[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 27 (Thursday, February 10, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S628-S631]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to support 
three extraordinarily qualified Department of Defense nominees: Melissa 
Dalton, to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for Homeland Defense and 
Hemispheric Affairs; Dr. David Honey, to be Deputy Under Secretary of 
Defense for Research and Engineering; and Dr. Celeste Wallander, to be 
Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs.
  These three individuals have been nominated to serve in critical 
national security positions, and they are tasked with confronting those 
challenges of national security and securing U.S. interests at home and 
abroad.
  As a senior member of the Armed Services Committee, I attended the 
committee nomination hearings for all three nominees, and I came away 
convinced that all three were qualified for their positions and 
deserving of swift confirmation.
  Melissa Dalton previously served as a career civil servant in various 
positions at the Department of Defense--for a decade--under both 
President Bush and President Obama. So she had bipartisan support, 
clearly, in that position. She also was a senior fellow and director at 
the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
  If confirmed, one of Ms. Dalton's core responsibilities as Assistant 
Secretary for Homeland Defense would be overseeing the Department's 
ability to operate through impacts to critical infrastructure, an area 
in which we have increasingly seen our adversaries are trying to 
exploit, particularly through cyber attacks. As Ms. Dalton has said, 
the resilience of our capabilities and infrastructure at home 
strengthens deterrence of aggression abroad, and DOD must be able to 
demonstrate its resilience.
  The recent news of increased threats from Russia's cyber attacks, 
associated with their unprecedented troop buildup near Ukraine, 
underscores the need for this position to be filled as quickly as 
possible.
  I also want to express my support for Dr. David Honey, who has 
dedicated a lifetime of service to the defense of this country. Dr. 
Honey has served in various research and development positions at the 
Department of Defense, including roles at the Defense Advanced

[[Page S629]]

Research Projects Agency, or DARPA, which is so important to our 
innovation. He has also served on the Air Force Scientific Advisory 
Board and as Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Research.
  Today, more than ever, we need talented, qualified individuals like 
Dr. Honey at the forefront of DOD's innovation and technological 
efforts. Seemingly every few weeks we hear in the press about shocking 
technological breakthroughs made by the Chinese military that raise 
concerns about eroding our technological advantage. Former Vice 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Hyten, described the 
Chinese test of a fractional orbital bombardment system last summer as 
``stunning.''

  Our technological advantage has been a foundational part of 
deterrence for decades, and if lost it would be enormously 
destabilizing for global security. But if we are truly committed to 
preserving our defense technological superiority, it is vital that we 
confirm Dr. Honey as quickly as possible.
  Finally, I want to speak to support Dr. Celeste Wallander, who is the 
nominee to serve as Assistant Secretary of Defense for International 
Security Affairs. And as part of that role, she is responsible for 
defense policy toward Europe, NATO, the Middle East, and Africa--all 
places right now which are hotbeds of potential conflict.
  In light of the ongoing and unprecedented Russian threat to post-Cold 
War European stability and Ukrainian sovereignty, Dr. Wallander's 
nomination comes at a particularly critical time. Dr. Wallander has 
demonstrated a history of expertise on Russia. As former President of 
the U.S.-Russia Foundation, top Russia expert on the National Security 
Council, and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, 
Ukraine, and Eurasia, Dr. Wallander is highly respected on both sides 
of the aisle.
  With a bipartisan delegation, I traveled to Ukraine several weeks 
ago. We met with Ukrainian President Zelenskyy and his national 
security team to discuss the Russian threat and how we can do 
everything possible to help our Ukrainian friends. You can't turn on 
the radio, read a paper, or watch the news at night without seeing the 
Russian troops that are massed on Ukraine's border.
  The message from the Ukrainians was clear when we met with them. They 
see their future in partnership with the West. They share our 
democratic values, and the people are proud of their hard-won 
independence.
  And every step that Putin takes toward escalating the situation at 
the border is a step closer to threatening not only Ukraine's future 
but the liberal democratic system that he fears and that we all have 
benefited from.
  I can think of no one more qualified for this position at DOD at this 
time of immense instability than Dr. Wallander.
  So, for these reasons, I believe we must move to confirm these three 
nominees as quickly as possible so they can fulfill the duties of these 
crucial positions that are so vital to our national security.
  So with that, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: 
Calendar Nos. 476, 692, and 694; that the Senate vote on the 
nominations en bloc without intervening action or debate; that the 
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with 
no intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the 
nominations be printed in the Record; that the President be immediately 
notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Missouri.
  Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, here we are 
6 months since the last foreign policy disaster into which this 
administration led this country, the disastrous withdrawal from 
Afghanistan: 13 servicemembers killed, including 1 from my home State 
of Missouri; dozens more wounded; hundreds--hundreds--of civilians 
killed; hundreds more, maybe thousands, of American civilians left 
behind enemy lines to terrorists, to fend for themselves; still 
hundreds of Americans stranded there in Afghanistan as we speak.
  And what accountability has there been in this time? Who has been 
relieved of duty? Who has been shown the door? What have we learned?
  The answer is there has been no accountability. No one has been 
relieved of duty. No one has been shown the door.
  And now this administration has bumbled to the brink of another 
foreign policy crisis that they have helped create, having denied 
Ukraine military aid, lethal aid, when it asked for it last spring; 
having stuffed dollars in Vladimir Putin's pockets by greenlighting the 
Nord Stream 2 energy pipeline. And now here they are, on the verge of 
another foreign policy crisis, and still we have no answers, still we 
have no accountability.

