Congressional Record, Volume 169 Issue 69 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)

[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1323-S1331]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I want to thank the leader for his strong
words about the importance of making sure we advance our military
leaders when they have been approved for promotion and pay increases.
You know, most people are aware that the Senate votes on nominees who
have been appointed by the President to occupy top roles in almost all
parts of the Federal Government--Cabinet Secretaries, judges,
Ambassadors. Less well known is the fact that the Senate must also vote
to approve thousands of military promotions every year. So if a colonel
has done well on the job and their service's promotion board decides
they are ready to be a brigadier general, the Senate must vote to
approve

[[Page S1324]]

this promotion before it can go through.
Now, typically, this vote is a formality. These promotions are
processed in big batches rather than one at a time, and they usually
happen without even taking a recorded vote. But right now, the Senator
from Alabama has imposed a hold on all, every single senior military
nomination and promotion. That means that one Senator is personally
standing in the way of promotions for 184 of our top-level military
leaders. One Senator is holding up pay raises for men and women in
uniform. One Senator is blocking key senior military leaders from
taking their posts. One Senator is jeopardizing America's national
security.
Think for a minute about what this looks like. These holds deprive
military families of the pay increases they have earned, because the
nominee's new pay cannot take effect until the promotion goes through.
Without formally being assigned to a change of duty, families can't
make decisions right now about moving or enrolling kids in a new school
for the next school year.
The Chief of Staff of the Army has said: What it really does, it
affects the families and some of the kids. And they are trying to
figure out where they are going to school, where they are going to
move. And all those things kind of come into the readiness of the
force. For families with special needs, there may be even more
significant delays to access important services.
Secretary Austin has stated that this delay ``creates a ripple effect
through the Force that makes us far less ready than we need to be.''
So why is one Senator--one Senator--punishing 184 dedicated men and
women who actively serve in our military, all because he personally
disagrees with a single policy decision from the Pentagon?
Now, look, it is no secret that I disagree with a lot of policy
decisions from the Pentagon. As Senators, we have a lot of tools to
shape and influence government policies--tools that we can use without
putting our national defense at risk. We can pass laws. We can conduct
oversight. We can meet with administration officials. We can hold
hearings. Occasionally, a Senator may object to an individual
nomination, usually to indicate opposition to that appointment or to
insist on answers to questions from a Federal Agency. I have done this
myself in the past, as have many of my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle. But that is not what the Senator from Alabama is doing. Instead,
he is blocking every single top military leader from advancing
indefinitely. He snared all 184 top-level servicemembers who are
currently slated for advancement, and he stopped every single one of
them dead in their tracks.
Like me, the Senator from Alabama serves on the Senate Armed Services
Committee. As a consequence, he has many more opportunities than most
Senators to influence DOD policy. He has many more opportunities to
question witnesses, many more opportunities to receive briefings, and
many more opportunities to influence the annual Defense bill that
Congress passes every single year to govern Pentagon operations. He has
many opportunities that do not actively threaten our national security.
He has not raised any individual objections to the 184 servicemembers
whose promotions are now held up in the Senate, and he has not raised
any objections to the process by which these men and women were vetted
and nominated. No. The Senator is blocking 184 top military promotions
because he disagrees with the Department of Defense policy to help
servicemembers and their families access needed healthcare--
specifically, to travel to access abortion care. I disagree with the
Senator on that issue, but if he wants to press for votes to reverse
DOD's healthcare policies, he can do that. I will oppose him. But if I
lose and if Congress changes the law, then DOD will change its
policies. That is how democracy works.

