Authorizing the En Bloc Consideration in Executive Session of Certain Nominations on the Executive Calendar

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I don't normally come to the floor to give somewhat lengthy remarks, but today I am doing so because of a deep and, frankly, rising concern for the future of our intelligence community and, in turn, the security of the United States.

For months now, we have watched President Trump's administration, led in this arena by his handpicked Director of National Intelligence Ms. Gabbard, systemically undermine the men and women whose mission is to keep this country safe. These are professionals who serve under Republican and Democratic administrations alike. They are career officials who put duty before politics, who swear an oath not to any President but to the Constitution of the United States.

Yet as this administration fires and denigrates these very men and women, as expertise that takes literally decades to build is being thrown away as it conflicts with political talking points, as assessments grounded in fact are being shelved in favor of conspiracy theories, our adversaries are conspiring, sharing intelligence and military capabilities and strategizing over how to weaken the United States while advancing a very different authoritarian vision for the world.

At the same time, I fear the integrity of our intelligence is being sacrificed on the altar of partisan convenience.

This is not some kind of inside-the-beltway turf battle, and it is not another partisan disagreement. I believe at stake is something much more fundamental: whether America will continue to have an intelligence community free to speak truth to power or whether political pressure will blind us to the very real threats our Nation faces.

(Mr. BUDD assumed the Chair.)

History shows us what happens when intelligence is ignored, manipulated, or kept from those who need it most. In 1941, the U.S. Navy intercepted communications showing that Japan was planning to attack Pearl Harbor. That knowledge ended up being of little use because it was not communicated to the people who could have taken action to protect the fleet. The result was the devastating surprise that cost thousands of American lives.

In the aftermath, Congress resolved that we could never again afford to be blindsided. So in 1947, in a bipartisan way, Congress created the Central Intelligence Agency, the modern Department of Defense, and other institutions to ensure that unfiltered, unbiased intelligence is provided to the President, to Congress, and to our military. These institutions are meant to protect us from surprises and to give policymakers the truth, even when it is inconvenient or uncomfortable.

Now, for the most part, this system has worked, and all of us who work up here know it has never been perfect. The abuses revealed by the Church Committee in the 1970s made clear why strong congressional oversight is essential. That is why the Senate Intelligence Committee was established in 1976 and our House counterpart the following year.

Today, while not flawless, these committees--of which I know the Presiding Officer is a member--remain the best check we have to ensure that intelligence Agencies uphold American values and laws and avoid repeating past mistakes--and hopefully learning from them when they do occur. Even with our modern system of congressional oversight, we have seen tragic failures. Intelligence failed to predict the collapse of the Soviet Union. We failed to connect the dots before 9/11. And perhaps most foreboding, in the runup to the Iraq war, intelligence was distorted to fit policy preferences. Intelligence about weapons of mass destruction and Saddam Hussein's ties to al-Qaida were inflated and cherry-picked. Analysts who even at that time raised doubts were ignored.

The result was a devastating war in Iraq, fought under false pretenses, that cost literally thousands of American servicemembers their lives and limbs. But we learned from those failures.

After the September 11 attacks, Congress placed additional safeguards and created a new position: the Director of National Intelligence. The objective was to better coordinate our intelligence Agencies, to avoid the so-called groupthink, to remove silos amongst our now 18, 19 intelligence Agencies, and to ensure that analysts could provide thorough, candid assessments--again, even when the truth was uncomfortable or unwelcome.

That was the commitment I asked President Trump's nominee and the current Director of National Intelligence, Ms. Gabbard, to make during her confirmation hearing, and she assured our committee and the American people that she would protect the independence of the intelligence community to ensure that the IC is never politicized. She even pointed to the runup to the war in Iraq as the clearest example of what happens when intelligence is bent to fit policy and the President is told only what he wants to hear. She pledged that she would never allow those mistakes to be repeated on her watch.