  I will say this, though. We did learn a few interesting details this 
week about what happened in Afghanistan. And by the way, if you think 
that Vladimir Putin and the other dictators around this world weren't 
emboldened by this administration's weakness, by their utter failure in 
Afghanistan, then you have got another thing coming.
  But what have we learned this week about Afghanistan? What have we 
learned? Actually, a couple of interesting things, a number of 
interesting things. We learned that, in fact, the White House and the 
State Department were warned for months on end--months on end--that 
their failure to evacuate civilians would result in disaster; that the 
Afghan Government was on the verge of collapse. They were told over and 
over.
  One servicemember who was in Kabul told investigators ``the writing 
was on the wall. The country and its government were actively 
collapsing,'' and ``we should not have waited [to start evacuations] 
until every provincial capital had fallen except for Kabul.''
  Yet that is exactly what the administration did. Our top military 
commander in Kabul tried to get the Ambassador on the ground to see the 
security threat for what it was but to no avail. As one military 
official told investigators--we learned this week--``The Embassy needed 
to position for withdrawal.'' Yet they weren't doing it.
  Why weren't they doing it? Why weren't civilians evacuated in a 
timely manner? Why wasn't the White House prepared? Because the White 
House wasn't taking it seriously.
  According to Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Farrell Sullivan, as late as 
August 6, ``the National Security Council was not seriously planning 
for an evacuation.'' Mind you, by this point, our military presence is 
gone. We have withdrawn militarily from the country. Here we are in 
August, and the National Security Council--the White House--was not 
seriously planning for an evacuation.
  The State Department hadn't even put a team together that was 
responsible for informing individuals, including American citizens, 
that they were eligible for evacuation or started collecting the 
information they would need to put those Americans on flights to 
safety.
  And it wasn't as if the White House and the State Department didn't 
know better. Our top military commander on the ground in Afghanistan 
warned as early as March--as early as March, he has testified--that he 
said the security situation in Afghanistan was dire and collapse could 
come quickly; when the United States withdrew, collapse could come 
quickly. He said it in March. By July, our troops were gone. In August, 
the administration still hadn't started planning.
  Here is what the top commander in Kabul said. He said:

       I think we could have been much better prepared to conduct 
     a more orderly [civilian evacuation]--

  That is what a NEO is--

     if policy makers had paid attention to the indicators of what 
     was happening on the ground, and the time lines associated 
     with the Taliban advance, and the Taliban intent to conduct a 
     military takeover.

  That is what we learned this week: that the White House was told over 
and over and over again and did nothing; in fact--worse than that--
rejected the counsel of military commanders on the ground, saying that 
the situation was urgent, saying that civilians needed to be evacuated, 
saying that there needed to be other steps taken, new measures taken. 
And the White House drug their feet, did nothing.
  So what was the consequence of that? Well, we also learned this week 
that the consequence was a rapid, chaotic