Holding up the promotion of every single military nominee isn't
democracy; it is extortion, and that kind of extortion has serious
consequences for our national defense. These holds pose a grave threat
to our national security and to our military readiness. They actively
hurt our ability to respond quickly to threats around the world.
Just take a look at the list of 184 people who have already been
approved for promotions. The 184 people whom the Senator from Alabama
has blocked so far include nominations for the next commander of the
U.S. Fifth Fleet in the Middle East, nomination for the next commander
of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific, our next military representative
to NATO, and the current Director of Intelligence for U.S. Cyber
Command. It includes our next Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic
Deterrence and Integration for the Air Force. It includes a top
official in Birmingham's Army Reserves. And it includes the former
Chief of Staff for Operation Warp Speed, a program the Senator from
Alabama has repeatedly credited for saving millions of American lives.
In fact, the Senator from Alabama is singlehandedly holding up 11
three-star commanders, three recipients of Silver Stars, and three
Purple Heart recipients. These are brave servicemembers who deserve
better than to be stuck in an administrative hell, waiting for a single
Senator to release them to the promotions and the assignments and the
pay increases that their military leaders determined that they have
already earned.
The Department of Defense has warned that these blanket holds are
making the United States more vulnerable to threats from foreign actors
like China, North Korea, and Iran. In the coming months, approximately,
80 three- and four-star generals and admirals, including the leaders of
the Army, Navy, and Marine Corps, will reach the end of their current
terms, and new nominees will be slotted to replace them.
In addition, if the Senator's reckless hold is not lifted and if the
Senate cannot confirm a new Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
President may be without a principal military adviser. By the end of
this year, we could have 650 generals and flag officers waiting for
Senate confirmation.
The Senator from Alabama's response to his actions is to say that he
will keep these holds in place ``until hell freezes over'' unless DOD
changes its healthcare travel policy. I sincerely hope that is not true
because holding hostage nearly the entire military leadership of the
U.S.A. at a time when we are facing military threats around the world
and our allies are literally engaged in war in Europe is dangerous; it
is reckless; and it needs to stop right now.
As chair of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Personnel, I
care deeply about protecting our servicemembers and the integrity of
our promotion system. These holds are depriving families of pay raises
that they have earned. We are talking about grocery money for families.
These servicemembers are being treated disrespectfully--people who
should be treated with dignity and respect. And unless there is some
specific problem with an individual nominee, those who have been
nominated for a new rank or a new post should get the advancement that
the Pentagon has already recommended for them.
No more politics. I am here today to respectfully ask my colleague
from Alabama to let these promotions move forward and to find other
ways to continue advocating for the policy changes that he wants to
see. I am hopeful that he will set aside politics and do what is the
right thing and allow these servicemembers to carry out their
responsibilities to our Nation.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 90.
If confirmed, this nominee would be America's military representative
to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization Military Committee. This
Boston University graduate was the first woman to serve as president of
the Naval War College. At this critical juncture of Russia's illegal
invasion of Ukraine, we need her leadership in NATO now more than ever.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the
consideration of Calendar No. 90; that the Senate vote on the
nomination without intervening action or debate; that if confirmed, the
motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no
intervening action or debate; that any statements related to the
nomination be printed in the Record; and that the President be
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

[[Page S1325]]

