suspicions of the white house. and it seems to me that that's exactly what's going to happen at the department of defense. he has promised to fire top-end military leaders who are engaged in his nebulous war on woke. so if you care about making sure that you've got troops from different backgrounds and different parts of the country, maybe that's a war on woke. if you promote a woman 0, maybe that's a war on woke. if you care about making sure that your troops don't engage in unethical conduct, maybe that's a war on woke. if you contract with a local business that may not be aligned

with donald trump, maybe that's part of the war on woke. we have no idea. and so what will happen inside the department of defense is just a constant sense of paranoia, a constant looking over your shoulder, a grinding to a halt of business as normal because nobody knows what is a fireable offense and what isn't. how do i stay on the good side of pete hegseth? what gets me on the bad side? second, i want to talk about his views on women in combat. he wrote in his book this, dads push us to take risks, moms put the training wheels on our bikes. we need moms, but not in the military, especially in combat

units. what an insulting thing to say, what a disgusting thing to believe. dads push us to take risks, moms put the training wheels on our bikes. my mom taught me to take risks. my dad told me to take risks too. but is there a single united states senator here who believes that our mothers, the women in our lives, aren't risk takers? that they didn't push us to be better? pete hegseth believes, he just believes this, that women hold us back, that women hold men back, that women hold their sons back. and it just doesn't matter that he has walked back these

stat statements. magically, he had a conversion on the issue of women in the military. magically he started saying less offensive things about women, right after he was nominated to be secretary of defense. nobody believes this conversion. this is a conversion for political reasons only. it does not mask the fact that this is what pete hegseth believes. that he believes that women are inferior to men. and again, not just that they shouldn't engage in combat. he believes they are morally inferior, that they have qualities that men don't have. many women, most women that i know who have served bravely and effectively in combat, some se serving with us on capitol hill, have taken grave offense to pete

hegseth's unfounded denigration of that service. and many have pointed out the real impacts his ideas will have surrounding women in combat, and what those comments could mean for our more general readiness. why? because there are 360,000 women serving in the u.s. military today, in a variety of capacities. they are essential to keeping this nation safe. and now every single one of them knows that the man taking over the department of defense doesn't think they are worthy to serve, and that their prospects for advancement upon his elevation in the department of defense are compromised. their ability to get fair treatment inside the department of defense has been compromised. and it won't shock anybody if we

see many of those women leave the service, and if we see many fewer women sign up to protect this country. that would come at an enormous cost, an enormous cost to the security of this nation. third, i want to talk about a topic that i hope this body finds a way to have a n nonpolitical, nonpartisan discussion on, and that is the growing problem of extremism. in our military. now, i think every large organization has to tackle this is issue. anytime you have a big, large organization, you are going to have individuals amongst your ranks that are affiliated with extremist and dangerous causes. i don't think this problem is

exclusive to the u.s. military, but people who have military experience are about 6%, 5% of the overall population. they comprised 15% of the people who were pardoned by donald trump just three days ago. a share three times greater than that of the general population. we have watched as a disproportionate share of individuals who have engaged in mass shootings have had a military background. now, a lot of that is connected to posttraumatic stress disorder and our failure to get services to those individuals. that's on us, and we should have that conversation as well. but pete hegseth has said that

this issue of whether the oath keepers and the proud boys have influence inside the military, and there are plenty of reports that there are lots of active channels of communication and recruitment between these right wing groups and the military, he says that that problem is fake, it's fake. now, i don't know the extent of this problem, but i know it's something we should talk about, and i'm very, very worried to have a secretary of defense who doesn't believe it's a problem even worth mentioning. lastly, madam president, i want to talk about what i maybe think is the most dangerous part of pete hegseth's views on the military, and that is his history of support for war crim criminals, his low regard for the code of military justice, and his disbelief, his nonbelief

in the concept of international law and the laws of war. it's pretty shocking that we are even having a debate here about whether the united states military should engage in torture or adhere to the geneva conventions. for hose of -- for those of us that served with john mccain, i cannot believe what he would think about the decision of a republican president to appoint a secretary of defense who does not believe in the geneva conventions and the basic laws of war, and claims that it is weak or unmanley to believe that there should be some common set of rules about how we engage in war. i do think it's legitimate to have a conversation about the

rules of engagement. we should always be willing to revisit the rules of engagement. it is entirely possible, plausible, even, that the rules that we apply to our soldiers in very difficult, complicated engagements, where they often don't know who is friend or foe, are outdated. we should be willing to have that conversation. but that's not what pete hegseth is interested in. he is interested in obliterating the rules of engagement. he doesn't want any constraints on our soldiers. and while it is true that many of the enemies that we fight don't follow any rules at all, it is not good for the united states security more broadly to give up on international law, the rules of war and the rules of engagement, and just accept a race to the bottom.

at the hearing, ranking member reed asked pete hegseth about three instances of clemency granted by president trump in 2019. grants of clemency that the nominee supports. one soldier, a lieutenant in the army, had been serving for 19 years in prison and was pardoned after being convicted of two counts of second-degree murder for ordering a soldier to fire on unarmed afghan motorcyclists in 2012. another was pardoned after being charged with murder, just murder, of an afghan in 2010. another pardon was for an individual who posed and took

photos with a corpse during a 2017 deployment to iraq. this problem is minuscule inside our armed forces. it really is. 99.9% of our soldiers, men and women who fight for us, are never, ever engaged in these kind of horrific crimes. but the reason for that is, a., that we have good, moral people fighting for us, but b., because we have a code of conduct. and that deterrent helps to make sure that the instances of misconduct are very, very small, are infinitesimal. if all of a sudden that code of conduct is obliterated, and it becomes harder for our military leadership to make sure that when we are in war we are following those rules of engagement, and remember, our power in the world is our tanks and our soldiers, our airplanes

and our aircraft carriers, but it has always been our moral authority. we've never been perfect. we've never had leadership that was perfect. but to voluntarily give up on our belief that u.s. troops are held to a higher standard than our enemies, that shrinks our power in the world. that makes enemies run away from us. and in a world today where there is just a decent from truth, that's what putin wants, putin wants to obliterate objectivism in this world, to believe there is no right or wrong, that everything is just an individual's viewpoint. when when retreat from those long-held and consensus-developed ideas about, for instance, not torturing our enemies during times of war, it provides a lift and assist to

people like putin, who are trying to make us believe that there is no such thing as right or wrong in the world, that it is all just different shades of gray. so, i understand that much of the debate here will be about this litany of really ugly personal misconduct, and i think that is reason alone to say, you know what, find somebody else. it's not as if pete hegseth is the only person qualified to run the doed. there are other people who are loyal to donald trump, who are conservative, maybe even believe in this campaign against wokeism, but don't have the history of personal misconduct. but i also think that these questions about women in combat, about the political campaigns that will be run inside the department that will breed a sense of paranoia, about taking

seriously small but growing real threats to us, like extremism in the military, and then this bigger question of making sure that we have fealty to the laws of war and prohibitions against torture, i think all of those really concerning views of this nominee, even if the misconduct didn't exist, would be enough for us to say find somebody else. find somebody else who is just going to do the job, instead of trying to bring these political agendas, whether it's misogyny or anti-wokeism or anti-multilateralism into a job that really should be pretty simple. lead our troops, protect the nation, lift up america's standing in the world. i know the cake may be baked at this point, but i just want to make one more plea to my

republican colleagues to reconsider their decision to confirm to lead the doed somebody who seems just hell-bent mostly on pursuing a political, not military agenda, that i truly believe is certain to weaken our armed forces and threaten our national security. i yield the floor.

:

mr. wyden:in the hegseth nomination last week there were a number of important issues and i'd like to speak to one that is central to america's national security ... to america's national security and american values. the principle that every american has the right to know when their government believes that it is allowed to kill them.

now i don't believe this ought to be a controversial matter. my constituents don't believe it should be a controversial matter. the bill of rights says no one shall be deprived of life without due process of law. government officials have, in my view, a basic obligation to explain any rules that allow them to ever kill an american citizen, and on this, the nominee to serve as defense secretary has simply flunked the test. his refusal to answer basic questions before the senate committee on armed services ought to trouble every single american. i want to focus on that fundamental question concerning the government's power to kill americans and why americans have to keep fighting, and senators, for transparency. over a decade ago the obama

administration took the position that their analysis of the president's legal authority to deliberately kill americans was secret, and they refused to share that. as i said at the time, i believe that position was just unacceptable. and i told the obama administration if an american takes up arms against the united states as part of a foreign army or terrorist group, there are indeed circumstances where it is legal to use lethal force against that american. but the limits and the boundaries of the president's authority to kill americans must be available to the public so that voters can decide whether that authority has sufficient safeguards. the obama administration initially disagreed with me. they were clearly reluctant to acknowledge specific limits on the president's power.

to be candid, we had a pretty big public argument about that over a number of weeks. many other senators got involved. in fact, senator paul, our colleague from kentucky, brought the debate to a head with a 13-hour standing filibuster. i remember, madam president, coming to the senate floor to join senator paul, and there were a number of republican colleagues who were there as well. i think one of the reasons it became such a significant debate and a viral moment is that it was literally exactly what our founding fathers envisioned. members of the senate coming together to check the power of the presidency. in response to this filibuster that senator paul and others were part of, the obama

administration came around to doing the right thing. attorney general holder sent senator paul a letter stating clearly that if an american is standing on u.s. soil not engaged until combat, then the president of the united states does not have the authority to use military force against him. obviously there are a host of other important questions about the limits of the president's war powers. but i thought that letter from attorney general holder was an important concession, and i'm proud, madam president, that democrats and republicans worked together on a bipartisan basis for it. signature. so i was troubled last week by the answers pete hegseth gave at the armed services committee. our colleague, senator hirono, asked the nominee directly if he would carry out an order to shoot american citizens?

mr. hegseth could have given the same answer that attorney general holder gave us a decade online, but this nominee just refused to answer the question. now, madam president, it's even more troubling, our colleague, senator slotkin, asked an even easier question. senator slotkin asked is there anything such as an illegal order? the answer should be yes, if the president asks him to violate the law or the constitution, that order is illegal, and it is, in my view, stunning that the nominee refused to answer this very straightforward question. even our youngest soldiers, madam president, in basic training know that it is their duty to refuse illegal orders. we should at least expect that

much from our secretary of defense. so i say to my colleagues in close that it comes down to this. i thought we agreed, democrats and republicans, people of a variety of different political philosophies believed that what i scuffed with fundamentally important principles to america. we have fought hard in america to uphold them and we did it together. i, for the life of me, don't understand why we're voting today to confirm a nominee who can't tell us pointblank that he will oppose illegal orders and that he will uphold the constitution of the united states. so for that reason, madam president, and i haven't spoken on the matter until just now, i

intend to vote no on mr. hegseth's nomination. and, frankly, i wish more of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for the reasons i outlined here would join me in voting no. i yield the floor.

was extremist. 200,000 members, ridiculous, by the way, from this committee. on the other side of the aisle. mr. hegseth, you have a lot of experience with our military. do you believe the military is a systemically racist organization and if confirmed, will you commit to defend, not denigrate, our troops? >> i was also offended by those comments. anyone who has been on active duty in the national guard understands it is fundamentally false.

>> there three studies. secretary austin put out one of them that said what you just said. fundamentally false. >> anyone who had been in the unit knew it. one could argue if not the least, one of the least racist institutions in our country's the united states military. to be a racist in the military has not been tolerated for a very long time. >> one of the greatest civil rights organizations in american history. >> i called on the biden secretary of the navy to resign because he fails in his ability to build ships. the secretary of the navy is focused on climate change, not building ships in lethality.

mister hegseth, if you're secretary of the navy, focusing on climate change more than shipbuilding and lethality will you commit to me to fire him? >> my secretary of the navy will not be focused on climate change in the navy just like the secretary of the air force won't be focused on lg powered fighter jets, the secretary of the army will not be focused on electric powered tanks. >> i appreciate that. the other thing president biden did in his executive order. and over the last four years. as you issue an order saying we are going to rip the biden woke yoke off the net of our military

and focus on lethality and war fighting, how do you think troops will react. >> i know the troops will rejoice. there has been a surge since donald trump won the election. >> do you think our military will follow that order? >> the military will follow that order because they want to focus on lethality and war fighting and get all the woke political prerogatives, political stuff out of the military. >> thank you, senator kane. >> thank you, mister hegseth. i look forward to this opportunity to talk. i want to return to the incident you referenced a minute ago that occurred in monterey, california in october 2017. you were married to your second wife, correct? >> i believe so. >> you fathered a child by a

woman who became your third wife. >> i was falsely charged. it was completely cleared. >> you think you were completely cleared because you committed no crime, that your definition of cleared? you had just fathered a child two months before by a woman who was not your wife. i am shocked that you would stand here and say you were completely cleared. can you so casually cheat on a second wife and cheat on the mother of a child born two months before and utility were completely cleared? how is that a complete clear? >> the child's name is gwendolyn hope hegseth and she's a child of god and she is 7 years old. two months after the daughter was born. those were false charges. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. wyden: i ask unanimous consent that the following members of my team be granted floor privileges, linda williams, tracy henry, su, jack

pitzer, robert welch, samantha fine, owen stafford, eric lopretee and aron hunt -- erin hunter. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. wyden: thank you, madam president. a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from rhode island. mr. whitehouse: it's nice to see you in the chair, madam president. the presiding officer: it's good to be in the chair. mr. whitehouse: i'm here to add some thoughts regarding the vote we're going to have on pete hegseth for secretary of defense. of course in this as a rhode island junior senator, i

am very cognizant of the important role that my senior senator, jack reed, has had on the committee of jurisdiction, the senate armed services committee, and i want to give him tribute for the way he has conducted him. what i can bring to this conversation is a little bit about background investigations. i sit on the judiciary committee. the judiciary committee does more background investigation work than any other because we have so many people coming through, the judges, the u.s. attorneys, every marshal, all of it. we are very busy on b.i.'s. and i took a deep dive into the brett kavanaugh investigation, and put out a book on the g

gaps -- gaps around that background investigation, a point i'll clarify in a moment. but let's start with what we do know about the fbi background investigation into mr. hegseth. we know that only one democrat has even seen it, and that is the ranking member on the committee, senator reed. and we do know that he has publicly said that that background investigation was, to use his word, inadequate. so republicans are going forward on the basis of an fbi investigation that a very respected member of this body has publicly said was inadequate. what else do we know about him? well, it's been reported in the press that the chairman has said that it took three briefings by

the fbi to get through the background investigation. now, i don't know why that happened, but we do know that new material emerged in the press about various kinds of misconduct by this individual after the initial background investigation took place. so the likeliest scenario to explain why there were three background investigations in the light of the recurring release of further information about his repeated misconduct is that there were supplemental background investigations after the original full-field fbi background investigation was completed. we can't know this because this is tied up in so much unnecessary secrecy, in my view. let's presume that's the case.