Mr. President, but in only 6 months, we have seen the opposite from this administration. We have seen career FBI agents, people who have risked their lives for this country, forced out of their positions simply for investigating crimes committed in the January 6 insurrection. These were professionals following the law, performing their sworn duties, and yet their service was treated as disloyalty. Careers were ended and decades of expertise were discarded just for doing the job they were entrusted to do.

We have seen the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the National Intelligence Council dismissed because their well-documented, evidence- based assessment of the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua criminal network did not align with the administration's preferred narrative. These analysts presented carefully sourced intelligence showing that the gang of bad guys acted, actually, independent of the Venezuelan Government, not at the behest of foreign officials. Yet their findings were rejected and their leadership positions removed simply because the truth didn't fit a politically convenient story.

And again, to be clear, there is no question that Maduro's regime in Venezuela and the TDA are ruthless actors who pose real threats, but punishing officials--punishing intelligence officials in particular-- for telling the truth only weakens our ability to confront them.

We have seen the three-star general leading the Defense Intelligence Agency pushed out after analysts produced a straightforward, evidence- based assessment showing that Iran's nuclear program had not been obliterated, as President Trump so loudly claimed. Rather than face those facts, the administration decided to punish the messenger, and he was let go from DIA.

We have seen, more recently, analysts, literally with decades of experience on Russia, stripped of their security clearances or reassigned at the very moment that their years of expertise is needed most.

More recently, DNI Gabbard has personally revoked the clearances of at least 37 individuals in a transparently political act of vengeance in a single stroke of a pen and, at least in one case, exposing an official working undercover. That alone--putting someone who has worked undercover and identifying that identity--in past administrations would have been grounds for firing.

We have seen statutory requirements to keep Congress fully and currently informed ignored, oversight stymied and obstructed, and inspectors general who are supposed to keep their eyes on these Agencies--inspectors general and their personnel silenced, forced out, or removed.

And I remind my colleagues, in terms of oversight for the intelligence community, that is not a right that all 100 Senators have. There are literally 17 of us. As chair or vice chair over the last few years, I am part of the so-called Gang of 8. If we don't do our jobs, nobody is watching all of these intelligence Agencies.

Even more damaging, we have seen highly sensitive intelligence declassified and released, clearly for political purposes, without proper coordination with the Agencies responsible for protecting sources and methods--that is how we do our work and who are the people involved. The disclosures actually risked revealing the identities of assets--and those are human beings--and the techniques we rely on-- those are the technology and skills we have--and the credibility of ongoing operations, all for the sake of advancing a political narrative. The very tools that protect lives and maintain America's strategic advantage are being treated as leverage in a partisan game.

Let's remember, the so-called Russia hoax and that assessment, which this administration continues to disparage, was a coordinated, unanimous finding by the entire intelligence community. Our committee-- on a bipartisan, unanimous basis--reviewed it and validated it extensively. Not a single one of my Republican colleagues objected to its findings, including the current Secretary of State, then-committee chairman Senator Rubio.

And what did that assessment actually conclude? I think every one of us understood that Russia conducted a sweeping, systematic campaign to interfere in our 2016 election; that Moscow's goal was to sow chaos, to undermine faith in American democracy, and specifically to boost Mr. Trump's candidacy. These findings were not partisan talking points; they were sober judgments of career professionals, backed by evidence, and affirmed by both parties in Congress.

And during the first Trump administration, they responded to that report appropriately and put resources to make sure the 2020 election was the safest election on record. Kudos to the first Trump administration in doing that.

But with all of this happening, as troubling as all of this is, what may be most astonishing is who seems to be calling the shots now: not seasoned national security leaders, not career intelligence professionals, but conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, a figure who has called the 9/11 terrorist attacks an inside job, who described herself as a ``pro-White nationalist'' and a ``proud Islamophobe,'' and who has made openly racist and anti-Muslim statements. This is not someone with even a shred of credibility, let alone the experience or judgment we should demand from those influencing U.S. national security decisions.