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want
to start by reminding everyone why this is happening. It is not about
abortion. It is not about the Dobbs decision. This is about a
tyrannical executive branch walking all over the U.S. Senate and doing
our jobs.
In November, I got word that the Pentagon was thinking about spending
taxpayer dollars to facilitate elective abortions. This goes beyond
what the law--which was passed here--the law allows. The law only
allows the Department of Defense to facilitate and fund abortions in
the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.
Now, I warned Secretary Austin that if he did this and changed this,
I would put a hold on his highest level nominees. Secretary Austin went
through with the policy anyway in February of this year. So I am
keeping my word. This was Secretary Austin's choice, not mine. He knew
the consequences for several months. Nothing in the law allows
Secretary Austin to facilitate elective abortions. In fact, the law
just says the opposite. So this was Secretary Austin's choice.
Secretary Austin thought abortion is more important than his highest
level military nominations. Secretary Austin could end the policy
today, and I would lift my hold. Secretary Austin has chosen not to do
that.
This is the fourth time the Democrats have come to the floor to try
to break this hold. I will come down here as many times as it takes.
The Senator from Massachusetts claims that my hold on the Pentagon
nominations is affecting readiness and so have the other Senators who
have come to this floor. Senator Schumer said last week on this floor
multiple times that it was affecting readiness. Several other Senators
have said the same thing. Democrats keep repeating the same talking
points and the same opinion, but not one of them has cited any facts--
not one.
I even asked the Pentagon to explain to me how this affects
readiness. All I have heard is opinions like we just heard from Senator
Warren. The senior Senator has been asking questions from the Pentagon.
On April 6, the senior Senator sent this letter to Mr. Austin. The
full letter may be found at https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/
doc/2023.04.06%20Letter%20to%20DoD%20on %20Tuberville%20Holds.pdf.
The letter asks about the effects of my hold on military readiness. I
will answer right now. My hold has no effect on readiness, none.
In an Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Senator Reed asked
two of the military top combatant commanders what impact would my hold
have on readiness. ADM John Aquilino said: ``No impact.'' John Paul
LaCamera agreed. There is no impact on readiness or operations.
Experts have known for more than a decade that the military is
topheavy. We do not suffer from a lack of generals. Democrats are
concerned with promotions of generals but have shown very little to no
concern about our historic recruitment crisis--and it is a crisis.
Right now, the military is missing more than 20,000 enlisted soldiers
from last year's short on recruiting. That is in addition to another
8,000 that President Biden, for some reason, kicked out of the military
over vaccine mandates.
So we are missing 28,000 enlisted troops right now, and the Democrats
are panicking about 180 generals and admirals.
Last week, a report showed that the Army, Navy, and Air Force--all of
them are preparing to miss their recruitment goals this year, and
nobody is talking about it. They will miss their goals by thousands and
thousands of new servicemembers. Yet I don't hear Democrats say a word
about it. They are worried about 180 top-level generals and admirals.
We have plenty of generals.
When my dad served in World War II, we had one general for every
6,000 troops. Think about that--1 for every 6,000. Now we have 1
general for every 1,400 enlisted servicemembers. That is more than four
times the ratio of generals to troops. That is a lot of money. We won
plenty of wars with a lower ratio. Again, bipartisan experts have shown
this for more than a decade.
Let me mention a few examples. Here is an article from Ben Freeman of
the Project of Government Oversight from 2011. It is entitled: ``The
Most Top-Heavy Force in U.S. History,'' found at https://www.pogo.org/
analysis/2011/11/todays-military-most-top-heavy-force-in-us-history.
The author talks about testifying before the Senate on this issue. He
also mentioned a nearly 25-percent increase in three-star and four-star
generals in the previous decade. Over the same time, the increase in
enlisted members was just 2 percent--2 percent. People who actually do
the work.
I have a report from Third Way from 2013, which may be found at
https://www.thirdway.org/report/star-creep-the-costs-of-a-top-heavy-
military.
Here is what this centrist organization said in their report 10 years
ago. It is called ``Star Creep: The effects of the top-heavy
military.''
The story says:

America's armed forces have far too many generals and
admirals--a situation that wastes money and creates a drag on
military effectiveness. Although the U.S. military is 30%
smaller now than it was at the end of the Cold War, it has
almost 20% percent more three and four-star officers. [Twenty
percent.] The layers of bureaucracy to support them have
grown as well, slowing down decision-making and burdening the
warfighter.
We need to trim the fat, which will make our military both
leaner and more effective.

That was 10 years ago.
Here is another article. This one is from the Washington Times in
2016, which may be found at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/
apr/5/ash-carter-says-us-military-too-top-heavy-aims-cut.
The title of the article: ``Ashton Carter says U.S. military too `top
heavy,' aims to cut ranks of generals and admirals.''
Ash Carter was President Obama's Department of Defense Secretary. He
felt the military was also topheavy. Both of President Obama's
Secretaries of Defense agreed with that. The late Senator John McCain
agreed with that statement. Again, this has been common knowledge in
military circles for a decade. Yet now my Democratic colleagues have
selective memories.
Finally, I will just mention one more article from the Washington
Times from this past January. It is called ``Top Heavy: U.S. military
bloated by brass as officer-to-enlisted ratio dwarfs Cold War era,''
which may be found at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/29/
top-heavy-us-military-bloated-brass-officer-enlist.
Here are a few numbers from the article. In World War I, we had one
officer for every 15 enlisted. In World War II, it was one of every
ten. Today the ratio is 1 to 4.
Today we have more admirals than we have ships. Let me repeat that:
We have more admirals in our military than we have ships.
Yet the Democratic side of the aisle is in panic that we don't have
enough admirals; it just doesn't make sense. In the first century of
this Nation, we only had a handful of three-star generals ever. George
Washington and Ulysses S. Grant were the first two three-star generals
in our history. Today we have more than 160 three-star generals.
Overall, there are more than 650 generals today. ``Star creep'' is
putting this very mildly.
This hysteria on the other side of the aisle has absolutely no basis
in fact. They have complained about my holds for weeks, but they still
haven't shown me one single fact.
So I am looking forward to Secretary Austin's response to Senator
Warren. I can't wait to read it. In the meantime, I am not going to
budge. I will come down here as many times as it takes day and night to
vote. I am not afraid to vote. We are working a 3-day week this week.
We just took a 2-week recess earlier this month. And if Democrats are
so worried about the military readiness, then why are we taking days
off? Let's vote. We can vote these. I mean, it is not like I am holding
them and they can't be confirmed.
We can vote on every one of these people. Just call them up on the
floor. We can vote on them. Everybody needs to vote. I am not afraid to
work. I will stay here as long as it takes. And let me remind my
colleagues that we just voted--and confirmed--last week a military
nominee, the way we are supposed to do it, instead of a hundred at a
time.
Clearly, we are capable of voting on military nominees and
promotions. We