what does that mean? well, what we discovered during the kavanaugh background investigation is that the regular fbi full field background investigation takes place under a set of long-standing rules and protocols and procedures. they have forms that they follow. it has been routinized to a fairly significant degree. it's different than a proper fbi investigation. a proper fbi investigation in the criminal law enforcement front has a whole different set of controls and protocols and supervisory roles over that. when you get into the full field background investigation, you're operating under a different set of rules but you are still operating under rules, and you can ask the question to be fbi, was this background investigation conducted fully within the rules and the

protocols for background investigations. until you get to a supplemental background investigation. now, one of the objections that i had to the way we were treated as we tried to get to the bottom of the kavanaugh background investigation was that the then-head of the fbi kept repeatedly saying publicly -- could you excuse me a second. ed. ed, if you please. we were repeatedly told that the supplemental background investigation was done consistent with all of the fbi standard protocols and procedures. what was misleading about that, as we later discovered, is that for a supplemental background

investigation, there are no operating procedures and prot protocols. wray said that they come ported all of -- comported with all of their procedures didn't say there were no procedures to comport with. what is the fbi doing with their background investigation? they are doing only what the white house has instructed them to do. period. no procedure, no protocol, which raises a huge question about this background investigation to the extent through the stages it was a supplemental background investigation. we know that when the kavanaugh investigation was going on that republican senators were told that there was no

corroboration -- corroboration being an important legal term here. no core ran ration to the charges brought by ford on the attack years ago. no corroboration. what we found out later on is the instructions to the white house to the fbi related to her charges were don't look for, don't find, and don't report to us any corroborating information. we also found out that they never interviewed either dr. blasey ford about her allegations or brett kavanaugh about his conduct. so there's every reason to believe about this background investigation as to the supplemental background investigation part of it that it was woefully incomplete, that it was restricted by the white house to very, very narrow

bounds, that we do not know what those narrow bounds are, and that very likely neither hegseth nor the individuals making the charges were even interviewed by the fbi. and we can suspect that because that is precisely what happened in the kavanaugh background investigation. so there's a major, major weakness in would is publicly described as an inadequate background investigation to the extent that those latter two segments of it that caused the three briefings have to take place were supplemental background investigations precisely and exactly controlled by the trump white house. another point that relates to all of this is that when these witnesses came forward, the standard counterattack against them is that they were anonymous, over and over again hegseth said in the committee anonymous smears.

aanonymous smears. madam chair, these accusers were not anonymous. not only were they not anonymous, they were willing and presented themselves as willing to be able to come over here and personally brief in their offices any republican senator. it's not anonymous when you're willing to show up in a senator's office and give a personal briefing. what they weren't willing to do was to put their names out there publicly. now, why would they want to steer away from that? ask christine blasey ford what her life was turned into by far right and mega attacks on her after she came forward with her charges against brett kavanaugh. ask the poll workers who were rudy giuliani's victims what

their life turned into after he called them out, conduct against them that gave rise to the massive multimillion dollar verdict that rudy giuliani is still struggling to pay with it. evidently, some billionaire paid it off for him. we'll see. but it's perfectly logical for a person to be willing to come forward, like many witnesses are, to identify themselves, to speak privately the way people often do in a grand jury, to a prosecutor, without yet putting your name out there. and actually some are not anonymous. but we should reject the notion that these witnesses were anonymous. they were not anonymous. they're real people with real faces who are willing to come in and tell their real stories and republican senators simply refused to hear them. that's a different thing than anonymity. they couldn't get through the door of the offices.

so either republican colleagues either already know who these people are so they're not anonymous, or they're perfectly able to find out by getting their names and inviting them in and hearing them out. seems like a pretty simple ask. now, in some cases, for instance, mr. hegseth's sister-in-law, ex-sister-in-law, guess you would say, has actually put her name on the affidavit, describing his abusive and misconduct. she's not anonymous by any stretch of the imagination. because of the far-right counterattack team likes to attack people who are willing to come forward, they actually outed one of the other witnesses in a story. i won't mention her name because i do not want to make things even worse for her. but they did out her in a right-wing publication. so you have at least two names that are out there that are clearly not anonymous and indeed

are public. what happens with them? what happens with them is that they are accused of having an evil motive, that they had a motive to lie about pete hegseth and that is what is driving what they've been saying. well, guess what is really good at interviewing witnesses and looking at the surrounding circumstances and evaluating a motive? the fbi. the fbi is. and so if the fbi in this supplemental background investigation was instructed not to evaluate motive, just to let that be a political hand grenade to throw with no foundation, then we have an extra layer of problems with this background investigation. so there's every reason to believe that the background investigation was inadequate and

specifically directed by the white house away from relevant evidence the way the kavanaugh investigation was directed away from corroborating evidence. here it would have been directed away from evidence of motive. and you got a real problem on your hands. and i urge my republican colleagues, this is kind of last call. this guy gets in and starts to behave the way reasonable people can expect him to behave, you're going to own that. and when you say oh, the background investigation should have brought that up, not if you didn't ask about the background investigation, not if you didn't get a real one, not if you didn't bring the actual witnesses in to hear from themselves. now, we've had another little event recently which is the pardons of the violent january 6 rioters. before that pardon took place, our republican colleagues said over and over again, that will

never happen, this is a weird democrat pipe dream, the very notion of pardoning these violent rioters who hurt police officers, who attacked and harmed police officers is absurd, said one colleague. the vice president said it wasn't going to happen and it would be wrong. and after all that talk, all that reassurance, what happened? donald trump went right out and did it. so if you think there are guardrails around this indi individual, you've already been proven that they're not there. the thing you thought was absurd, the thing you thought would never happen, the thing you said was wrong was done. and if that's not a lesson as we go forward into these other defective nominees, i can't help you. i can't make you vote any other way, but it ought to be clear

that future misconduct by this guy, whether he's being drunk, on duty or erratic or abusive or inappropriate with female staff and officers or even abusing the power of our military to accomplish political purposes for president trump, there's really no sign of guardrails to prevent that. and an inadequate fbi report is something that should be cleared up before republicans are forced to vote on this. and it's in your power to look into these things and get it done. it's not in our power in the minority. we're doing the best we can. so i urge you to consider those dangers as we move forward towards this vote. and i thank the presiding officer, and i yield the floor.

a senator: madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from massachusetts. mr. markey: thank you, madam president. we're about to have a monumental vote out here on the floor of the united states senate on who will become the next secretary of defense for the united states of america. the defense budget in the united states is $900 billion. the person who is given that responsibility has to be exceptionally well qualified in order to deal with all of the responsibilities that are tied to those military and personnel decisions which have to be made because there are three and a half million servicemembers.

and there are hundreds of thousands of aircraft, of ships, of submarines, of combat vehicles, satellites, and the nuclear arsenal. and a variety of source, including his own writings, implicate him with disregarding the laws of war. financial mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about americans in uniform, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other very troubling issues. these are perilous times, and the position of secretary of defense demands a leader of unparalleled experience, wisdom, and above all else, character. the secretary of defense carries

an immense responsibility, not only to the american people but to the servicemembers who they lead. if confirmed, mr. hegseth will have a responsibility to serve our servicemembers in a manner that is fair and nonpartisan and responsible. and yet mr. hegseth has demonstrated that he is incapable of doing so. he has said -- this is a quote -- i'm straight up, just saying. we should not have women in combat roles. and he's opposed to transgender people serving in the military despite their willingness to serve and sacrifice for our country right now. he called reproductive justice absolutely and utterly meaningless in the military.

he opposed pentagon policies to help servicemembers get reproductive care, including ivf to start a family. these are american servicemembers. i find hegseth's record extremely alarming. he is nominated to lead an agency charged with defending american freedom abroad, yet he does not stand for freedom and dignity and respect for the servicemembers of the united states of america in the military. indeed, mr. hegseth's own writings and alleged conduct should disqualify him from holding any leadership position in the military, much less being confirmed as the secretary of defense for our nation. donald trump dared to impugn the legacy of the late honorable

congressman john lewis by saying, quote, john lewis was all talk and no action. but then trump nominates a secretary of defense, pete hegseth, who perpetuates the lie, the racism that black military officers are only promoted because of their race. tell that to colin powell. tell that to lloyd austin that they were only promoted because of their color. this is not just a failure of leadership. it is a moral crisis that strikes at the heart of who we are as a people. it is not enough to just oppose trump's vision. and there are hundreds of thousands of women in the military right now. 19% of our military is african

american. these are hegseth's own words about this very high percentage of the members of our military right now. so the criticism of hegseth is bipartisan. senators from both sides of the aisle are opposed to when nomination. and if you didn't know anything else about him, if we didn't have any more hearings, if we didn't have any more documents, if we didn't have any other people coming forward, we already have enough evidence. eye-waterering detail to cast a -- you have to cast a no vote on the floor of the united states senate on this nomination. and that's because the position of secretary of defense is a serious job, and we need someone

who will bring their "a" game 24/7, 365 days a year, and pete hegseth is not that person. his lack of experience aside, he has not shown the necessary morality, sense, or judgment to be secretary of defense. take the issue of nuclear weapons -- is this the person we want advising the president on whether or not he should launch a nuclear weapon against another country? and possibly begin the end of life on earth as we know it? the secretary of defense is a very important position. it puts him right at the heart of these nuclear decisions. this nomination is a joke. are you kidding me?

pete hegseth will be there helping to decide whether or not we launch nuclear weapons? and let's be clear. president trump as commander in chief has the sole authority to order the launch of the u.s. nuclear arsenal. this is crazy on its face that one person can determine whether or not we start a nuclear war with no consultation with anyone else. that is just absolutely absurd on its face because no one person, particularly not president trump, should have that unilateral power to start nuclear war. i have just reintroduced my legislation with congressman ted lieu in the house of representatives to make it the policy of the united states that no president can use nuclear weapons first without the express approval of congress, if we have not been attacked with

nuclear weapons. you've got to come to congress. but that's not the law right now. it's just the president. and under the constitution, congress gets to declare war, not the president. but for now, president trump has that power exclusively. at any time for any reason he can call over the military attache with the nuclear fab and call the war room at the pentagon and give the order to launch. trump does not have to consult with anyone -- not congress, not the joint chiefs of staff, not the secretary of defense. but if president trump did want to get a second opinion before starting a nuclear war, which could end humanity, calling the

secretary of defense would usually be a pretty good option. -- in order to make that decision. do we have any reason to believe that pete hegseth has any clue about nuclear weapons, on nuclear policy, on nuclear strategy? no, we do not. in fact, mr. hegseth's only qualification for this job that i can see is whether he will do whatever the president asks him to do. pete hegseth is a yes man. if president trump calls pete hegseth at 2:00 a.m. in the morning and says, pete, i'm about to start a nuclear war, even though we haven't been attacked with nuclear weapons. what will pete hegseth say? he will say, yes, sir. and so from this perspective, mr. hegseth is the worst possible choice to lead the

department of defense. we need someone who can challenge the president's thinking, slow him down, curb his worst impulses, and give him sober, reasoned advice, and with hegseth, that's not going to happen. there are other monumental decisions on nuclear policy that president trump will need reasoned advice on that he is not likely to get from pete hegseth. during the campaign, trump had just one clear proposal related to nuclear policy -- to build an iron dome missile defense system to ensure that no enemy can strike our homeland. now, this is a throwback to former president ronald reagan's 1983 proposal called the strategic defense initiative, also called star wars. to build a system of space and

ground-based interceptors to make nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete. it made for great slogans, but after 40 years and some $400 billion, the technology is still not up to the challenge. if you try to scale up iron dome and cover a country the size of the united states against hundreds of russian or chinese long-range missiles, it just won't work. trump could provoke a new arms race even without his iron dome on steroids. trump's allies have called for the united states to build more nuclear weapons than moscow and beijing combined. this idea is popular among conservatives at the heritage foundation and project 2025, but let's be clear -- expanding the u.s. nuclear arsenal is a terrible idea. we need treaties that end the nuclear arms race.