[[Page S630]]

rush for the exits once the White House suddenly and belatedly realized 
they had bumbled into a crisis--once they realized that they had left 
American civilians with nowhere to go, once they realized that they had 
a collapse on their hands that they had not planned for, despite being 
warned repeatedly.
  As the CENTCOM found--Central Command found--and we learned this 
week, ``Commanders at each gate [around the airport] exercised 
authority to open or close their respective gates, as they deemed 
appropriate, according to the situation on the ground. . . . However, 
there was tremendous pressure from the strategic level,'' meaning the 
Combatant Command, the Joint Staff, and, yes, the White House, ``to 
continue to process and evacuate civilians to the maximum extent 
possible, so gate closures were done rarely, locally, and 
temporarily.''
  In other words, it was a rush--a mad rush--to the exits once the 
administration realized that, in fact, the government was collapsing; 
realized they hadn't done the preparation they needed to do; realized 
that hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were in grave 
danger.
  And we know the result of that. The result is 13 servicemembers were 
killed, hundreds of civilians were killed, and hundreds of Americans--
maybe more--were left behind to the enemy.
  Now, I said we learned all this this week. You might wonder, well, 
where did we learn it? I mean, maybe at least we are making some 
progress. We are getting some accountability. We learned something.
  Did we learn it in an oversight hearing before this body? Did we 
learn it in sworn testimony given in public on the evacuation of 
Afghanistan? No, no. Oh, no. We learned it from a press report. We 
learned it because the Washington Post obtained what were previously 
confidential, unpublished, nonpublic reports from within the military--
from within Central Command in particular--and the Washington Post 
published them.

  In what has become an all-too-typical scenario, we learned nothing 
from any hearings this body is doing because they aren't doing any in 
public. What we have learned is entirely from leaked reports, 
secondhand sources--the public having been shut out, having been denied 
access.
  You know, we had multiple hearings, actually--or briefings--on 
Afghanistan and the security situations in Ukraine last week. Did that 
happen in public? No. Was there testimony taken in public? No. Were 
there questions asked by Senators in public? No.
  I am willing to come to this floor as long as it takes and insist on 
regular order as long as it takes until there is accountability for 
what this administration has done in Afghanistan and now what it is 
bumbling towards in Ukraine. We have got to get answers.
  Why is it that commanders on the ground warn over and over that 
disaster is imminent and the White House does nothing? Why is it that 
the White House and the State Department denied a request for a 
civilian evacuation? Why is it that we are still here all these months 
later, and the only answers we can get are from leaked reports in the 
press? Why has not this body done its job to conduct rigorous and 
serious oversight hearings in public for the American people to see?
  I will come to this floor and insist on regular order, insist that 
this body do its job and vote on Defense Department nominees until we 
get accountability, until there are public hearings, and until we can 
learn what actually happened in Afghanistan and who is responsible.
  I will tell you this: I wasn't alive for Vietnam, but I am not 
willing to participate in the kind of coverup that happened for years 
in the Vietnam war. I am not willing to kick this oversight 
responsibility off to some Commission that won't report for years from 
now most of its findings, probably in a classified annex. And by that 
point, somebody will say: Oh, well, it is just too late to do anything 
about it.
  The American public was lied to for years on the Vietnam war. It has 
been lied to for years on Afghanistan. It is time to get answers. So, 
yes, I will be here insisting on those answers, insisting on oversight, 
and insisting on accountability until we get it. Until that time, it is 
not too much to ask the Senate to do its job.
  I believe the majority leader said just the other day that the Senate 
is here to vote; that is what the Senate is here to do. Well, that is 
an apt phrase, and for once, I agree very much with the Senate majority 
leader.
  For those reasons, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Booker). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from New Hampshire.
  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I appreciate my colleague's 
grandstanding on Afghanistan when he knows that in the NDAA, we passed 
a provision to create a Commission to look at Afghanistan. And I want 
those answers just as much as he does. I stood up and said, when the 
President announced the withdrawal, that I didn't support that 
withdrawal.
  But that is beside the point that we are dealing with now because 
what we are dealing with now and what my colleague from Missouri is 
doing is making us less secure because he is holding nominees--he is 
complaining about the problems we have in Russia and Ukraine, and he is 
making it worse because he is not willing to allow those nominees who 
can help with that problem to go forward.
  He is absolutely incorrect about Nord Stream 2. I opposed Nord Stream 
2. I authored the legislation with Senator Cruz to sanction Nord Stream 
2. For the 4 years that the previous President was in office, they 
didn't take any action to sanction Nord Stream 2 until the day Donald 
Trump left office.
  The fact is, that pipeline is not operating now because it hasn't 
been certified, and so Russia is not making any money from the Nord 
Stream 2 Pipeline. So he needs to get his facts correct.
  He sits on the Armed Services Committee with me, where he has access 
to the same information about our pressing national security 
challenges. Yet he is holding up these nominees. He is disregarding the 
threats that we face because he would rather stand here and grandstand 
on Afghanistan. Well, we do need to get answers, and I am willing to 
work with him on that, but this is not the way to do it.
  So let's remember that Senator Hawley declared China as the biggest 
threat to American security, and that is a quote. Yet he is blocking 
the confirmation of Dr. Honey, whose job would be to ensure that our 
defense research and development efforts are continuing on par with 
China's. So if his goal is to ensure that China's 
technological capabilities surpass ours, I can think of no better way 
to do that than to refuse to confirm Dr. Honey.