[[Page S1326]]

could also be voting on legislation that expands the DOD's abortion
policy. We can bring it right here and vote. That is our job--instead
of the Secretary of Defense playing Congress and doing bills on his
own. That is not how this place is supposed to work. In fact, that is
how this should be done in a democracy.
So, finally, let me remind my Democratic colleagues again: I gave the
Pentagon fair warning. I told them if they imposed this policy on our
country, then I would hold these nominees. They chose to go forward
with this policy anyway. They forced my hand. This was the Biden
administration's choice. All I am doing is keeping my word, and that is
why I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, let's be clear what is at issue here. The
Department of Defense has said if a servicemember requires reproductive
healthcare for themselves or for a member of their family, care that is
not available in the location where the member is currently stationed,
the member can request time away from the base to travel elsewhere for
treatment.
As Pentagon leaders have testified, military commanders respect the
privacy of servicemembers and do not request information about the
specific medical treatment or who it is for.
The Senator from Alabama doesn't like that. He is worried that a
servicemember might--might--be seeking an abortion for themselves or
for a family member. And he doesn't think the Department of Defense
should participate in that in any way. Fine.
The Senator from Alabama can advocate for a bill to invade the
medical privacy of every single servicemember. He can advocate for a
bill that requires every commanding officer to do what no private
employer can do, and that is to rifle through a servicemember's
personal medical information. The Senator from Alabama can seek to
change Federal law so that a commanding officer interrogates a
servicemember with questions like: Do you need time off because you are
having trouble getting pregnant? Has your wife had a miscarriage? How
many weeks pregnant are you? Was your daughter raped?
These are not questions that commanding officers want to ask, nor
should they be authorized or required to ask them.
Now, Senator Tuberville can push for a vote on the bill he cosponsors
to ban the Department from providing paid leave or transportation to
access reproductive care. Frankly, I don't think the Senator has enough
support in Congress to pass any bill like that.
And I understand the Senator's frustration. Many of us have proposals
to change Pentagon policies that don't have enough support in Congress
to pass, but that is not an excuse to jeopardize our active military
operations all around the world.
I confess, I am a little stunned by the Senator from Alabama's
argument here. I had not been aware that it was a controversial view
that our military needs officers in charge of the Fifth Fleet or the
Seventh Fleet, our fleets in the Pacific and in the Middle East.
It is pretty alarming to hear the Senator suggest that we don't need
leaders running the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Every
President since World War II would probably disagree that there is no
need for a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Now, look, if the Senator from Alabama thinks that there should be
fewer high-level leaders in the Armed Forces, he could advance
legislation to reform our leadership structures. But blocking leaders
from taking the jobs to which they have been assigned is reckless.
Not only that, these delays are felt throughout the ranks since this
creates, as Secretary Austin described it, a ripple effect throughout
the military. It is cruel to our servicemembers. Just because you are
not going to run the Army does not mean that your promotion does not
matter. As Army Chief of Staff McConville recently testified to the
Senate Armed Services Committee, these delays affect both the families
and some of the kids. They are trying to figure out where they are
going to school, where they are going to move.