we don't need a nuclear arms race with a.i. making these weapons even more deadly, even more accurate. we need treaties. we need negotiations. we need to come together on the planet. that's what we should be talking about. building more than we need is a waste of money, but it also makes the world more dangerous, not less dangerous, because it provokes a response from the other side. second, guess what moscow and beijing will do if washington suddenly building more bombs? they will do the same. third, a u.s. buildup would doom any chances of saving the u.s.-russian arms reduction process. the last remaining treaty -- new start -- ex-expires one year from now, and unless we replace that treaty, there will no longer be any legal limits on

the united states or russian warheads for the first time in 50 years. you hear what i'm saying? no one -- we're in a new world now. 50 years without limits on nuclear weapons. it will it be all be gone in a year. and trump's allies are also calling for the u.s. to resume the testing of nuclear weapons for the first time since 1992. we needed nuclear testing three decades ago and then signed the comprehensive test ban treaty in 1996 banning all nuclear tests. we have conducted more nuclear tests, over 1,000, than all other nations combined. we have no need to test. but if we do, other nations will, too -- like russia and china -- and beijing has only conducted 45 nuclear tests. we have conducted a thousand. imagine how much china could

learn if trump gives it an excuse to resume testing, which china is not doing. the only state that is not conducting nuclear tests is north korea. we should not be reopening this pandora box. under trump we could see billions of dollars spent on long-range missile defenses that don't work. the end of arms control and the start of a new nuclear arms race with russia and china and new nuclear testing, and all of this would make the world a more dangerous place and increase the risk of nuclear conflict. and if trump asks hegseth if he should do these dangerous things, the answer will be yes and yes and yes. that's where we're going to be. now, there is some possible good news, too. trump, not surprisingly, gets along well with russian

president putin. they might end the war in ukraine. if they do, that could open up a path to negotiate a treaty. to follow a new start. and president trump said just this week, we want to see if we can denuclearize. and i think it is very possible. i can tell that you had -- tell you that i think president putin, if he wanted to do it, we should take him up on t we should move in that direction and, as for mr. hegseth, the last thing president trump needs is a yes man for secretary of defense. and i'll just add one final issue as a national security threat, climate change, which the pentagon, which the joint chiefs of staff have said over and over and over again is a threat multiplier to our military and our ability to protect the world. it is a threat multiplier. having a president who is a climate denier coupled with a

secretary of defense who is a climate denier just ignores the reality of the world as it is unfolding in this climate era. the whole defense budget -- $900 billion. hurricane milton and helene in october and november combined with the fires in los angeles right now? $500 billion of damage in three storms. that's half the entire defense budget for our country. we can't have a secretary of defense who doesn't believe that climate change is a threat multiplier to our threat and to the security of the planet. we need someone there who can speak truth to power to the president of the united states. so i can't more strongly recommend a no vote on the floor of the senate on this nomination. he's unqualified.

his confirmation could be very dangerous to our nation. we need military personnel who respect the secretary of de defense. we will have none of that with pete hegseth. i very, very, very strongly recommend to this body that we vote no and tell the president to come back with someone who is worthy of this most important of all positions in his cabinet. with that, i yield back.

a senator: mr. president. mr. markey: mr. president, i doubt the presence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. president. this is the first time i've heard of the nomination conversion. i hope you understand women

serving in the military right now might think if you can convert rapidly, there are long-held aggressively pursued the use and 32 days, that's 32 days after confirmed maybe you will reverse those go back they said straight up that women do not belong in combat. you've written to date retire the should be banned for ten years. tonight a great between the pentagon and defense contractors. the question i have, would you put your money where your mouth is? when you leave this job, you will.

>> time is short, i just need a yes or no. >> white short every general who serves not go directly into the defense industry for ten years. if you're not willing to make that pledge? to like about the general senator. [laughter] >> let us clear, you are in charge of the general so you are saying is not sauce for the gander? >> i like to the policy for your hard work committees hard work. this has gone well. i like to submit this letter

submit is for the record. you are a tough guy. to the flo some of the actions that president trump has -- the presiding officer: senator, senate is in a quorum call. mr. van hollen: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. van hollen: thank you, mr. president. i come to the floor this afternoon to speak to some of the actions that president trump has taken just in this first three to four days, and speak to the nomination of pete hegseth as secretary of defense. president trump was sworn in at noon on tuesday, just down the

hall a bit. as a candidate, he ran promising to help working men and women throughout the country. he talked about addressing their kitchen table issues. so let's take a quick look at some of the big actions that have been taken just in the last four days. one very serious action taken was pardoning the men and women who were convicted of bludgeoning and assaulting police officers in this capitol on january 6, 2001. for those of us who were here that day, we will never forget, because after losing that election donald trump unleashed rioters on capitol hill, rampaging throughout the citadel

of democracy, clubbing police officers with baseball bats, and crushing them between doors. 140 law enforcement officers from the capitol police and the washington, d.c. metropolitan police were injured that day. i remember their heroism, and i remember those who died in the days following those attacks. mr. president, to pardon people who were convicted of assaulting and bloodying and bludgeoning police officers demonstrates contempt for the men and women who helped protect us every day, not just here in the capitol but men and women of law enforcement throughout the country. as the fraternal order of police and the international

association of police chiefs have said, and i quote, allowing those convicted of these crimes to be released early diminishes accountability and devalues the sacrifices made by courageous law enforcement officers and their families. they go on to say that this leniency, quote, sends a dangerous message that the consequences of attacking law enforcement are not severe, potentially emboldening others to commit similar acts of violence, unquote. simple result of this is to send a terrible message that if you assault police officers in the name of donald trump, he will be there to pardon you. let's look at some of the other actions he's taken just in these first days back in the white house. he issued an executive order

that rolls back initiates to help reduce the cost of prescription drugs for more americans. he's been laying the groundwork here on capitol hill for a huge new tax cut that will disproportionately benefit the super wealthy and the biggest corporations at the expense of other americans. we heard him speak at that podium during his swearing in of the golden age, and sitting right behind him ratty billionaire -- were the billionaire titans from the tech industry. he is going to deliver a more golden age for those who are already very wealthy, and for the biggest corporations, but it's not going to trickle down and help others, and we know that because we've seen this movie before. we saw trump tax cuts 1.0.

they promised that investments in businesses would go up, the idea being if you provide tax cuts to big corporations they'll take the additional savings and they'll invest it in their businesses. well, that's been looked at, and that didn't happen. what did go up were stock buybacks engaged in by the corporations to further benefit their shareholders, many of them already very wealthy people. they promised that those savings would be used by corporations to increase wages. in fact, they said on average it would be $4,000 a worker. just didn't happen. what went up were ceo bonuses. what else went up was the deficit and the debt. the claim that these would somehow pay for themselves was just, once again, a pure fa falsehood disproved by reality. so, here we are embarking on

2.0, trump tax cuts 2.0. same story unfolding. although, now we already hear our colleagues talking about how everybody else in america, many other millions of americans, are going to have to pay for the tax cuts for the folks at the very top. just take a look at some of the proposals made by the chairman of the house budget committee, republican member of congress, talking about trillions of cuts in things like medicaid, a very important health program that helps kids with disabilities, helps lower-income individuals, helps seniors in nursing homes. talking about cutting programs in food and nutrition programs. so everyone seems to be all in with president trump on the idea of another round of tax cuts for the very rich, but they're going to ask everybody else in the country to pay for it.

let's look at something else the president did in this first three or four days. he issued an executive order called schedule f. well, what is schedule f? in a nutshell, schedule f is an attempt to convert our merit-based civil service into a political cronyism-based civil service. since the late 1800s and the pendleton act, we've had civil service based on merit. civil servants who work in the federal government in regular, ongoing positions have to pass a test, show they're qualified, have the experience and know-how. it's what you know, not who you know. and what president trump and his team are proposing in schedule f is to convert that merit-based system into a politics-based system, where you have a

political litmus test, not for competence but for your po politics. i should point out that of course presidents are entitled to lots of people in their administration as political appointments. in fact, there are about 4,000 political appointments in our current system. obviously, you have the secretaries of various departments. i'm going to talk about one of those in a minute. but you have the deputy secretaries, you have many assistant secretaries. so you have 4,000 political appointments already available to be made by president trump. but that's not enough, apparently. they're talking about converting approximately a number of about 16,000 additional positions that are currently merit-based systems, based on your qualif qualifications, to political cr

cronyism-based systems. that is a recipe for corruption. it's a recipe for reducing the quality of services to the american people from coast to coast. you do not want somebody who's chosen just because of who they know and who their politics are to be the people doing your food inspection or working on policy on all sorts of important things that impact the american people. and a lot of those positions will be at the department of defense. i want to turn now to the nomination of pete hegseth to be the secretary of defense. now, i mentioned that presidents have the flexibility to appoint many political folks to positions in the u.s. gov government. but for the top ones, for the secretary of defense, for example, the founders of this

country, those who wrote the constitution, put a little bit of check and balance in that. they said the senate has the right to advise and consent on those very top positions, because those are incredibl inc consequential positions and we want people of good judgment and good character in those positions. so that's what the senate is engaged in right now, a debate under the advise and consent clause of the united states constitution. i think we all recognize that we're here at at very perilous moment in the world. we have putin's war of aggression begins against -- against ukraine. our allies are watching closely to know whether we're going to stand with the people of ukraine. other people are watching too. president xi of china, he has one eye on what's happening in ukraine as he has another eye on taiwan. we have huge challenges in the

indo-pacific region. we have a very combustible middle east, with the malign actions that iran continues to take. we have a very fragile ceasefire in gaza, with the return of hos hostages. if you look around the world, it is in a very, very sensitive and explosive moment. and we should keep that in mind as we decide whether we're going to provide advice and consent to pete hegseth for secretary of def defense. somebody who will be overseeing 3.4 million servicemembers and empl employees, someone who will be second to the president in making decisions on the operation of our nuclear forces,

someone who will oversee what represents over half of the entire discretionary budget of the united states of america, $850 billion. so, in this moment, it's especially important that we look at his qualifications. because what we don't want is somebody who is untested and incompetent and someone of low character running the defense department in the highest position of that department. and yet, as we've heard from ample testimony, that's exactly what will happen if pete hegseth is confirmed to be secretary of defense. as our colleague, senator reed of rhode island, the ranking member of the senate armed services committee, someone who served in the 82nd airborne, has

said, servicemembers, servicemembers with m mr. hegseth's record would be disqualified, not just from the highest position of the defense department but any position in the military. and yet this secretary of defense would be overseeing all of those men and women who we ask to uphold the highest tradition and values of our country. and yet the person who would be in charge if confirmed would be somebody who would be disqualified from being one of them that is a terrible message to send. let's take a look at the record on management, as well as the personal conduct of the person that president trump has nominated to be head of the defense department, mr. hegseth. he led two veterans organizations, and based on the

testimony, in both cases engaged in financial mismanagement and wasteful spending. when managing a budget of under $10 million, he repeatedly overspent, until the organization was on the edge of bankruptcy. in his next leadership role, he continued to overspend, including on social events and excessive drinking. his successor in that position was told, and i quote, among the staff, the disgust for pete was pretty high. most veterans do not think he represents them, nor their h highest standard of excellence, unquote. he was told that funds that had been used to fund mr. hegseth's partying and drinking as well as his use of work events to, quote, hook up with women on the road, unquote. mr. hegseth has a disturbing history of sexual harassment.

in 2017 he was credibly accused of raping a woman in a california hotel room. we learned yesterday that mr. hegseth paid the woman $50,000 to prevent her from talking about the assault. we also know that he failed to disclose that information to the transition team, attempting to keep it secret. we can understand why he didn't want the american people and the senate to know that. so, mr. president, i really wonder how the senate could possibly confirm mr. hegseth for an entry level security clearance, let alone the enormous responsibility of leading the department of defense and the men and women who serve there. let's take a look at another aspect of mr. hegseth's record. because whoever is secretary of defense has to understand that they represent the great

american military, every single person in it, regardless of background, regardless of religion, regardless of race, regardless of sexual orientation. that is their job. they're all out there fighting for the united states of america. they all bleed red. they're all sworn to defend our country. and yet, if you look at his statements, it's very clear that he believes military service is for some, but not all americans who want to serve. his remarks are centered on disparaging women, people in the lgbt community, and muslim americans. let's look at the women serving in the military. he has said, and i quote, i'm straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles, unquote. now i watched some of the hearing. i saw him try to wiggle out of

statements that he had made, very clearly like this one i just read. and, frankly, nobody should be fooled by this 11th hour conversion as he seeks to be confirmed by the united states senate. he said what he said, and it was actually part of a pattern when it came to women serving in the military. in his 2024 book called "the war on warriors," mr. hegseth criticized both the don't ask, don't tell, as well as its repeal, writing that these policies are just part of a social justice agenda. i would say to those men and women who are serving in our military who have been condemned and criticized by mr. hegseth, we all thank you for your service. most of us thank you for your

service. in his 2020 book, "-american crusade," mr. hegseth portrays contemporary, cultural and political conflicts in the united states, he portrays them as part of the crusades. the crusades. and frames, quote, islamism and muslim immigration as existential threats to american society. again, we have a military comprised of people of all different faiths. they've all sworn an oath to defend this country, and we should not have a secretary of defense that mallines a big group based on their faith and engages in that kind of bigotry. yet someone said hegseth said in 2015 kill all muslims. they said in a drunk and violent manner he said that. so, mr. president, these are

just some examples of the words and conduct of the person that we are considering to be secretary of defense for all the men and women who serve in our armed forces and in the pentagon. and we should not want any member of our military to be fearful of the person who's leading them. and yet, if you fall into one of these groups, or even if you're not, you should be very scared about what he has said s, maligning certain americans and trying to pit people against each other based on faith, based on gender, based on sexual orientation. mr. president, i want to turn to one other category of important issues that we would think, i hope we would think should be

upheld by a secretary of defense. mr. hegseth has lacked moral clarity and expertise about lots of elements of the military and war, including the laws of armed conflict. in his comments -- and his comments suggest that he does not believe that the united states armed forces should follow the laws of war. one of the very important principles we instill in our professional u.s. military is the importance of following the laws of war. and yet mr. hegseth has lobbied for pardons of military members who were turned in based on testimony of their peers for p illegal behavior and convicted by military courts. he defended military contractors convicted of war crimes,

including killing 14 unarmed iraqi citizens without cause. just for fun. just because they thought they could get away with it. he has repeatedly mocked the laws of armed conflict and expressed unequivocal support for servicemembers who have been convicted of war crimes. in his book, so-called "the war on warriors," he writes, and i quote, should we follow the geneva conventions? aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to our own rules? mr. president, a former colleague of ours and a great american hero, senator mccain, would be turning in his grave to hear these kind of comments. i want to read what senator mccain said about the importance

of the laws of war. quote, war is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. the geneva conventions and red cross were created in the stark recognition of the true horrors of unbounded war, and i thank god for that. i am thankful for those whose dignity, health and lives have been centered by the convention. senator john mccain in 1999. hegseth, 2025 -- let's just get rid of those rules of war. put in place because of the hard-earned lessons of, as senator -- senator mccain said the wretchedness of war.