  On Russia, my colleague has claimed that the Biden administration has 
coddled Russia. We heard him say it just now--that they failed to aid 
Ukraine. But in a recent op-ed, my colleague made his views clear on 
the current Russian-created crisis. In it, he suggests that the United 
States is better off closing NATO's doors to Ukraine and stating that 
our Nation's history of promoting and defending liberal democratic 
values across the globe has been a failure. Well, I am not going to 
agree to that.
  We have an international order that developed after World War II that 
has had as a large part the containment first of the Soviet Union 
through NATO and now of Russia. Part of that world order says that a 
sovereign nation should be able to help determine their own future.
  So I am not going to be part of some agreement that says we are going 
to turn our backs on NATO, we are going to turn our backs on Ukraine, 
and we are going to say to Russia: You go ahead; you go into Ukraine.
  He argues that we should reduce our commitments to places like Europe 
because, he claims, Russia poses a greater threat to our European 
allies than to the United States. Well, the last time I looked, when 
the United States got attacked in 2001--and maybe he doesn't remember 
9/11 because he was too young--the countries that came to our aid were 
our NATO allies.
  So, with all due respect, I find my colleague's assessment both 
disturbing and shockingly uninformed. As members of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee, my colleague and I have been briefed on the 
multitude of evidence of Russia's attempts to subvert democratic 
institutions--including right here in the United States, by the way--to 
attack our own infrastructure, and to compromise the sovereignty of our 
allies around the globe.

[[Page S631]]

  In 2018, Russian private military contractor forces even assaulted an 
outpost of Americans in Syria. They were forced to defend themselves, 
and, of course, they did, and they ultimately routed the Russian force.
  So my colleague's stated sentiments do just what Vladimir Putin 
wants. He wants to divide the United States from our NATO allies and 
other democracies. He wants to diminish U.S. presence in Europe and to 
rewrite the European security order in a way that favors his 
authoritarian interests. We simply cannot allow that to happen.
  I could not disagree with my colleague any more on how he has chosen 
to associate himself. Continuing to block qualified leaders such as Dr. 
Wallander, Dr. Honey, and Ms. Dalton does not make us stronger, it does 
not contribute to productive discourse over our national priorities, 
and it doesn't accomplish what he is trying to accomplish.
  If what he wants is answers on Afghanistan, then work with us. Let's 
work together. Let's make this Commission that we passed in the NDAA--
let's make it work. What he wants casts us an unreliable partner to our 
allies, and it forces the Department of Defense to operate with one 
hand tied behind their back.
  So I am disappointed to hear my colleague--and he talks about regular 
order. Well, in the last 24 hours, we have confirmed three nominees by 
regular order. We held up the Senate to get cloture votes. Then we 
passed Alexandra Baker, the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for 
Policy, 75 to 21. We passed Douglas Bush, Assistant Secretary of the 
Army, 95 to 2. I don't know if Senator Hawley was one of those two. I 
assume he was. We passed Patrick Coffey, general counsel for the Navy, 
79 to 17. Then on February 2, by unanimous consent, we passed Gabriel 
Camarillo, Under Secretary of the Army, and Andrew Hunter, Assistant 
Secretary of the Air Force, by unanimous consent.
  So this is not about regular order; this is about trying to use the 
Senate process for his own personal ambitions, and that is unfortunate. 
It is unfortunate because it doesn't get us the individuals we need to 
get confirmed to make government run, and it is unfortunate because it 
doesn't accomplish what he says he wants.
  So I am disappointed to hear that we are not going to move these 
nominees forward, and I hope at some point my colleague will 
reconsider.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Dakota.
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak for up to 
15-minutes prior to the scheduled rollcall vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.