I think back to my own three brothers. All three of them served in
the military. My oldest brother was career military. I cannot imagine a
circumstance where he had worked, he had put his life on the line, he
served in combat off and on for 6 years, and yet to be told that
although the Air Force thought he was ready, had served, had been an
exemplary member of the military, that he could not have his promotion,
he could not have his pay increase, he could not go to his next
assignment all because one Senator decided to hold it up over a
different discussion about policy.
I would urge my colleague from Alabama to find another way to press
for the policy changes that he wants at the Department. I heard him say
that he had read the letter that I had sent to Secretary Austin asking
about the impact on our military. Secretary Austin has already spoken
to that, but I hope he will be responding soon to my letter.
But I hope that these words from the Senator, that he is looking
forward to Secretary Austin's response, have at least opened the door,
that if Secretary Austin says: This has an effect on our military
readiness, that the Senator from Alabama will be prepared to lift his
objection and let what are, currently, 184 members of the military go
forward and the ones who need to go forward in the future.
So I hope he has left the door open for that. The Senator from
Alabama and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of abortion. We
disagree on Department of Defense policies. But all of us should be
able to agree that a blockade of the promotion of every single senior
member of our Nation's military creates unacceptable risks to our
national security, and it needs to stop right now.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 94.
Collectively, these 37 nominees in Calendar No. 94 have served in the
Army for nearly a thousand years.
This list includes a commanding officer stationed in South Korea, the
head of plans for central command, and the deputy chief of staff in the
fight against ISIS. The list also includes the deputy provost marshal
general for the Office of the Provost Marshal General, which is
responsible for all--all--of the Army's policing functions.
There is also a graduate of Auburn University, where the Senator from
Alabama was once head coach. And I am sure that this servicemember
never expected that his promotion would be blocked by the Senator from
Alabama.
Mr. President, I renew my request with respect to Calendar No. 94.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I stand here before my friend and colleague,
the senior Senator from Alabama. He stands in opposition, as do I, to
the plan of the Department of Defense to use Federal funds to
facilitate the performance of abortions.
Now, let's remember what we are looking at here. This has been in
place for a long time. Congress enacted a law. Codified 10 USC section
1093. Let's just brief that here.
1093 part (a) says:

Restriction on use of funds. Funds available to the
Department of Defense may not be used to perform abortions
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if
the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the
pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Part (b) reads as follows:

No medical treatment facility or other facility of the
Department of Defense may be used to perform an abortion
except where the life of the mother would be endangered if
the fetus were carried to term or in a case in which the
pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.

Look, this policy has been in place for a long time--for decades, in
fact. It is accompanied by other policies restricting the use of
Federal funds on issues related to abortion.
You know, the American people, yes, are divided on questions, many
questions, regarding abortion. There are a lot of gradations of that.
Some would put restrictions here; others restrictions there; others
would insist on no restrictions whatsoever.
But one thing that does tend to unite Americans, more than any other
topic within the area of abortion, is that we don't want the use of
Federal taxpayer dollars going to facilitate or fund abortions. We
don't want that.
Overwhelmingly, that holds really, really well. Democrats and
Republicans

[[Page S1327]]

alike believe that it is unfair, understand that it is unjust,
especially on an issue that is as divisive as abortion is.
To take money at the point of a gun, which is what we do when we
collect tax revenue, essentially. You know, that if you don't pay your
taxes, at some point people with guns will show up, and you have got to
do what they say.
So when you are taking money at the point of a gun--as you do when
you are collecting tax revenue--you have a sacred responsibility to
handle that well. And if the American people don't want it, that is why
they enacted a Congress that has put this in law, that we don't use
Federal funds to fund abortion.
So along comes Secretary Austin and the current Department of
Defense, and they decide, well, we really want to do this. And so I can
only imagine how this conversation must have gone internally.
Obviously, I wasn't part of those conversations. I was not made privy
to them. They didn't invite me to them, we will just say.
But I would imagine they more or less went something like this, hey,
what can we do to, you know, help people get abortions using Federal
funds. And I am sure someone brought up, well, 10 USC section 1093
prohibits that. So they said, what could we do that arguably could
circumvent that, something that Congress may not have specifically
identified.
And at some point, someone said, well, there is nothing in here that
directly categorically prohibits the use of travel funds or the
availability of leave time for people seeking abortions.
So, bingo, they came up with this idea. Let's just give people who
want abortions, women who want abortions in the military 3 weeks of
paid leave and an expense account to handle out-of-state travel during
that 3-week period, and that circumvents, technically speaking, the
restriction. This is, of course, a major policy change, and it is a
policy change on a topic that many Americans feel passionately about--
and, by many Americans, I mean not just Republicans. Republicans and
Democrats don't like the idea that U.S. taxpayer dollars should be used
for abortions, and they have put this in place--this being a major
policy change, a major policy change affirmatively at odds with the
spirit, if not also the letter, of various provisions of Federal law.
Respect for the Constitution itself, for the separation of powers, and
for the sacred role of the legislative branch to make laws should have
commanded that the burden of making this policy change should be on
those who would want Congress to act, and that we not give special
privilege to an executive branch Department--here, the U.S. Department
of Defense--to undertake such a major policy change that they knew they
could never get past the Congress. They couldn't. It wouldn't pass.
There is not a chance it would get past the House. It wouldn't get past
the Senate either. They knew this, and that is why they did it by
executive action--just executive fiat.