mr. hegseth also talked about going back to the days of illegal waterboarding and ignoring the legal rules when it comes to torture and interrogation, saying that we should again, as he said, ignore those rules, do our own thing. here's what senator mccain said about that when it was debated here in the united states senate. i know from personal experience, senator mccain said, that the abuse of prisoners will produce more bad than good intelligence. i know that victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading information if they think their captors will believe it. i know they will say whatever they think their torturers want them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. most of all, i know the use of torture l compromises that which most distinguishes us from our enemy. our belief that most people even captured enemies have basic

rights which the united states not only joined but for the most part authored, unquote. senator mccain. now i know that president trump disdains that great american hero, senator mccain. in fact, here's what candidate trump said back in 2015. quote, he's not a war hero. he was a war hero because he was captured. i like people who weren't captured. unquote. says somebody who never served in the military. colleagues, i urge us to apply the standards that senator mccain would apply. i urge us to listen to our colleague, jack reed, who served in the 82nd airborne and has with great diligence, serves as

the ranking member of the senate armed services committee. i would ask our colleagues, based on this record of personal misconduct, financial mismanagement, pete hegseth's disregard for many men and women who serve in the military, based on his own statements, and his contempt for the rules of war that john mccain so eloquently upheld. so when it comes to this senator, i hope other senators, when it comes to providing advice and consent as part of our constitutional duty under the constitution, and balance of powers, i will withhold my consent, and i urge my colleagues to vote no on the nomination of pete hegseth to serve as the secretary of defense. and i yield the floor.

a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oregon. mr. merkley: mr. president, when i came out of graduate school, i was hired by secretary weinberger as a presidential management intern, now called pms, presidential management fellows. five of us were brought in to do a series of rotations to bring, well, an injection of policy

determination to the conversation in the secretary of defense's office. and it was really quite an enlightening experience. my first assignment involved being desk officer for lebanon -- excuse me -- for jordan at the defense security assistance agency because a desk officer who worked for both jordan and lebanon had to pay more attention to lebanon because we had the horrific bombing of the marines in the tower. then there was an argument inside the defense establishment about how to keep russia from going forward at a faster pace technologically. and the research and development side said if you classify everything, you will slow us down, and russia will catch up. and the policy said unless we classify everything, the russians will steal so much, they'll speed up and catch up.

and there was this fundamental difference of opinion about how to control technology in order to maintain our technological lead over russia. and i was asked to set up a steering committee and bring both parties to the table to try to work out where they could work together and try to resolve their differences. and in the course of things, i was drafted to become a programmer to do computer studies on surviveability related to what strategies with our strategic forces would decrease the risk of nuclear war happening. what would strengthen deterrence? and then on to service at nato and then to an r&d budgeting cycle where i learned many of the budget games the defense department employs in order to get a whole lot of money that seems to be never accounted for. in fact it's become universally recognized the defense

department can never pass a budget, can never pass a budget test -- that is an audit -- because they don't track an anything very closely and there's all kinds of loose ends left. year after year democrats and republicans have said audit the is secretary of defense, audit the defense department. we want to know where our funds go. and here we are decades and decades later and we still have that same problem. it was a valuable p several years that led to me working for congress on strategic nuclear issues. we saw some real advances in our security. we saw some advances in terms of the stability of the nuclear dynamic, with the then soviet union. and in fact the folks who put together the doomsday clock which was very close to midnight when i started working on

defense issues was turned back some 13 or 15 minutes from midnight in the late 1980's because of a series of policy changes that had been worked out over the 80's. the defense department is massive. an annual budget of about $850 billion, 2.5 million servicemembers, 900,000 civilians. it's massive. it's complicated. but what experience does mr. hegseth bring? he ran two little micrononprofits, and he ran them into the ground. he had documented problems with drinking on the job. he had credible and repeated being a -- accusations of sexual

assault. he showed disrespect for female servicemembers and diverse servicemembers, including the current -- the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, admiral brown. this man who mismanaged the enterprises he has undertaken, that's the person who will run the u.s. military that has massive needs for reform. now, is this man some expert in military strategy? no. is he some esteemed driver of the new technology of war with drones? no. did he have diverse experiences inside the defense department that gave him many perspectives about the incredible sections of the defense department that

deals with so many issues? no. no. so why? why are we having this conversation? what has happened to the idea of credible leadership? well, i can tell you what happened. the president of the united states, president trump, said do what i want or i'll primary you. and now we have a bunch of folks across the aisle that are not doing their job under the constitution. the constitution says that it's our responsibility to advise and consent, to vet nominees, and to make sure they're qualified before they take these positions. so i say to my colleagues, stop shaking and shrifing -- shivering under the aura of an authoritarian president and do your job.

and your job is to say no because this man is not qualified. he did not even tell president-elect trump about all of the accusations made against him. if he could not tell president trump the truth before he is serving and before president trump is president trump, how will he be able to stand up for the truth and say what needs to be said after president trump is in office and he's secretary of defense? the department of defense has failed seven you aed idz in -- audits in a row. the secretary of defense must be able to get the department on track to pass an audit. it's mandated by congress. it's been mandated -- mandated before and they still fail year after year. but both sides say it should happen. we should put some teeth into

that. but i'll tell you, putting a man who can't manage a tiny nonprofit isn't going to get the job done. they ran up enormous debt, and by 2008, the financial records show they were unable to pay their creditors. irresponsible in the max. now, i know running a small nonprofit is hard. i was the director of an affiliate of habitat for humanity and i was president of the world affairs council and had managerial responsibilities and it was tough making sure we hit payroll each month, making sure that we reached the aspirations we had for those organization. it was hard work. i worried about it all the time, but we always met payroll. we always advanced in our

mission. maybe, if we're going to hire somebody from a small nonprofit to run a gigantic organization, we should know that they could run the small organization before they get promoted to running an organization with millions of people and the better part of a trillion dollars in its budget. a republican strategist who worked with him at that organization said, quote, i don't know how he's going to run an organization with $857 billion budget and three million individuals on more than a dozen occasions, mr. hegseth's fox news colleagues report smelling alcohol on him before he went on air, including just a couple of months ago. former employees of the nonprofit he ran report him being drunk on the job and having to be carried out of events. that's the person we want

running the department of defense? a former employee noted in a letter of complaint that after mr. hegseth yelled kill all muslims while at a bar on a work trip. you know, we have many faiths serving us in the defense of this country, having a person who advocates killing a person of a particular faith is not acceptable to run the department of defense. now, he said, oh, well, i'll reform. i've broken the rules on drinking before, but i'll reform. how many times have you heard that from people who are, well, they have an addiction. they try to reform. maybe they make it for a little while, but in the end, they relapse. should we put that risk upon the

security of the united states of america. we used to have a more responsible attitude here in the senate. in 1989 when george h.w. bush nominated john tour -- tower, there was -- he was had a record of drinking and he said he wouldn't drink anymore, and then the senate weighed the risk of putting somebody with an addiction in charge of the department of defense and rejected his nomination. it is an insult to the servicemembers of the united states of america to put a man with an addiction in charge of them. it is irresponsible to the security of the nation and all civilians of this nation. the department of defense struggles with high levels of sexual assault of female

servicemembers. so a person who has been involved in numerous incidents of misbehavior on the issue of treating women isn't the right person to have at -- as the secretary of defense. in 2023, 29,000 active duty troops reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact. now, mr. hegseth has been accused of sexual assault. he paid the accuser $50,000 in a settlement. it took place in 2017, after a speaking appearance at a republican women's event in monterey, california. no charges were filed. but this, in combination with multiple other reports of his treatment, accusations of mistreatment of women, means he is the wrong person to have at an organization in which women

provide enormously valuable contributions. during his time at the head of a veterans organization, the employees report that mr. hegseth sexually -- and i quote, sexually pursued the organization's female staffers. it's not like this was one misunderstood event somewhere in his way past life. women are 18% of our active duty servicemembers. but mr. hegseth dismisses them. we need moms but not in the military. especially not in combat units. and went on to say, i'm straight up, just saying we should not have women in combat roles. it hasn't made us more effective, it hasn't made us more lethal. it has made fighting more complicated. and he's wrong on every point.

women in combat roles have helped fill out ranks. we do have a volunteer army. we do recruit to get the staff we need in the military in order to be able to operate the weapon systems and the communication systems, and the supply systems and the repair systems, all of it, they work in every role, valuable, valuable contributors, which have not -- we should not put a person at the head of the department of defense who somehow thingsle half the jobs in the thinks half the jobs of the world should be put in the charge of men. he also doesn't like minorities. minority groups comprise 30% of servicemembers. i don't care what color of skin you have, i do care if you work

hard in the military to support this nation and people of every race are a valuable part of our military. and a man who thinks the color of your skin controls the content of your character and the ability and talents that you possess doesn't belong as the head of the military. he has said the dumbest phrase on planet earth is set -- said diversity is our strength. you take away the diversity in our service and you'll soon see our diverse servicemembers are invaluable and a person who doesn't understand that should never be confirmed. that is our job. our job under the constitution is to say, mr. president, sometimes presidents get it wrong. maybe it's for political reasons. maybe you woke up and didn't know all the background of the person, but we have to vet them and we have to make sure that your executive branch is

successful. that's our job. you're not helping president trump by voting for a man totally unqualified. the most unqualified man who could be found in america to head the department of defense. mr. hegseth says, i told my platoon they could ignore directives limiting when they could shoot. a person who violates the directives in the military doesn't belong running the military. there is a strong command structure in the military and it includes how you behave in certain situations and are crucial to the security of this nation, but he did not understand that. he has argued that u.s. forces should ignore the geneva conventions and other elements of enter naeshl law -- international law governing the conduct of war. as my colleague from maryland was just talking about and reciting the wisdom of john

mccain saying how the geneva conventions serve us well because you get misinformation when you torture people and you get americans tortured, so a man who believes in torturing people doesn't understand how to get accurate information and is putting our own servicemembers at risk when they are captured. why would any member of this body so disrespect the servicemembers of the united states of america as to put this man in charge? i was honored to work for secretary weinberger. i believed that the world was at great risk of the possibility of nuclear war and that is what i focused on during my time there and working for congress. there is nothing i saw during my

time in the pentagon that equals this level of failure to protect and defend the united states of america. i did not see people put into command who talked about killing members who were of a different religion than they were. i did not hear people talking about how women were -- should not even be there. or how diversity was a problem rather than a strength. it saw -- i saw people working hard together, people who served in vietnam together. many of the folks that i served with during those two years in my role as a civilian being hired to work with secretary weinberger, they had served in vietnam. the war had ended by the time i reached draft age. i so respected the service that they had given and their

dedication to the security of this country. and if you are dedicated to the security of this country, if you respect the servicemembers in the united states of america, then do not give them a boss who is the wrong fit in every way possible. thank you, mr. president.

restoring and eat those, a warrior eats those which is in stark contrast to the eco- sweep seen the last four years which is a weakness and wokeness. i want to drill down on a few

things specifically. gei, there is been it is not about giving everyone opportunity. it is rooted in cultural marxism the ideaob that you picked the room, any room, with oppressor versus oppressed. it is race essentialism. it is poison. it has no business whatsoever in our t military. the american people have speaking loudly and clearly about this. my democrat colleagues on the other side, if you have not picked up on that, you missed the plot. november 5 partially was h about our navy, recruit in the modern world, how do we maintain force preparedness, how do we cement strategic alliances. it's a job that you can't just

show up and start doing. there has to be behind it a lifetime experience that gives you some capacity to be able to do all these things when respond to the emergencies that inevitably arise when you get that phone call at 3:00 in the morning. there's been a lot of discussion by my colleagues about the lack of experience of mr. hegseth. i share that concern. there's been a lot of discussion about his views on women in the military, our own distinguished senator tammy duckworth is the most preeminent example of the capacity of women to serve effectively and bravely. mr. hegseth has repute yated his well founded and long-standing view that he's against women in

the military. frankly, it sounds to me like a nomination eve consideration. speaking of course to you, mr. president, i really respect the military service that you've provided to our country. but the big concern i have about him in addition to the character issues, the experience issues, the drinking issues -- by the way, i'm puzzled at his assertion that if he gets the job, he'll stop drinking. why wait? but here's the concern i have. unlike you, mr. president, i did not serve in the military. my draft lottery number was high during vietnam, and i wasn't drafted. many of my college classmates were. they served in vietnam. some of them came home injured. some did not come home.

and i think about them every day and how it is that they served. some were badly injured and some died. but when i think about the situation most americans are in, most of us didn't serve. but all of us who didn't serve are so indebted to those who did. my high school classmates, young people i see now volunteering to go into the military. so we as americans have a profound obligation to honor the service of those who volunteer to respond to the call of the commander in chief who says, you're going to be deployed. they don't know where.

