to searching of U.S. persons with that incidental collection that occurs under 702. You and I both know and agree that the national security capability that is provided by Section 702 that enables this foreign surveillance on non-U.S. persons overseas is critical, period. My commitment is to make sure that our national security tools are maintained to fulfill that requirement while also protecting Americans' Fourth Amendment rights and protection against unlawful search and seizure. There are a number of those reforms that you referenced such as the prohibition of about collection, which we brought up when we served in the House, making sure that 100 percent of U.S. persons by the FBI on this incidental collection are reviewed by the Attorney General herself. There are a number of other reforms that I believe strengthen significantly those safeguards, a number of them that I had worked to try to bring into place when I was in the House of Representatives. I look forward, if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, to overseeing and assessing the implementation of these reforms and reporting back to you as you begin to consider next year's reauthorization and meeting that mark of ensuring our security and upholding Americans' Fourth Amendment protections. Senator Budd. Thank you. Switching gears a little bit. Talk briefly, if you will, about the task of simultaneously protecting whistleblowers and protecting classified information. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, there are more than sufficient legally protected routes for whistleblowers to come forward should they have concerns on any actions occurring within the intelligence community. I have spoken about the additional protections that I personally will put in place if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, understanding the seriousness of protecting our Nation's secrets, and one that I hold personally. Senator Budd. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Budd. I will recognize Senator Wicker, an ex officio member of our committee, which is Latin for so powerful a man that he can go to any committee he wants and ask questions at any time. Senator Wicker. I look at it differently, Mr. Chairman. I think what you are saying is that I am the only nonvoting member of the committee that is at this hearing, and I have been at an Armed Services Committee hearing most of the morning. Let me ask about something that happened a long time ago and something that is happening right now, Colonel Gabbard. I was a Member of the House of Representatives on 9/11/2001. As a matter of fact, I was at the Pentagon that very morning when the attacks happened. Where were you when 9/11--we all remember where we were. Ms. Gabbard. Yes. I was in Hawaii. There was a 5 or 6-hour time difference, so when I woke up that morning, it was several hours, and I remember the first thing I saw in waking up was that horrific footage of those airplanes attacking the Twin Towers in New York City. Senator Wicker. And I think you obviously have read a lot about it during the 24-plus years since that, and most Americans have. There is a general consensus that there was a massive intelligence failure that caught us all by surprise, even though the World Trade Center had been attacked earlier. Do you think stovepiping was a problem in our intelligence failure? Ms. Gabbard. There is no question about it, Senator. Senator Wicker. Okay. Well, based on your reading--okay, could you elaborate? Ms. Gabbard. Yes, absolutely, Senator. When we look back at the post-9/11 reporting and the post-assessments that were made, it was very clear that there was stovepiping of information and intelligence that occurred at many levels--at the highest, but also at the lowest levels--information that was collected by the FBI, information that was collected by the CIA--was not being shared. It was almost ships passing in the night. Where, if there was an integration of those intelligence elements and information being shared, it is highly likely that that horrific attack could have been prevented. Senator Wicker. And that is the reason, really, your position was created. There has been some discussion this morning--again, I have not been able to listen in, but I understand there has been some discussion about reforming the Office of the DNI to eliminate redundancy and increase effectiveness. Do you worry that in doing so, we might be getting back to the same problem that we had in 2001? Ms. Gabbard. The problem that we had in 2001, Senator, remains at the forefront of my mind and, as I said, this is exactly why the ODNI was created. Given my limited vantage point of not being in the seat, I am concerned that there are still problems with stovepiping that need to be addressed and in some cases my concern would be that unnecessary bureaucratic layers may be contributing to that problem. This is where coming in and being really able to take a fresh look given my experience and my background will be essential to making sure that the ODNI is accomplishing the reason why it was created in the first place. Senator Wicker. Okay. And I have a lot of suggestions about how to make the Department of Defense more efficient also. I would simply caution you, before I move on to that other quick question, that as we are trying to eliminate overlaps, that we avoid getting back to the thing that created your agency to start with. Now, let me just ask about 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? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, thank you for this question. It has been deeply concerning throughout this period from the first time this was discovered so long ago to where we are today that the intelligence community still has failed to identify the source and the cause for Havana syndrome as it is commonly known, even as many people who are in service are suffering the consequences of it. I look forward if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence to addressing this, making sure that those who have been impacted are getting the care that they need and deserve, but getting to the truth behind how and why this has occurred. Senator Wicker. Are you saying that we are not any closer to understanding where this came from? Ms. Gabbard. Based on my understanding there has not been any definitive reporting from the intelligence community on the source and cause for these anomalous health incidents. Senator Wicker. Okay. Well, perhaps if you would like I could follow-up on the record. Ms. Gabbard. I'd look forward to that. Senator Wicker. I think there is some more public information that is recent about that. Thank you, Ma'am. Ms. Gabbard. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Wicker. As I acknowledged at the outset, it is the custom of this Committee to allow a follow-up question for Senators who remain present at the end of the regular 5-minute round of questions. I remind everyone, this is a follow-up question not a 5- minute round of questioning. We will have Ms. Gabbard in a closed session in which each of us will have yet another 5- minute round of questions. Is there any Senator who wishes to be recognized for a follow-up question? Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden. Thank you very much. Ms. Gabbard, there is an area that I believe is still uncertain and this is what my question is about. 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 would do if President Trump told you to withhold congressionally approved funding from the intelligence community inspector general. So my question is, if President Trump orders you to withhold appropriated funds from the inspector general, will you refuse that illegal order? Ms. Gabbard. I don't believe for a second President Trump would ask me to do something that would break the law. Senator Wyden. That is not what I am asking. I am asking, if you are asked about an illegal order, what will you do? You can say `òh, it will never happen.'' What will you do if you are dealing with an illegal order? Ms. Gabbard. My commitment has been and will be if confirmed as Director of National Intelligence to comply with the law. Chairman Cotton. All right, Senator Wyden. Senator Wyden, you've asked two question. Senator Wyden. I am asking the question. Chairman Cotton. You asked two questions instead of one question. Now, are there other Senators that would like a follow-up question? Senator King. Senator King. I would like to follow up on my line of questioning about Edward Snowden and understand how you analyzed the facts leading up to your 2020 bill providing him with a pardon. There was a House committee report which granted was redacted, but under the heading ``What Damage Did It Cause'' were 5 and \1/2\ pages of redacted material. I thought that would have raised a question in your mind. Secondly, Edward Snowden, out of 20 countries that don't have extradition treaties with the U.S., he chose to go to Russia and become a Russian citizen. Given that information, how did you decide to introduce a bill providing him with a pardon? Introducing a bill in the United States Congress 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's traitorous activities. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, I answered 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 oath to the Constitution, to support and defend Americans' Fourth Amendment constitutional rights. If confirmed as Director of National Intelligence, I am committed to ensuring that we protect our Nation's secrets by implementing a number of actions that I have outlined so that those who have concerns about programs within our intelligence community that we don't have another Snowden-like leak, 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 also important and in line with many of the bipartisan concerns I have heard in this Committee in security clearance classification reform in narrowing severely those who have access to the most sensitive and compartmentalized intelligence reporting and capabilities. Chairman Cotton. Senator Bennet. Senator Bennet. Thank you, and thank you for your generosity, Mr. Chairman, in allowing us to have a second question. Thank you again for hanging in there with this discussion, Colonel Gabbard. The House Intelligence Committee review of the Snowden disclosures found that not only he was a traitor but since Snowden's arrival in Moscow he has had 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 in the intelligence agencies, the United States press and journalists, the media, Democrats, which suggested that you weren't 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 I guess I have for you is, how, if you can't 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. Edward Snowden 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 traitor that he was? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, as I said my focus and what should be of relevance to 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 paramount importance of our national security and keeping our Nation's secrets. I laid out a number of ways that I intend to do that if confirmed in fulfilling my responsibility in this role. Senator Bennet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Senator Gillibrand. Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to continue along with regard to China because it is such an important part of your portfolio. And I know on Armed Services you had hearings over the last 15 years about the architecture and how they are building up space capabilities, sea capabilities, and air force capabilities--every capability they possibly could, and that aligns more with their malign influence and with their ambition with regard to Taiwan. It just creates a very dangerous scenario and concerning one. And so I want to ask you about Japan, because recently about a year and a half ago, 13 months ago, you said you didn't think it was wise to allow Japan to build up their own defense architecture, and you thought it was shortsighted. Can you speak a little bit about that? Because our alliance with Japan is so important in our ability to defend against malign activities in China, not only geographically but because for the last 50 years they have been close allies--allies we rely on. We share intelligence. We share operations. They are a great ally. So what was your concern about, and have your views shifted in that regard? Ms. Gabbard. 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 Hawaii National Guard I've gone and conducted training missions in Japan with the Japanese Self-Defense Force. Their forces and their Constitution have been primarily focused on self-defense. The concerns that I had raised previously had to do with really looking at the bigger picture in the context of the history with Japan and China and recognizing the implications of what--how this kind of shift from a self-defense posture that Japan has had constitutionally to a more offensive 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 or the President are considering are fully thought through given that broader context of nuance of history and the complexities that exist within the Asia Pacific region, having grown up there, I am very familiar with. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand. Senator Kelly. Senator Kelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Colonel Gabbard, when Russia was denying Assad's use of chemical weapons, they accused the U.S. of supporting terrorists. This is a line that Putin used frequently during the Syrian civil war as he supported Assad. Syrian officials made similar comments. They did it repeatedly. They did it in public. They did it at the United Nations. In 2016, you gave an interview in which you said, and this is a quote: ``The U.S. is providing direct and indirect support to terrorist groups in order to overthrow the Syrian government.'' In 2019 on the Democratic presidential debate stage, you said of President Trump: this is a quote, ``This current President is continuing to betray us. We were supposed to be going after al-Qaida, but over the years now, not only have we not gone after al-Qaida, our President is supporting al-Qaida.'' So I am interested to hear what was your goal in saying these things, and did you consider before saying them the motives of Iran and Russia, what their motives might have been before making these claims? Ms. Gabbard. Senator, as someone who enlisted in the military specifically because of al-Qaida's terrorist attack on 9/11 and committing myself and my life to doing what I could to defeat these terrorists, it was shocking and a betrayal to me and every person who was killed on 9/11, and their families and my brothers and sisters in uniform, when as a Member of Congress I learned about President Obama's dual programs that he had begun, really to overthrow the regime of Syria and being willing to through the CIA's Timber Sycamore program that has now been made public, of working with and arming and equipping al-Qaida in an effort to overthrow that regime, starting yet another regime change war in the Middle East. DOD Train and Equip Program, again begun under President Obama, has widely been known, looked at, and studied, that ultimately resulted in over a half-billion dollars being used to train who they called ``moderate rebels'' but were actually fighters working with and aligned with al-Qaida's affiliate on the ground in Syria, all to move forward with their regime change and not acknowledging what was obvious at the time and what has unfortunately borne true, which was that a regime change war in Syria, much like the regime change wars in Iraq, the toppling of Gaddafi and Mubarek, while these are all dictators, would likely result in the rise of Islamist extremists like al-Qaida taking power. I shed no tears for the fall of the Assad regime. But today, we have an Islamist extremist who is now in charge of Syria, as I said, who danced in the streets to celebrate the 9/ 11 attack, who ruled over an Idlib with an Islamist extremist governance and who has already begun to persecute and kill and arrest religious minorities like Christians in Syria. Senator Kelly. I understand. Ms. Gabbard. Why that is acceptable to anyone is beyond me. It shouldn't be. Senator Kelly. Certainly, I understand, and I appreciate your answer and thank you. My concern has to do with the tendency to repeat Russian and Syrian and even in some cases--I think we will get into a closed session--Iranian information and to discount what comes from our intelligence community. Ms. Gabbard. Senator, every American deserves to know that people in our own government were providing support to our sworn enemy, al-Qaida. That should not be acceptable by anyone. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Kelly and Ms. Gabbard. In conclusion, Senator Warner. Vice Chairman Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, one of the things I love about this Committee, and I know folks who are here for Ms. Gabbard may not fully-- this has always been a bipartisan committee. And my friend Richard Burr who said we always kind of follow the truth. One of the things I was always proud of, from the very challenging Russia investigation was, you know, people would come in. They didn't know whether the staffer was a Democrat or Republican because we were all looking out for the same thing. Ms. Gabbard, I support and commend you for your service, but we have heard this morning taking some individual's advice on chemical attacks, not taking the American intelligence community and as we subsequently discovered had iffy ties, not enough due diligence. We heard this morning on your trip to Lebanon that you were not fully aware that the folks who originally paid for the trip had these relations and ties to the Syrian party. I know I have asked you, and I understand on the trip that you said you met with two Shia religious figures, and you didn't know who they were. I can understand that, although I can't imagine Shia religious figures that in the back alley didn't have ties to Hezbollah. And we can have a difference of opinion on TikTok. The chairman and I feel very strongly it is a national security threat. On 702, I am candidly confused. I thought you answered Senator Wyden that you are in favor of a warrant. Senator Cornyn got you to back off of that. And now, on Edward Snowden, you won't back off of ``brave,'' you won't back off your legislation. You won't call him a traitor. And I think again this is being watched by our allies around the world. And even RT has been tweeting about it today, blasting me and the men and women of the intelligence community. I don't know how they are going to have confidence that if someone under your leadership, if somebody else stepped out that you wouldn't take the same position that you have not walked away from on Mr. Snowden. So, my last question, and this was in some of the press, and I believe you and your husband took a trip to Rome last summer. I am not talking about the conference. I think you didn't ask who paid for the trip. I just want to get this off the record right now, not if you and your husband reimbursed, but did you pay from the trip at the outset, or who paid for it? Ms. Gabbard. There was a nonprofit organization that was coordinating with the Vatican to set up this meeting that was centered around peace and security interests in the Western Hemisphere. Vice Chairman Warner. I don't want to go into that. Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. That paid for the trip. Vice Chairman Warner. So you don't understand your trip was paid for by a gentleman named Pierre Duvalier and the Clemente Foundation? Ms. Gabbard. The nonprofit---- Vice Chairman Warner. I understand there are extensive records. Ms. Gabbard [continuing]. Paid for the trip. Vice Chairman Warner. Mr. Duvalier has enormous ties to Konstantin Malofeev, and I am mispronouncing his name, but who is somebody that America has sanctioned. I am sure we can get into this in the classified hearing. But in the due diligence that is required before we take these trips or make these assumptions is something that I find very troubling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cotton. Thank you, Senator Warner. That same New York Times story reported there was no indication that Ms. Gabbard did anything wrong on that trip. Ms. Gabbard, thank you for your time and your testimony. Thank you most importantly for your service to our Nation. Like I said at the outset, there is no secret that this nomination has generated more attention and interest than most nominees before this Committee. We have received a large number of statements, letters and other such materials in support of and in opposition to Ms. Gabbard's nomination. I will submit all of those for the record. For the benefit of Senators, it is also my intention to hold a committee vote on Ms. Gabbard's nomination as soon as possible. Therefore, for planning purposes, any Senator who wishes to submit questions for the record after today's hearing, please do so by close of business tomorrow. That is Friday, January 31, at 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time. Now let me explain what will happen next. The committee security and Ms. Gabbard's security will escort her and her immediate party out of this room through the door behind me. Everyone else will remain seated in this room. The Capitol Police will secure that door so no one else leaves this room until Ms. Gabbard has reached her break room in preparation for the closed session. We will convene in that closed session in approximately 30 minutes. That is 1:10 p.m. This open session in adjourned. (Whereupon the session was adjourned at 12:42 p.m.) [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Committee Leadership

Tom Cotton

Mark Warner

All Committee Members

Recent Legislation Activity

Hearings & Meetings

Reports & Publications

Committee Resources