If Secretary Austin, the Secretary of Defense--if he wants to make
law, he should run for Congress. He should run for the House. He should
run for the Senate. I would welcome him here as a colleague or as a
counterpart, down the hall in the House. I genuinely would. Then he
would be in a position to do this. But he may not and must not be
allowed to legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon. That is not how
we do things in this country.
Now, as you look at the arguments that have been exchanged today, we
have talked about military readiness. I agree with my colleague from
Alabama. I haven't seen anything indicating that military readiness
commands this, much less commands it in a way that justifies departing
from the spirit, if not the letter, of Federal law.
I have also heard the argument made, quite counterintuitively, that
if the Senator from Alabama, Senator Tuberville, wants to change the
law, he should run legislation to that effect. He should be required to
pass a statute.
That is not how our system works. We have got laws. This is a major
departure from established policy set in existing law. The burden is
not on Senator Tuberville.
You see, it is this body that gets to change laws, to change policy.
We are the policymaking organ of the Federal Government, and to pass a
law--any law--article I, section 1, and clause 1, the very first
operative provision of the U.S. Constitution, right after the preamble
and all the initial language, it says that ``all legislative Powers
herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States,
which shall consist of a Senate and a House of Representatives.''
Article I, section 7, makes it clear how you make a Federal law, and
it is not made by the Secretary of Defense or any other executive
branch official. It is made, under article I, section 7--the only way
you can make a Federal law--when the House of Representatives and the
Senate both agree on the same legislative text, then presents that
legislation to the President of the United States, who may sign it or
acquiesce to it--after 10 days, if he acquiesces, it becomes law--or he
can veto it. If he vetoes, it can become law only after two-thirds of
both Houses have overridden that veto. Those are the only ways you can
change Federal law.
The onus is not on those of us opposing this policy. Nor should the
onus be on Senator Tuberville to establish that he is not the one
impacting military readiness. This is untrue. It is unproven. It is
contrary to fact. But even if it were not so, this is not on him. You
see, because to whatever degree this is impacting military readiness,
that argument goes right back on Secretary Austin in a heartbeat. It
goes right back on him because he doesn't have to impose this policy.
He doesn't have to force this change in policy amounting to a hostile
act against the spirit, if not the letter, of this law. He doesn't have
to do that. He could and should allow Congress to make this
determination in due course, as Congress does. And it just so happens
that we are coming up, in the coming weeks and months, on an
opportunity to do precisely that, through a committee--through
legislation that comes through a committee--on which both the Senator
from Massachusetts and the Senator from Alabama serve, the Senate Armed
Services Committee.
This legislative vehicle of which I am speaking, of course, is the
National Defense Authorization Act. It is an opportunity that we use
every year, for many, many decades, to make policy decisions involving
the Pentagon.
So, if this issue is so important to military readiness, let
Secretary Austin and those around him come to Congress and ask us to
approve that, to make that policy choice--recognizing, as they should
have done already without having to be told, that it is wildly
inappropriate for them to make this policy change so wildly in conflict
with the spirit, if not also the letter, of existing statute.
So that is what he could do. He can come to us and make that argument
in connection with the National Defense Authorization Act. If he can
persuade enough Members of the House and enough Members of the Senate
to get it passed, it would be done.
In the meantime, unless or until such time as he can do that,
especially to the degree that this is impacting military readiness--
these objections--then, what he should do is abundantly clear: Suspend
implementation of these policies until such time as Congress acts to
change them. That is not an unreasonable demand--not in the slightest.
Look, it is also apparent that Secretary Austin and the Department of
Defense have become hostile toward female members of the military who
choose to have children. That is the message this sends--undeniably,
unequivocally. When you tell people: You know, you are pregnant, and it
sure would be convenient for us if you didn't have this baby--so
inconvenient, in fact, that we will give you 3 weeks of paid leave and
a travel account so that you can go somewhere else, you know, so that
you cannot have that child--think about what that does. That creates a
hostile work environment for our female servicemembers, and I find it
repugnant, and so do the American people.
That is why we have a prohibition in law.
For these reasons, Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. So, Mr. President, I have great respect for the Senator
from Utah. I appreciate that he is very careful about citing law and
often comes to