they're not involved in the discussion whether. they're not involved in the discussion when. they show up. in our democracy so profoundly depends on the idealism of young people who are willing to subject themselves to the decisions of the commander in ch chief. and i believe, mr. president, that every one of us here who's involved in the decisions about authorizing the use of military force have an absolutely profound obligation to do that with care because the folks who are going to do the work and be in harm's way are going to be there because we sent them there. so it's why i've been so insistent as many of us here that we have to have a good v.a. we have to have good medical care for our soldiers, sailors,

and airmen and marines. but what we need, too, is a secretary of defense who honors that idealism of these young americans who decide to enlist. and that idealism is born in a sense of common commitment, a sense of wanting to do something for the common good, and it's also to live by the code of military conduct. there's great honor in our services. and those men and women who i so admire know they may have to use lethal force to defend our values, to defend our country, to protect their fellow soldiers, but they know those limits. they use it when they must.

but never more than that. by the way, that is asking a lot of our soldiers to be restrained when they're in a combat zone and can be killed themselves. so what distresses me so much about mr. hegseth is how he used his very powerful forum on fox t tv in my view to dishonor the soldiers who acted with restraint and valor and integrity by taking up the cause of some of our soldiers -- there's not many of them but they do exist -- who killed people, who used violence not in furtherance of our defense but

for their own reasons. and i'm speaking about mr. lorentz. clint lorentz was a soldier. he was sent in 2012 as a new commander without combat experience to lead a platoon of young soldiers that were deployed to afghanistan. with the mission of defeating the local taliban and winning over the area's population. incredibly hard task. but one day for reasons mr. lorentz and soldier lorentz knew, he threatened to kill a farmer and his son, a 3 or 4-year-old boy. and a day later he ordered his men to shoot withinisms of an un -- within inches of unarmed villagers. that was including near children.

and he said, it's funny watching the ville annualers -- villagers dance. mr. lorance's men who are the honorable, brave, and willing to be in harm's way and willing to act like a warrior but i'm not ever willing to kill indiscriminately, they balked at his orders. and you know how hard that is to do if you're a soldier when you're given an order, even if you know it's the wrong order. then they were told to make false reports about taking fire from a village to justify this conduct, and they refused to do it. the next day lorance ordered fire on an unarmed afghans over

a hundred yards from the platoon. they were killed. he radioed in a false report claiming the bodies couldn't be reached. the people i honor are the people under his command who refused to take those orders. the people i honor are soldiers whose bravery extends not just to putting their own physical well-being in harm's way but who maintain that commitment to the ideals of the military code of conduct. that gives us the standing and legitimacy that is so important to our well-being. so my problem is this. i want a secretary of defense who is as good as the soldiers

he leads. mr. hegseth, in my view, fails to meet that standard. i yield back. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: mr. president, i rise today because it's inevitable that at some point in the near future, president trump will have to convene his national security team in the situation room at the white house in response to a global crisis, whether in ukraine or the taiwan strait or some other hot spot. mr. kim: the situation room is a room i had a privilege working in as a staff on the white house national security council. it's a room where the most consequential decisions are made, where the safety and

security of our country is decided, where the lives of people are determined, but who will be in the room with the president advising the president during these difficult and stressful times? as the president sits at the end of the table flanking him are some of the most senior advisors, one of them closest to him will be the secretary of defense. mr. president, i rise today because i know the importance of that role in that room. i've seen what it means for the president to turn to the secretary of defense for counsel. in fact, i even worked at the pentagon in the office of the secretary of defense. i've seen the massive operation that the secretary needs to lead every day and what it takes. and i've seen the readiness necessary for the secretary of defense to turn to the president and provide the right recommendations for america's national security. now, i have seen mr. pete hegseth make his case.

i've seen his answers in front of the senate armed services committee. i've seen the reports. i can say from my experience in the secretary of defense' office as well as in the situation room, that mr. hegseth's appointment is an unnecessary risk in adangerous -- in a dangerous global moment. now, i get it. president trump wants to be a disrupter. he wants to bring in people who are going to shake up the system. he wants people who represent a change from the status quo. i'm sure a number of us here in the senate would like to see some changes at the pentagon, changes on how things are done, understanding that the status quo is not something we can lean on. we certainly have disagreements on thousand add stability to the world that seems to be off the rails at this moment. but there is talking about change and there is actually having the skills and the compass if i to implement change. the department of defense is our largest employer in our government and one that requires

critical leadership. let's look at the world that mr. hegseth would inherit as secretary of defense. the role that president trump will ask him about in the situation room. on ukraine, it's clear that mr. hegseth simply doesn't know his history. during his nomination hearing, he called russia's 2014 invasion of crimea a, quote, minor incursion. he has down played the threat that russia's putin plays to our nato allies. he demonstrated a lack of depth of knowledge when asked by senator duckworth to name at least one of the asean countries and the type of agreement we've with them. he could not name one. multiple applies are on the front line of our competition with china. multiple asean members are locked in disputes with china. these are critical.

the department of defense release add strategic document called u.s. department of defense vision statement for a prosperous and secure southeast asia that was centered on asean and even mentioned that, quote, the united states has worked closely with asean on defense and security in the indo-pacific region since former defense secretary robert gates attended the inaugural asean defense ministers' meeting in 2010, and it goes on to say that at u.s. secretary of defense mass attended and supported asean at every single one of those gatherings ever since. in a moment where these disputes could easily flair up, the president needs a secretary that doesn't draw a bank on questions about our allies. on the middle east, mr. hegseth remarked that isis was, quote, rage across iraq when president trump was first sworn into office in 2017 was simply not reflective of the reality on the

ground at the time. combined that and the lack of knowledge should disqualify him. there is a much more clarifying factor, which is his character. i'll leave it at this -- someone who is being asked to lead millions of uniformed and civilian personnel, his statements on women and transgender servicemembers are simply unacceptable. claiming that standards have been lowered for women and that allowing lgbt americans to serve in the military is somehow a marxist agenda is absurd. it is far beyond the standard for someone who is supposed to be setting the standard for the men and women dedicated to protecting this country. mr. president, i've said before that every president, including president trump, has the prerogative to choose the people that sit at that table with him in the situation room.

but our job here in the senate is to make sure that those people have the competence and the character to serve our country. this is not a reality tv show. this is real life, and there are real lives at stake. mr. hegseth should be recognized for his service, but he should not be secretary of defense. if that is not enough, we are voting also to approve someone hob the sixth in line for presidential succession. is mr. hegseth ready for either of these distinctions? the answer for me is no. for the sake of our country and our national security, i encourage my colleagues who want to support this president to oppose this nomination and bring forth another nominee more qualified for the role, more ready for the role. i encourage my colleagues who want to deliver change to oppose this nomination, bring forth another nominee with the experience and credibility to deliver it, and i encourage my colleagues who want to make our

country safe, who want to make our world a more stable place and who want to leave a legacy of peace and strength to oppose this nomination and bring us a nominee ready to deliver for the american people. i urge a vote no on pete hegseth for secretary of defense. i yield back.

mr. kim: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. mr. kim: i note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. thank you. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

rebuilding our military and ending wars properly. >> i served in afghanistan, you served in afghanistan. 75% of our nations disagree with how the withdrawal from afghanistan was handled. you've already talked about that how do we fix it? how do we bring product -- crime to inspire them to do what we did to raise our right hand and serve this country. >> strong, clear, leadership did patriotic pro american leadership that says we are not going to focus on all the other political prerogatives. we all political perspectives.

in uniform none of that matters. green, blue, you lead read. do you vote for does not matter. you do not want people deciding whether to serve based on a political party. it is fragile right now. president trump, if i'm confirmed with my leadership, we will restore the continuity of an apolitical military that acts decisively and only based on merit. it is not basic, but they are fundamental. >> woke missus weakness. promotions of the united states military. >> i do not support any form of racial quota. >> affirmative action and the military academies. >> senator, i only support admitting the best and brightest whatever their background is. >> i think that is very

important. the secretary later went awol. he disappeared for days. did not even inform the chief of staff that he was going into the hospital. >> no, senator. i know in any one of my jobs if i decided to go awol four even a day or two, that would've been a concern. >> i believe accountability matters. no one has ever been held accountable to what happened in afghanistan. it has impacted this country greatly and i applaud you and president trump for bringing accountability back to our pentagon. with that, i yield back. >> recognizing the ranking member for unanimous consent. >> mr. chairman, i would like to submit an article of discussing some of the issues of the readiness. there is been a comment that

5 million man-hours have been used in de i. wyatt clarified is that is an estimate more than 2 billion hours without the department of defense. >> wears this published? >> this is published by megan myers. >> ella terry.com. i'm sorry. >> senator slotkin, welcome to the committee. >> thank you for representing. we miss him in michigan. for those of you i have not met my one week i was sworn into the senate i am a cia officer recruited after 9/11. three tours in iraq alongside the military. i have worked for four different

secretaries of defense both democrat and republican proudly and watch them make decisions that literally determined the life and death of americans in the dark of night. also a democrat representing a state that trump one. we both won on the same ballot. i understand that president trump has a right to nominate his people. we will have policies that we disagree with. all of that to me comes very standard. what i am most concerned with is no president has the right to use the uniform military and further taints the military as that apolitical institution that we all want. our founders designed the system so that, you know, we were not going to use active duty military inside the united states and make american citizens potentially scared of their own military. we went through our own experience with the british. you will be the one man standing

in the breach should president trump give an illegal order. i am not saying he will, but if he does, you will be the guy that he calls to implement this order. do you agree that there are some orders that can be given by the commander-in-chief that would violate the u.s. constitution? >> senator, thank you for your service. i reject the premise that president trump will be giving illegal orders. >> do you believe there is such a thing as an illegal order that joe biden or any other president , donald trump could give. is there anything that a commander-in-chief could ask you to do that would be in violation of the u.s. constitution? >> anybody of any party could give an order that is against the constitution or against the law. pushing back if you're given an illegal order. >> i reject the premise. >> i understand. >> this is not a hypothetical.

your predecessor in a trump administration was asked and did use military to clear armed protesters. flying low. he apologized publicly for those actions. was he right or wrong to apologize and. [inaudible] you are about to be the secretary of defense. >> legality in the constitution. >> i will not put words in the mouth of secretary esper or anybody else. >> what are you scared of? did he do the right thing by apologizing. >> i'm not scared of anything, senator. >> you can say no. deployed during that time.

writing that he convinced him of writing that decision. if donald trump asked you to use the 82nd airborne and law enforcement rolls in washington, d.c., would you also convince him otherwise? >> i will not get ahead of conversations i've had with the president did their laws and processes that would be followed >> president trump said in november that he is willing to consider using the active duty military against the enemy within. have you been personally involved in discussions of using the u.s. military, active-duty, inside the united states? >> i'm glad we finally got to the topic of border security equaling national security. >> have you been involved? have you been involved in discussions about using the active-duty military inside the united states?

>> senator, i am not yet the secretary of defense. >> i would not reveal what i've discussed with the president of the united states. >> you will be in charge of 3 million people. the active-duty that i know you care about. have you been in conversations about using the active-duty in any way whether it is setting up in detention camps, policing dangerous cities, have you been involved in any of those conversations? >> certainly i have been involved in conversations related to doing things this administration has not which is secured the border and allow floods to enter the country through an invasion that bred the american people. there are ways in which the military is already playing a role in that to include 5000 national guardsmen from indiana and then being at the border right now allowing for border security. >> active duty military to staff detention centers.

we have seen how that mission is difficult for them in places like iraq and afghanistan. that is not training military uniform comes with. do you support active-duty military and supporting detention camps? >> everything we do will be lawful and under the constitution. advocating responsibility. president trump will restore preventing our enemies into invading. >> i think we both care about it legitimately. i have heard a couple of different things. you said you will not change the uniform code of military justice which is what governs justice in the military. yes or no. >> those are laws set by congress. >> you will not go to change it. you also said that jack officers are potentially people who put their own interest in their own

metals and promotions ahead of the troops. senator lindsey graham was an officer for most of his life. those that implement the justice system in the u.s. military. >> i was speaking about particular officers i've had to deal with in my military experience not a member of the united states. >> are you going to get involved in the implementation of the u.s. military code of justice? >> it will be a big part of my job to evaluate decisions. >> is it on your list in the warrior boards to be removed from his position? >> senator, every single senior officer will b on meritocracy standards and commitment to lawful orders they will be given. >> thank you, senator. i now recognize senator for unanimous consent request. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i have a request from a former general who served 45 years who most recently was commander of the readiness command who has asked that his letter opposing mr. hegseth nomination be entered into the record. >> is our objection, without objection it will be entered. i present a host of letters and up beds from former coworkers that that's freedom and concerned vets for america as well as fox news channel. i also have letters in our beds for many veterans and i iraqis and afghan he speared they were helped by mr. hegseth. i ask unanimous consent to introduce these letters and beds without objection, is so ordered >> senator. you have been very patient.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. entering a sub court letter. ninety former soldiers that served. a statement from 86 of them and support this nomination coming from different units and links. love is shoulders and commitment to this country. i ask unanimous consent. >> without objection, it will be entered. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i will ask you questions because i want to hear your answer. how many genders are there, tough one. >> there are two genders. >> i am on board. [laughter] what is the diameter of the rifle round fired out of a rifle >> that is a 556. how many push-ups can you do? >> i did five sets of 47 this

morning. >> what do you think are most important strategic bases in the pacific? >> while ms. pretty strategically significant. >> county rounds can you fit in the magazine of an m4 rifle. >> depends on the magazine, but standard issue is 30. >> what size round is a m 9 beretta standard initial. >> a 9-millimeter, senator. >> what kind of batteries do you put in your night vision goggle. >> duracell. [laughter] >> right there you are representing qualifications that show you understand what they deal with every single day on the battlefield. you understand what happens on the front line wherever troops will be and what happens, unfortunately in this country is decisions are made in rooms like this, bad decisions, and upended