Yet, time and again, we have seen senior officials pushed out of their posts because Ms. Loomer decided they were not sufficiently loyal to the President. National Security Council staffers, people well-known and respected on both sides of the aisle, including staffers who worked for my Republican colleagues in the Senate, were shown the door at her demand; the two top officials at the National Security Agency, including a well-respected four-star general, Timothy Haugh, forced out, along with the Agency's general counsel, again at Loomer's behest.

These are critical posts in one of our most important intelligence organizations, vacated not because of misconduct or failure but because of the whims of a political provocateur whose public record is filled with hate and conspiracies. And don't take my word on these actions. Ms. Loomer's own social media feed claims all of these firings and dismissals almost as trophies.

And just a few weeks ago we saw something that I believe should trouble every Member of this body, regardless of which party you belong to. My staff and I had arranged a visit to the National Geospatial- Intelligence Agency located in my State of Virginia so that I could go ahead and do my constitutional duty of oversight and, in that meeting, meet with intelligence professionals who also happened to be my constituents. Yet, at the last minute, that visit was blocked--again-- and apparently, as she claimed, by Laura Loomer.

What does it say about the state of our national security when a self-proclaimed White nationalist and Islamophobe with a personal vendetta against U.S. Government officials--and, by the way, no security clearance, no sworn duty to defend the Constitution--can dictate who serves in critical intelligence positions and even prevent Members of this Chamber from conducting basic oversight?

I have to ask again: Why is this administration going to war against the very professionals sworn to keep our country safe? Why are decades of service and sacrifice being tossed aside?

Why? Because they think they are still obliged to provide the truth and speak truth to power. But, instead, it appears that sometimes those truths are inconvenient because sometimes their assessments are not what the DNI and the President want to hear.

These safeguards we put in place and the oversight this body provides--again, only 17 of us have seen these classified programs-- these safeguards only work if intelligence officers know that they can tell the truth without losing their jobs. If analysts who analyze the facts and try to come up with conclusions believe their careers will be destroyed for offering inconvenient assessments, then we will only get intelligence the White House wants.

Imagine the consequences if our intelligence community is forced to spend its time chasing down conspiracy theories instead of monitoring terrorist networks, cyber threats, or foreign adversaries. Imagine if analysts stop flagging real dangers because they fear political retaliation. Imagine if experienced officers walk away from service altogether because they know their expertise will be diminished or punished. That kind of environment doesn't just weaken our intelligence community, it puts every American family at risk.

Again, this is not some kind of partisan point. Democrats and Republicans alike have relied on the intelligence community to keep the country safe. Every President, whether they liked what they were hearing or not, has depended on accurate, independent analysis to make decisions that affect millions of lives.

That is what makes this current moment so alarming. We are dismantling trust in institutions that literally took generations to build. We are eroding morale among some of the most dedicated professionals in public service. And I fear that we are sending a clear message to young officers, whether they are at the CIA or any of the other intelligence Agencies: Don't bother building a career in intelligence if you plan on telling the truth.

Meanwhile, these aren't actions in a vacuum. Our adversaries aren't slowing down. Cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns, nuclear proliferation, terrorist attacks, transnational criminal organizations--these threats are real, and they are not going to wait for us to get our house in order.

If we continue to allow politics to dictate what intelligence is acceptable, we are effectively flying blind. That is why, again, I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle: Please, for God's sake, take this seriously. We can disagree about policy, but we cannot allow the facts themselves to be corrupted.

The intelligence community must remain independent, professional, and committed to the Constitution above all else.

I have had the opportunity in my tenure on this committee to work with a lot of these men and women. I didn't know many of them before I was on the Intelligence Committee. They are dedicated professionals. I never asked a single one what their party affiliation was. They oftentimes put their lives in harm's way and, candidly, never get the attention that our military does. They work in secret.

The truth is, these professionals and the work they do deserve to be respected, honored, and listened to because if you corrupt the intelligence and bend it to political wills, we have seen constant examples of what happens.

The truth is, the American people deserve nothing less.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source