Before we get underway, I’d like to take a brief moment to recognize the terrible loss of life that occurred just a few short blocks from where we are right now. Our hearts and prayers are with the families and friends who lost loved one’s last night, and with the first responders who are still on the scene. I’d like to ask us to take a quick moment for silent prayer and reflection.
Next, I want to remind all of those in attendance that, while they are welcome to observe today's hearing, I will not allow disruptions by 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. Those who do so will be immediately removed from the room.
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.
And I want to acknowledge some very special friends of yours: Dakota Myers 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.
note that the next Attorney General, Pam Bondi, has joined us as well. Apparently, she didn’t have enough fun at her own confirmation hearing. Ms. Bondi, welcome and congratulations.
Finally, Senator Joni Ernst and former Senator and Chairman of this committee Richard Burr will introduce Ms. Gabbard. We look forward to their remarks.
I think it’s fair to say 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 have extended to every other nominee—no more, no less; no better, no worse. That’s how we treated CIA Director John Ratcliffe two weeks ago and how we have treated DNI nominees like Dan Coates and Avril Haines 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, let me make two observations about some of the accusations about Ms. Gabbard. First, I’m dismayed by the attacks on Ms. Gabbard’s patriotism and loyalty to country. For instance, Hillary Clinton smeared Ms. Gabbard, calling her an “asset” 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 today. She has undergone five FBI background checks. I spent more than two hours last week reviewing the latest, putting eyes on more than three hundred pages. It’s clean as a whistle.
It’s fine that we have difference of opinions on policies and programs. I suspect some of my Republican colleagues would disagree with much of Ms. Gabbard’s voting record in the House. Just as I suspect that 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 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 unconventional 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. Mubarak was a long-time American partner, and Egypt was a linchpin of our security system in the Middle East. Qaddafi 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 Mubarak or Qaddafi for the Little Sisters of the Poor. But let’s not kid ourselves: the world is a dangerous place, not a church picnic. 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’s the way the world is. If we only befriended nations that shared our system of government and our social and cultural sensibilities, 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’ll confess that those views may be unconventional but look where conventional thinking has gotten us. Maybe Washington could use a little more unconventional thinking.
And I’m sure that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence needs 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, twenty years later, that’s exactly what the ODNI has become.
Incredibly, the ODNI is now larger than many agencies it was established to manage. It has fifteen 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, maybe a few hundred. I promise, that’s 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, I hope you will be a partner in these vital efforts.
Another example of bureaucratic mission-creep and empire-building is what’s come to be known as “DNI taxes.” The ODNI levies 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 going to stop.
Ms. Gabbard, if confirmed, you have a lot of work ahead of you and, as Chairman of this committee, I’m committed to ensuring that we see it through all the way.