171819-year-old americans. they rarely come from families that sit in rooms like this. they come from lower middle income families. they join because maybe they want to go to college. maybe they do not have another choice. for whatever reason they joined and they signed on the dotted line. when people like us grew up, they don't come home. that is the one thing that i care about as you never want to shut the door when you came with your entourage senator coleman. you know what the question was, are you going to have the backs of the war fighters. what will be your number one priority? i don't care what these letters and articles say. i've been part of a smear campaign, too, i get it. you will have one thing in mind. you told me what that was speared so, with that, you have my support. i'm sorry they have to go through a process like this but

it is one of the most important process in the world. i thank you for your answers. i have one final question that is important to me. this is more of a technical question. to fix the army in this country it is a problem. six the air force may be a five-year problem. fix our navy is a decade-long pursuit. how is it they will fix the national you do not have all the power, we are not china cannot unfortunately snap our fingers. reinvigorating our ship industry so we are able to compete with china because freedom of navigation is critical to our economy and the global economy. it will be a very important task for you to complete. >> that is why am grateful that president trump has said definitively to me and publicly that shipbuilding will be one of his absolute top priorities of this administration. a lot of it does go into pulling things up into the osd office.

shining a spotlight on it to make sure the bureaucracy does not strangle important initiatives that need to happen. we need to reinvigorate our defensive days in this country to include our shipbuilding capacity. some of it is on the east, some of it is on the west some of it is on the great lakes. manpower issues and everything else. we also see adversaries that have been able to innovate ways that there shipbuilding capacity multiple dim multitudes beyond our capabilities. a rapid investment, we need to incentivize outside entities. the future of uv's unmanned underwater vehicles that would be a part of amplifying the impact of our navy. because this administration has

allowed our number of ships to drop below 300. it is set to projection of 340 or 350 but does not create the capacity to actually address it. if we defend our interests, our allies and put america first, we will have to be able to project power. shipbuilding, historic investments in our defense industrial base there. driving innovation and cost savings in ways that only business leaders inside the pentagon can do. >> i do not think any board in the world would have hired steve jobs or elon musk or mark zuckerberg when they founded their companies either. this country is founded by young people that had a great vision. thank you for being willing to serve your country again and thank you for coming here today. i yield back. >> thank you, senator she he. yelled back the balance of your time. mr. ranking member, can we agree

that you and i will notify members of a specific time until which the record will remain open for submission of questions for the record. >> yes, mr. chairman. >> that will be a day or two. this concludes today's hearing. i want to thank the witnesses for, and their families and this hearing is adjourned. [applause]

living out of chicago and hope.

the most erratic unqualified and unfit cabinet nominees we have ever seen in modern times. he takes at is a few hours away from becoming the next secretary of defense. overseeing the greatest military in the world. he has neither the character the experience or the judgment required by the job. if there is one word that should never describe a secretary of defense in this important position, it is erratic. that is the one word that describes mr. hegseth best. before we vote today, i hope that my republican colleagues think carefully one last time about the risks to the american people and particularly to the men and women in our armed forces of confirming somebody

like mr. hegseth. i hope my republican colleagues understand the danger of entrusting our military to someone whose background has not been fully vetted. we know much of the past remains uninvestigated. we know mr. hegseth refused to meet with people on the armed services committee and how can that be? such an important job. afraid to meet with democrats on the committee. in places like china and russia and iran and north korea. how could he avoid that? new allegations keep coming up as recently as last night. compounding the word erratic when it describes his behavior. this is not the way to vet a nominee in such an important position as secretary of defense when you are the one responsible

, it is not just a character flaw. it could mean the difference between entering or avoiding military conflict between life and death for our troops. we all want what is best for troops. we all know voting for secretary of defense is one of the most important votes we will take all year. it mystifies me that of all the people president trump could have nominated as secretary of defense he picks someone as flawed, as deeply flawed as mr. hegseth. pete hegseth really the best that we have to lead the greatest military in the world? is this man, with a history of excessive drinking relate the guy you want on the other into the phone at 2:00 a.m. in a crisis? in control ofs the nuclear cod? is this man with a mile-long list of allegations and abusing degrading and harassing women the one we want leading our men and women into i evaluated nomi battle ent, and

it's how i'm evaluating nominees from this president. and i approach each person with an open mind. it's our responsibility to make sure the folks we consider are ready to do these jobs for the american people. but this one, the secretary of defense, it's especially important. outside of the presidency it might be the biggest job in the country. it's almost impossible to imagine the scale of it. you've people working for you. you've the civilian leader at the top of a mass operation that includes every single soldier, sailor, guardian, airman, marine, and civilian contractor

and employee. these folks are spread out across hundreds of military installations in dozens of countries. so it's basically the toughest management job in the world. you're also responsible for overseeing a budget that exceeds $850 billion every single year. so it's one of the most complicated budget management jobs in the world as well. you're overseeing some of the most complicated weapons systems and defense programs that exist. some of these are multibillion-dollar projects that happen over the course of years to develop, test, and field. it's also one of the most demanding policy and program implementation jobs. now, not every secretary of defense nominee checks the box

for each of those qualifications. it's impossible for us to expect that. the job is too big. but what is clear to me at the end of this process is that mr. hegseth does not check any of the boxes. i appreciate his service in the united states army and his service to this country, especially in combat. but that is not a requirement for this role. during his career in the guard and reserve, mr. hegseth did not rise to a command position where he would learn the management, joint forces operations, logistics and other skills that are relevant to fill this job. in his civilian roles, he has led two veterans organizations, neither of which were larger

than about 50 people. and he spent 7 years as a tv host. normally this would be the end of the conversation. normally it would be clear to every single person in this chamber that this is not someone ready to do this job. now i understand the case for his nomination is in part because he's an outsideer. i get that, that he can shake things up. i'm not opposed to that. the pentagon needs to be leaner, it needs to move more quickly and be willing to lose things that aren't working and to dot things that will work. having someone who isn't beholden to the current way of

doing things, that's exciting. my concern is not that mr. hegseth is going to succeed in whipping the pentagon into shape. my concern is that he would fail. given his lack of experience, it's much more likely that the bureaucracy is going to crush mr. hegseth p than he is going to crush the bureaucracy. because it's not just that mr. hegseth is unprepared for this role. the experience he does have is riddled with serious issues that should concern us all. during his time leading two veterans organizations, he was accused of financial mismanagement. in 2009, after just about two years leading a group called vets for freedom, it's been reported that forensic

accountants found the organization had about $1,000 in the bank, more than $400,000 in unpaid bills, and $75,000 in credit card debt. mr. hegseth wants to get the pentagon to finally pass an audit, yet the much smaller, much smaller organization he led could not do the same. during his time leading concerned veterans for america, the organization was forced to reach a financial settlement with a female employee who accused a male colleague of trying to sexually assault her. the woman was reportedly ly ostracized. for a department that was workwork ing address sexual assault and

harassment what would it say to someone who has already fostered environments where these are an issue? it's also been reported that he frequently abused alcohol, getting drunk in front of his staff and in public. i want to remind folks of some of these incidents. memorial day 2014, cva event in virginia beach, hegseth needed to be carried out of the event. summer 2014 in cleveland, drunk in public with the cva team. november 2014 get out the vote in north carolina, hegseth got drunk with female staff members. cva had newted a no alcohol policy at its events in october. this was one month later. but mr. hegseth and another manager lifted the policy. december 2014 at the cva

christmas party at the grand hyatt in this city, washington, d.c., hegseth was noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to his room. another time a cva staffer stated that hegseth passed out in the back of a party bus. on may 29, 2015, a now former cva employee sent a complaint letter to management that hegseth was chanting -- this is a quote, his quote -- kill all muslims at a bar in cuyahoga falls, ohio, in a drunk and violent manner. while at fox news, october 2017, following his dinner speech at the california federation of republican women's 40th biennial convention in monterey, california, hegseth was reportedly engaged in a loud argument by the pool and was very intoxicated.

fox news employees have reported that after a st. patrick's day segment on st. patrick's day, after being on tv, hegseth drank several beers that had been sitting out for hours. these employees also noted that the segment finished before 10:00 a.m., and they were shocked at hegseth's behavior. one current and two former fox news employees told nbc news that they felt that they had to baby-sit hegseth to mitigate the effects of his drinking. this is a quote -- we'd have to call him to make sure he didn't oversleep because we knew that he would be out partying the night before. two fox employees, current or former, said that on more than a dozen occasions during hegseth's time as a cohost on "fox and

friends weekend" which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. that was in the morning. those same two people plus another said that during his time there, he appeared on television after they'd heard him talk about being hung over as he was getting ready or onset. fall of 2024 one fox employee said they heard him complain about being hung over. november 2024, one fox employee said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as this past nov november, three months ago. during his confirmation hearing i gave mr. hegseth the opportunity to answer for a number of these incidents. i asked him point-blank, are these true or false?

he had the opportunity to say these things did not happen, or to explain how he is prepared to account for them and how he won't repeat this concerning behavior as secretary of defense. he wouldn't answer, with one notable exception. i asked him about reports that in 2024 he was drunk at a strip club with staff in louisiana. he replied to me, absolutely not. he specifically denied that incident. he was prepared to say that one, but only that one didn't happen. but the rest of these incidents, well, he would not deny them. instead he called them anonymous smears. well, first of all, they are not all anonymous.

the committee has had access to sworn affidavits from individuals who witnessed this behavior firsthand. this confirmation process was rushed. the fbi background check, which the entire committee was never given access to, was clearly inadequate and had to be updated multiple times. and despite repeated efforts, mr. hegseth has refused to meet with me and many others on the committee in private to discuss these concerns further. but beyond all of that, it defies belief that this behavior does not represent a pattern. the incidents listed earlier, they stretch out across a decade. these are individuals who worked with him across three different organi

organizations, and in each place these people witnessed him abuse alcohol. it is obvious to anyone willing to see it that this is a pattern. and let us be clear, these are not smears. if mr. hegseth were a private citizen, these issues with alcohol would only be a concern for those around him. but when you're nominated to be secretary of defense, it's a concern for all of us, each and every american. this is not a job where you clock in at the beginning of the day and clock out at the end of the day. you have to be able to move seamlessly between advising the president on matters of national security, sitting with foreign leaders to hammer out agreements, and discussing complex weapons systems with your staff. and that might just be in the

afternoon. some of these things might happen on a plane across an ocean on a week-long trip or during a phone call that comes late at night, with quick decisions that affect the lives of our servicemembers. during the cuban missile crisis, robert mcnamara was briefed at midnight about the first photographs from spy planes showing the likelihood of soviet ballistic missile sites in cuba. the same has likely happened when north korea has tested ballistic missiles that could threaten guam or our allies. this is a demanding job for anyone. it is a concerning job for someone with mr. hegseth's track record. so as the senate moves towards a

final confirmation vote on this nominee, mr. hegseth, here's what i want to ask my colleagues -- are you sure? are you sure that you trust him with this job? are you sure there isn't another individual the president could choose who could pursue the same goals but is better prepared to do this job? are you sure it's worth the risk to our servicemembers, to our national security, and to your families? i know i'm not. i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call:

the presiding officer: the senator from hawaii. mr. schatz: thank you, mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to vitiate the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: mr. president, anyone who has tried to buy a carton of eggs at the grocery is a national shortage of eggs because of the bird flu and the reasonth that notices like this

exist is because the department of health and human e services tracks these outbreaks around-the-clock and notifies the public in real time. in the course we take that for granted and we should take that for granted that the garment just does it and we don't argue about it. they are lots of things to argue about the weather not the government should tell us if there's a public health problem has never been something that we have argued about. they take i it for granted but it's an invaluable service to keep the public safe and healthy is why it was so bizarrehealthy that in one of his first acts as president donald trump suspended all committee occasions from hhs, health advisory, scientific report, updates on the web site, all of it. what is that supposed to do

other than keep people from getting the information that they need to keep their families healthy. this is about being able to know a certain kind of meat or vegetable has been contaminated and staying away from it. grandsons when there is an e. coli outbreak at mcdonald's last year they sent out an alert that the press picked on -- picked up on war and the public. those communications and cucumbers at costco is another example e. coli mcdonald's and i don't mean to pick on these companies. these retail operations have their various public health problems, and i understand elections have consequences, right? and it is within the scope of a new administration, it's reasonable for them to take a look at all public policy and implement their own public

policy, but look -- this is a little nuts, and i'm assuming that there was a person in the white house like -- or in the transition team writing up a bunch of executive orders and thinking through an ideological lens or even like an electoral lens, fair enough, and they wanted to have a bunch of executive orders like ready to roll and so day one, boom, nothing coming out of hhs. but the problem is that this isn't partisan. this isn't what people thought they were voting for, and this really could jeopardize the public health. and so the resolution i'm introducing and asking for unanimous consent on is very simple. it reaffirms the pacific belief that -- the basic bleefl that people -- belief that people should have timely and accurate

information. we want to know if there is a problem with what you're about to eat. and suspending that is nothing to do with party but keeping everybody safe. so if there is a problem during this pause, the department of health and human services will not communicate to the public about it. and so, as if in legislative session, and notwithstanding rule 22, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the consideration of my resolution at the desk, further, that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from florida. mr. scott: mr. president, reserving the right to object. i can agree with my colleague, it is important that the american people have readily available access to accurate and

timely public health information. i don't think anyone disputes that and no one should have to doubt the important work done by the department of health and human services to provide the information they need to remain healthy and safe. the new administration just took office and issued a temporary pause until february 1 on all communications coming from its agencies without approval. they have every right to do this. they have a lot of problems to solve from the prior administration. i hope we can focus on equipmenting nominees -- confirming nominees quickly, the s sooner his nominees a-- had put in place, the sooner he can respond. thereof i object. mr. schatz: i ask that the following remarks appear in a different part of the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schatz: a new story was reported to the extent of robert

f. kennedy jr.'s involvement in the measles outbreak in samoa, and i felt a chill down my spine. i felt hot, i felt anning ri, i -- angry, i felt worried. we know that he went toa to -- to spread lies about the meeseles -- measles vaccine and we know as a result there was a measles outbreak, 5,000 people got measles, 83 people died, 79 of them were children. but i think there is a new fact here that is worth lingering on. he saw it as a great research opportunity. he saw it as a great research opportunity. he literally took an infomatics

expert, somebody who receives information, and took him with him to samoa to run a, quote, natural experiment stud yig what would -- studying what would happen to kids if they weren't vaccinated. let me tell you why this is personal to me. my dad is my hero. may his memory be a blessing, and he's my hero for a number of reasons, but among them, he was a young doctor and he was reading the person inning journal of medicine -- he was reading the new england journal of medicine, and he read about the tuskegee experiments and what happened was the united states public health service withheld lifesaving medication from african american men to, quote, observe the disease

process. they considered these men expendable. they provided half of the cohort with penicillin which they knew would c kill the dees and half with a -- disease and half with a mra keebo. -- mra keebo -- placebo. the united states public health service has to follow the hippocratic oath, do no harm. it's a dark history for america, but a proud moment, as i think of my father and his legacy. but the one thing i never thought would ever occur is that more than 50 years later we

would be at the precipice of confirming a person to run the department of health and human services who in this era, 50 years after the tuskegee experiments, flew to samoa, encouraged people not to take the measles vaccine, watched 5,000 people get sick, watched 83 people die, watched 79 kids die, and said, this is a real opportunity for data collection so we can see how this plays out. i'm still a little shocked that this person isn't going to be rejected 100-0. i understand partisanship, i understand loyalty. i'm not immune to partisan pressures on my own side. but this guy's different.

this guy is about to run a department of health and human services and he doesn't have just like one weird idea of one certain aspect of public health. he's a person who has flown across the planet to cause outbreaks of diseases that are generations in our past. and to add insult to injury, he has -- he is repeating the moral mistakes of the tuskegee experiment that has been actually outlawed by the united states con. and so -- united states congress. and so i will be talking about this more, but i'm just hoping, we fight about a lot of stuff in this building, but i know that there are a lot of people on both sides of the aisle that take their obligations seriously to provide advice and consent to the president of the united

states, whether you voted for him or not, whether your state voetsdz for him or -- voted for him or not and that this is an opportunity to say we're a separate and coequal branch of government, it is okay to say i support this president, but i don't support this nominee because i don't want measles or mumps or polio to make a comeback. i yield the floor. i notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. the clerk: ms. alsobrooks. quorum call:

we are having a lengthy conversation about mr. hegseth's i'm eager to talk about the only person doesn't seem to want to talk about the hegseth nomination is mr. hegseth himself. mr. president i've been trying for weeks to schedule a meeting

with mr. hegseth prior to his confirmation vote. i generally want the chance to ask him directly about my concerns with his character and fitness yes but also about the serious challenges facing our nation whether its competition with china progression from russia. as vice chair the senate appropriations committee i helped write the bill that funds the defense department every year. and that bill only passes with bipartisan support. i don't think it's asking a lot of people to meet with the person nominated to lead that department. i had the opportunity to meet with president trump's cabinet nominees and i look forward to meeting with more before they are confirmed by the senate. conducting these meetings is the bear minimum given the role of

each senator and the constituents they represent. mr. hegseth refused to meet with me a quorum call? the presiding officer: we are. mr. kaine: can i ask it be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kaine: thank you, mr. president. i rise to talk about the pending matter of the pete hegseth nomination to be secretary of defense. before i get into the bulk of my comments, i want to just state my own record in terms of votes for the secretary of defense as a member of the armed services committee. this administration is the fourth presidential administrative' been part of. i was -- administrative' been -- administration i've been part of. i served in the first trump administration, the biden administration and now a second trump administration. my track record as an armed services committee member and member of this body, i voted for every secretary of defense nomination before the body. focusing on the trump nominees,

president trump nominated general mattis to be secretary of defense. i voted for him in committee, voted for him on the floor. and he received a 98-1 vote with one abstension when he was before us in 2017. he served a portion of president trump's term and then stepped down and president trump nominated mark esper who had been secretary of the army to succeed general mattis. trump administration nominee paid me the honor of asking if i would introduce him before the armed services committee. and i did. he's a virginian. i had worked with secretary esper when he was army secretary on military housing issues. he had been responsive and professional. and so i said sure. you're president trump's nominee but i'm going to introduce you before the committee. secretary esper was approved in

the committee i think unanimously and the vote on the floor for secretary esper was 98-2. i bring that up just to say it is not my desire or norm to stand on the floor and speak in opposition to a nominee for secretary of defense. to speak in opposition to a nominee by president trump for secretary of defense. i spoke the other day, probably two days ago here about why i am opposing pete hegseth to be secretary of defense. what i want to focus on today is his claim because i know my colleagues have been on the floor all day long explaining their own reasons for opposition to pete hegseth. but i want to just really drill down on what pete hegseth is saying about the allegations folks are making against him. and this was pretty apparent in

the committee hearing a week ago tuesday. and it has been consistent since. it was most clear in a recitation he had back and forth with senator kelly of arizona. senator kelly asked him -- i'm just going to ask you really simple questions. here's an event that someone says you participated in, true or false. and again and again and again what pete hegseth was anonymous smears. he didn't say false because if you say false to something that you have done, it could verge on perjury. he didn't say true because if you say true to these kinds of allegation, it could be disqualifying. so it was a very interesting litany where again and again and again senator kelly said, here's an event. true or false. anonymous smears.

anonymous smears was a very, very sophisticated way of not answering the question. and yet even as i examined pete hegseth about marital infidelity, about sexual assault allegation alleged against him that led him to make a payout to the complainant about allegations of spousal abuse, again and again what he said was anonymous smears. and so what i want to do during my time today since i've already laid out sort of my bill of particulars about why i'm not supporting his nomination, i want to focus on this. the claims that have been made against pete hegseth, they're not anonymous and they're not smears. they're not anonymous and they're not smears. let me start with not anonymous. to begin with, many of the claims are claims that have been

admitted by pete hegseth. so let's start with the man himself. he has admitted serial infidelity in both of his first two marriages. he told me at the committee hearing he took an oath of fidelity to his wife, but he admitted to serial infidelity. that's not an irrelevant factor when we're analyzing whether someone who takes an oath to become secretary of defense is able to carry out that oath. pete hegseth has admitted as recently as yesterday that he made a payout to somebody who charged him with sexual assault. there was an incident in month ray in september of -- monterey in september 2017 that led to a criminal sexual assault complaint and a criminal investigation. it did not lead to criminal charges, but it did lead to a civil charge and a settlement and a payout and a nondisclosure

agreement. he's admitted to all of that. he claims it was a consensual event. the victim claims it was a sexual assault. but the fact of the interaction and the fact that it was both cheating on an existing wife and also on the mother of a newborn child, he's admitted all of that. it is not an anonymous claim when pete hegseth has admitted to this. second, it's not anonymous what pete hegseth's mother wrote to him. pete hegseth was in the middle of a very contentious divorce from his second wife samantha in 2018, and he received a most extraordinary e-mail from his mother. this is not anonymous. and i want to read the e-mail. it is an extraordinary bit of tough love from a mom to a son.

son, i have tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior. but after listening to the way you made samantha feel today, i cannot stay silent. and as a woman and your mother, i feel i must speak out. you are an abuser of women. that is the ugly truth. and i have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. you are that man. and have been for years. and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth. i am not a saint, far from it, so don't throw that in my face, but your abuse over the years to women, dishonesty, sleeping around, betrayal, debasing,

belittling needs to be you called out -- to be called out. sam is a good mother and a good person under the circumstances that you have created. and i know deep down you know that. for you to try to label her as unstable, for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. is there any sense of decency left in you? she did not ask for or deserve any of that which has come to her by your hand. neither did meredith. meredith is the first wife. i know you think this is a big competition and that we have taken her side bunk. we are on the side of good, and that is not you. go ahead and call me self-righteous. i don't care. don't you dare run to her and cry foul that we shared this. that's what babies do. it's time for someone, someone.

i wish it was a strong man to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women. we still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character. i don't want to write e-mails like this and never thought i would if it damages a relationship further, then so be it but at least i have said my peace. and, yes, we are praying for you. and you don't need -- and you don't deserve to know how we're praying so skip the snarky reply. i don't want an answer to this. i don't want to debate with you. you twist and abuse everything i say anyway. but on behalf of all women, and i know it's many, you have abused in some way, i say get some help and take an honest look at yourself.

mom. this is not an anonymous smear. i know a little bit about mother's love. i know a little bit about mother's tough love. this is not an anonymous smear, but it is an extraordinary, painful, candid rebuke. and, mr. president, why do i have this letter? this is not a letter that anyone in this body had. this is a letter that appeared in a newspaper about a month ago. the only people that would have had this e-mail are family, the people closest in the world to pete hegseth. no one else would have seen this. no one else would have had it. no one else could have read it on the floor of the senate

unless someone very close to pete hegseth, a member of his immediate family, decided years after it was written that a man nominated to be secretary of def defense, whose character had led his own mother to write this letter, this is a fact that should be put before the public in analyzing the character and qualifications of this individual. not anonymous. pete hegseth's former sister-in-law daniel hegseth who had been married to his brother nathanael, submitted an affidavit that is in the senate records available to all of my colleagues and all have read this affidavit or made a decision that they didn't want to read it, but it's available to all of us. and the affidavit that danielle has written about the treatment that was referred to by his

mother in this letter, it's completely consistent with what the mother says. the mother wrote this. it's now public. danielle has signed an affidavit about it. it's now public, and it's completely consistent with what the mother said. danielle hegseth is not anonymous. there's a whistleblower report that is available to all senate members. i read it ten days ago. it's for members only, but it's available to all hundred of us. and i hope all of my colleagues have read it. it would be a huge mistake to vote on this nomination not having ahead that whistleblower report. would does the whistleblower report involve? it's anything from anonymous. it's a report that was generated years ago when pete hegseth was the leader of an organization

called concerned veterans of america. it wasn't created for this hearing. it wasn't created because of a secretary of defense nomination. it was created by disgruntled employees in an organization that pete hegseth was leading. it's a seven-page single-spaced whistleblower report. and again, mr. president, i got to say, it's anything but anonymous. in fact, it mentioned by my count 36 names of individuals connected with concerned veterans for america. and multiple events of improper behavior by pete hegseth as the leader. being at work events impaired by alcohol. creating a toxic work culture that led to sexual harassment of women employees. repeated instances of unprofessional behavior and fiscal mismanagement of the

organization. and i know that pete hegseth calls that anonymous smears, but when you read this six-page document -- and again i just want to say to any public watching this, the senators in this body have all had access to it. so if you see somebody like pete hegseth saying it is an anonymous smear, no, the members of this body have all had access to danielle hegseth's affidavit, to pete hegseth's admissions, to the mother's letter, and to a whistleblower report with 36 names in it attesting to a variety of unprofessional behaviors. that document was provided to mr. hegseth and his attorney, and they submitted a response, but by my read of the document, they could not get a single individual whose name is mentioned to challenge or retract any of the statements that are made in the document. this is anything but anonymous.

again, all members have seen this. all members have had access to it. these are not anonymous claims. they are on-the-record claims by people very close to this man, including, in a most unusual way, his own mother. now, mr. president, i will acknowledge this -- there are some who have come forward who are anonymous. i have to acknowledge that. they're anonymous because they are hale afraid. ist -- because they're afraid. i have had extensive conversations with a close personal friend of the second wife, who has told me things that are directly supportive of the public materials contained in the mother's letter and the danielle hegseth affidavit. i don't know that he knows danielle, but what he told me is

completely consistent with danielle hegseth's allegations that pete hegseth was abusive to his second wife. but this individual is afraid to come forward and have his name mentioned because he believes that if his name was menged, he would be subject to abuse and potentially violence. i have spoken to a close friend of jane doe, the complainant in the sexual assault allegation and the sexual assault civil complaint and settlement with direct knowledge of this. and she has told me a number of things that confirm the public reporting about the sexual assault allegation, but she is afraid for her own physical safety to come forward. and i've spoken to one of the individuals whose name is mentioned among the 36 whose names are mentioned in the whistleblower report. who participated in putting it

together years ago. who was able to give some texture and context to this report that all members have had access to. she expressed a willingness to speak to the fbi about it. she doesn't want to come forward publicly because she is afraid. but she express add willingness -- mr. president, get this. she expressed a willingness weeks ago to talk to the fbi about the whistleblower report, which they had, and as of two hours ago, the fbi has not been in contact with a single individual whose name is mentioned in this whistleblower report. now, we already know that the fbi in their initial investigation, they did not reach out to either of the wives, wife one and wife two. they didn't reach out.

i haven't seen the fbi report. i'm not allowed to see it. it's only accessible by our committee chair and ranking, but i asked senator reed, was there any reference to, was there any evidence that either of the first wives were interviewed? i mean, you had the letter from the mother. why wouldn't you go-go talk to -- why wouldn't you go talk to the wives about the behavior? the fbi didn't go back to the first or second one. they had to go back and do an interview, and they did a cursory interview about mr. hegseth's drinking but didn't ask him about the abuse allegations. but as of two hours arc the fbi still has not reached tout a single person -- reached out to a single person whose name is contained as someone with knowledge about the whistleblower report and the activities of mr. hegseth when he was the ceo or the lead executive of concerned veterans for america.

i am saddened that a friend of wife two, that a friend of jane doe, that somebody who was a whistleblower is so physically afraid to come forward and say what they know because of fears of violence against them. that makes me sad. but i will state -- stake my reputation on this. what they have told me is a direct match and ass affirmation -- and an affirmation of the material contained in the public accounts from the mother, from pete hegseth's own admissions from the sexual assault facts we know, from the danielle hegseth affidavit. so, mr. president, i've taken some time to go over this to show that the material that this body is considering is not anonymous, and now i want to turn to the second. it is not a smear. the pete hegseth allegation seems to be that this is all created at the last minute to try to derail him from being

secretary of defense, and in that way it's a smear. couldn't be father from -- couldn't be farther from the truth. the sexual assault claim happened years ago. it was not created to try to stop pete. the whistleblower report was written more than a decade ago. it was not written to stop pete hegseth from being secretary of defense. pete hegseth has admitted to serial infidelity years ago. those allegations were not brought up to stop pete hegseth from being secretary of defense. and finally, this letter from pete hegseth's mother, it was sent years ago, and it wasn't sent to stop pete hegseth from being secretary of defense. it was sent, as his own mother has recently stated in media

interviews, as a message of love. this painful, painful e-mail was sent to her son as a message of love. none of this material was a smear. none of this material was created once pete hegseth was nominated to be secretary of defense to try to stop him. this material has been around for many, many years and was created contemporaneously with abuse that he was visiting upon others because people were trying to stop him. they were trying to stop him, as a message of love. they were praying for him. they were encouraging him to look in the mirror and improve. and yet he says, this is all a

smear. that is not the case. they're not smears. they are clear and consistent and contemporaneous reports of the behavior, judgment, impulse control, and character of this nominee for a most important cabinet position that any president will forward to the united states senate. mr. president, i'm going to conclude and just say this -- we can do better. as a nation, we can do better. as a united states senate, we can do better. supporters of president trump can do better. members of the military can do better. veterans can do better. blue star families -- i'm one; my kid is a marine -- we can do better. we need to do better by our active duty. we need to do better by our guard and reserve.

we need to do better by dod civilians. we need to do better by military families. we need to do better by defense contractors. we need to do better by all who care about the important mission of the american military. and we can do better. mr. president, you and i both know this -- there are so many good public officials who have aligned on the republican side, who have supported is president trump, who have their own credentials. in this body -- i could name had a bunch, but i'm worried i'd forget one and then get in trouble with one i don't name. but in this body, there are senators who have served honorably in the military and are well-qualified for the position of secretary of defense. in the house there are members who are loyal to this president who have served honorably in the military and are qualified to be

secretary of defense. we have governors, we have mayors, we have leaders of companies who have supported this president and are loyal to his agenda and could get a 98-2 vote, like mark esper did, or a 98-1 vote like general mattis did and would be loyal to this president and carry out this president's agenda. they are there. there are hundreds of them without the personal baggage of sexual assault claims that have been settled, of allegations of spousal abuse that have been testified to, of allegations of drunkenness on the job and fiscal mismanagement that are the subject of a very extensive report written by nonanonymous coworkers. and so, as we near the vote for this most important position, my plea to my colleagues, as one

who has supported every secretary of defense whose ever come before my committee, democrat or republican, is don't rush this and make a mistake. no one in this room, should this break badly following the confirmation, say wow, i didn't know. i didn't foe everyone knows. everyone has access to this material. everyone knows the risk we would be undertaking in confirming pete hegseth to be secretary of defense. there will be no place, no shelter, no refuge of, wow, i was unaware of this. but, more importantly than that, we all know people right in this chamber who are qualified by background, who are qualified by credential but, most importantly, are qualified by character. -- to undertake this most solemn

responsibility. let's get this thing right. let's take the fireplace to get this one -- let's take the time to get this one right. with that, mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from virginia. mr. kaine: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: the clerk: ms. alsobrooks.

mr. president i realize some republicans hoped that we would cut this short but i have no problem coming to the floor and having a lengthy discussion about mr. hegseth becoming defense secretary. i'm eager to talk about it to the only person who doesn't seem to want to talk about hegseth nomination is mr. hegseth himself because mr. president i've been trying for weeks to schedule a meeting with mr. hegseth prior to his confirmation vote. i generally want a chance to ask him directly about my concerns his character and fitness yes but also about the serious challenges facing our nation whether its competition with china or aggression from russia. as vice chair the senate appropriations committee i helped write the bill that funds the defense department every year. and that bill only passes with bipartisan support.

i don't think it's asking a lot of people to meet with the person nominated to lead that department. i've had the opportunity to meet with him president trump's cabinet nominees and i look forward to meeting with more before they are confirmed by the senate. conducting these meetings is the absolute minimum and given the role of each senator and the constituents they represent. mr. hegseth refused to meet with me and has refused many of my democratic colleagues. i think most americans would agree he should get the job if you decide you can skip the job interview. every nominee, every nominee should be willing to meet with senators regardless of their party and face questions about how they would approach their role if confirmed. it's honestly beneath the dignity of the role they aspire to for mr. hegseth to refuse to meet one-on-one with democrats.

what is he afraid of? are there questions that we have the ask really that hard? mr. hegseth is afraid of me how will he stand quds meeting with members on both sides is not just formality. if you it's part of the job. so this is a serious concern in one of the many concerns i have now with mr. hegseth qualifications his position and his character. let's be for perfectly clear about the stakes here. we are talking about who we were putting command of the most powerful military in the world. there's nothing to mr. hegseth rests -- resume that are mostly mostly -- remotely suggests he is experienced for that role but a deeper appreciation for his service to our country, i do. let's not kid ourselves here. i don't see how being a fox tv host prepares you to lead

3 million servicemembers and civilians. i don't see how bankrupting of veteran's nonprofit through wasteful >> qualifies you to manage a budget of nearly $900 billion. moreover we really truly have no sense of what is understanding of military policy is for what his strategic priorities would be. thanks to senator duckworth we know he's someone who can't name a single country in austria. that is alarming. senators only have seven minutes during his confirmation hearing to ask questions. many asked the questions we knew our republican colleagues would not regarding hegseth questionable character and fitness, important questions absolutely. because we had to spend so much

time understanding if he even could do this job at the most basic level we had precious little time to ask if he would do his job. how pete hegseth ensures their servicemembers and their families have the resources they need at home and abroad. how does he plan to reduce costs for key military capabilities that are critical to our national security. how would he invest in our defense industrial base and public shipyards like the one in my home state of washington? how does the view the threat and the indo pacific and how would he work with our partners and allies to prepare for a potential conflict or does he have any thoughts on that at all? this is not a serious candidate with thoughtful positions on the challenges that we face. do you know what positions he is

serious about that he has stated over and over again and? and i quote instead of just saying we should not have women in combat roles. he said that last november or quote we need moms but not in the military especially in combat. now that is infuriating and disqualifying. i don't have too tried hard to imagine how that kind of condescending attitude will go over with our women in uniform. and after decades of comments like this denigrating the role of women in the military in ways that simply do not square with reality mr. hegseth's reason is not convincing. he has also made clear he has little regard for the geneva convention. maybe this is a bit old-fashioned to me but i think we should have the secretary of defense who is firmly against war crimes not one who has spoken in favor of torture like

in favor of people convicted of war crimes and questions whether we should follow the geneva convention. and let's not forget in addition to having no real qualifications and many alarming positions mr. hegseth also has many red flags that raise serious concerns the presiding officer: without objection. the senator from california. mr. schiff: mr. president, the men and women serving at home and overseas under the flag of the united states of america are counting on us to guide the pentagon through times of war or peace they need and deserve a secretary of defense who is a person of considerable experience and can run a mammoth agency, who has exhibited good judgment, who is a person of good character, who appreciates the role of women in the military, in and out of combat, and they can look on in confidence to guide us through some of the most difficult and complex national security threats we have ever faced.

and while i greatly respect his time in the service, regrettably that person is not pete hegseth. this is no minor or ceremonial position. the secretary of defense is responsible for nearly a $1 trillion budget, one-eighth of all federal spending. the three million people who serve under that charge. in my time in congress, i've worked with secretaries of defense from both parties, who understood their sacred responsibility and upheld their oaths to support every one of our troops and lead our nation's military to the best of their ability. secretaries gates and panetta, mattis and carter, and many others come to mind. but mr. hegseth lacks the experience to be the secretary of defense. mr. hegseth has not show the judgment to be secretaries of defense. mr. hegseth has not shown the character to be secretary of

defense. for this job is a heavy responsibility, and he isn't the right person for the job. his record speaks for itself. financial mismanagement in the organizations he led, organizations much, much smaller than the pentagon, with budgets that were a fraction of the size and, nevertheless, squanders and -- squandered and mismanaged. he has at times demonstrated a callous disregard for human rights in the laws of armed conflict, going so far as to recommend the president disregard the geneva conventions and intervening in cases of servicemembers convicted of war crimes. he has a history of belittling our brave women in uniform, den greating the -- denigrating the service of women in uniform and their abilities. these failures are not trivial. they are real, they are significant, and they cannot be ignored. so let's not mince words -- pete hegseth is the wrong choice

for secretary of doechl. mr. president -- secretary of defense. mr. president, many of my colleagues have spoken on the floor about mr. hegseth's personal shortcomings and lack of experience to carry out the job. i would like to speak also about what we need from a secretary of defense and what a more appropriate nominee should bring to this position of such immense responsibility. the challenges we face today are enormous. they demand real experience and leadership. the largest land war in europe since world war ii rages on. the middle east is a tinderbox with a terrorist group still running gaza, with hostages still in captivity, with a new syrian regime of uncertain direction a weakened but still dangerous iran with all of its proxies still threatening retaliation. china looms as a peer global competitor with a stated object of expanding its influence and

territory and outpacing the united states. china, russia, iran, and north korea are increasingly aligned, with the shared goal ever rolling back u.s. influence and have developed a robust, operational partnership. iran and north korea provide russia with drones and missiles to prosecute its relentless war of aggression against ukraine, all while china provides money and dual-use technologies to underpin russia's resurgent wartime economy. trade amongenges this -- amongst this block seeks to frustrate u.s.-led international sanctions. we don't know what technology and know-how russia has, or will provide rogue states like iran and north korea for their nuclear missile and other wmt programs. this growing alignment among authoritarians threatens our country and our allies, and yet, here we are, being asked to hand

over the keys to our national defense to someone so patently unqualified, so palpably unprepared. i think is it telling that mr. hegseth's opening statement to the senate armed services committee failed to even mention the war in ukraine. just imagine perhaps the most important national security issue that the previous congress debated, whether to provide aid to our partners in ukraine to turn back the russian attack and defend their homeland doesn't merit a sentence in his opening testimony. this is a conflict that president trump now owns, and we must rehigh on him and his administration, including if he were confirmed mr. hegseth, to support our democratic partner. when the senator from maine asked mr. hegseth about the omission of the war in ukraine from his prepared remarks, here was his response -- senator, that is a presidential-level policy

decision. this from the person who is supposed to be the president's se senior advisor on defense matters and a key official needed to rally nato and other nations to ukraine's defense. we have a moral and legal obligation and imperative to aid ukraine in its existential fight against russia, and to protect our nato allies should russia's ambitions be left unconstrained. the last congress made clear its support with bipartisan, overwhelming voters to reaffirm our support for ukraine in this fight, and we will do so again as necessary. it is not just a matter of ukrainian security. if russia is allowed to succeed in its objectives in ukraine, whether on the battlefield or through a forced but favorable negotiated settlement, it will not stop there. russia is already engaged in influence operations, cyber operations, and attacks against

critical infrastructure, up and down its border with nato. allowing russia to tear off parts of ukraine will embolden putin, allow him to better arm his war machine, and will send a message that nato is fragmented and weak. and it will not be just russia that receives this message. xi jinping is watching intently what is happening with ukraine and whether america will continue to defend its allies and its values. this is why taiwan supports u.s. aid to ukraine. even if it means sending weapons there that might otherwise be shipped to asia, because ukraine -- excuse me, because taiwan wants to know that if and when they face their own day of reckoning that the united states will honor its commitments to come to its defense. our allies must be able to count on us, on the president, on the

secretary of defense. they must. a nominee who ignores our obligations or our national interests in helping ukraine roll back russia's war machine is not a person capable of defending our interests across the globe. they just aren't. the responsibilities go well beyond our foreign commitments. the secretary of defense has an enormous task to continue to rebuild the strength and readiness of our forces. for nearly two decades, wars in the middle east and a long list of contingencies pushed military readiness to the breaking point. the army, air force and navy continue to face major recruitment challenges just to maintain their current size. let alone what may be necessary to, god forbid, fight a major war in the coming years. against technologies we can only imagine now. we need a secretary of defense

that can lead and inspire our troops from the most senior officers to the youngest enlisted men and women. mr. hegseth has belittled women in the military. he has attacked people who live their lives differently than he would prefer. he has stood with those who violate the law rather than those who keep the peace. and he has no experience running a large enterprise. his experience running small enterpr enterprises was a terrible failure. we need a secretary of defense with the management experience to rebuild and reshape our national security for the challenges of the present and the future. as our assistance to partners in the wars in ukraine and the middle east have shown, we need to bring about urgent reerments if we are -- reforms, if we are to produce the platforms, weapons, and ammunition necessary to supply our partners with the tools that they need to fight and win. so long as our enemies test