[[Page S1328]]

this body to talk about reading the actual words of a statute. And so
he read to us 10 U.S.C. 1093(a), which prohibits Federal funds--and he
should look back at the verb--``to perform'' abortion. It also, in
section (b), prohibits using military facilities--bases, hospital
rooms, clinics--to perform abortions.
Now, I appreciate that the Senator from Utah read those words because
it is pretty clear from those words that DOD policy here does not
violate congressional prohibitions on the Federal Government paying for
abortions or permitting them to happen in Federal facilities other than
the exceptions noted in the statute. All that is happening in this
particular bill is clarifying that servicemembers who need to travel
out of State to access any kind--and I want to underline ``any kind''--
of reproductive healthcare that is not available where they are
stationed, can request time off and go get that care for themselves or
a family member.
Servicemembers remain personally responsible for bearing the full
medical cost for abortions that fall outside the narrow exceptions
provided by law.
Now, I will say it again as clearly as I can: I oppose congressional
restrictions on funding for basic medical care. I would like Congress
to end those restrictions, but that hasn't happened, and I am not about
to hold up every major military promotion in the United States and hold
them hostage to try to force it to happen.
Any one Senator has the right to hold up every military promotion,
but it is irresponsible, and it endangers our national security.
Now, the Senator from Utah suggested that somehow the Department of
Defense did not already have authority to do that.
The Department of Defense clearly has the authority to carry out the
policy in question. Multiple statutes have provided the Secretary of
Defense with broad statutory authority to pay for the travel and
transportation expenses of servicemembers and other authorized
travelers. It has been in place for a long time and has been used
repeatedly.
I want to make another point here, though. Limiting the authority to
do that should be considered very, very carefully if we don't want to
endanger the ability of the Department to respond to unexpected
threats.
Again, if the Senator from Utah or the Senator from Alabama thinks
that the DOD has exceeded its authority or that the authority didn't
exist in the first place, then that Senator can conduct oversight or
seek to change the law. The place for that debate is through the
legislative and oversight process, not in blocking the promotions of
every single military official in this country.
I am shocked to hear the Senator from Utah repeat the argument that
somehow it doesn't matter if 184 leaders in the military are blocked
from going to their next posts, are blocked from receiving their
promotions, are blocked from receiving their pay increases. I would
remind, with respect, both of my colleagues that we are talking about
here the next commander of the Fifth Fleet in the Middle East. We are
talking about the next commander of the Seventh Fleet in the Pacific.
We are talking about our next military representative to NATO. We are
talking about the current Director of Intelligence for U.S. Cyber
Command, and on and on and on. Taking hostages like this does not
promote the national security. It endangers our national security.
I just want to say that the argument that the Senator from Utah has
used that somehow by providing the full range--access to the full
range--of reproductive healthcare services means that the military is
trying to tell women not to have babies is downright insulting. First
of all, reproductive healthcare services include efforts to get
pregnant. It also includes enough privacy that nobody--no commanding
officer--is asking about your current circumstances on whether you are
trying to get pregnant, whether it is succeeding, how much trouble you
are having, what kind of services you have used, and why you want to go
somewhere else to get them.
It means treating people with respect, and treating people with
respect means treating them like grownups to make their own decisions.
And if they can't get the services they need because they are stationed
in a place where those services are not available, they don't have the
choice to pick a different place to work. They go where their
commanders tell them. What this policy says is that they have the right
to ask their commanding officer, without additional information, for an
opportunity to leave the area and go somewhere else where they can get
access to the services they need. I believe that that is the way we
show respect for people who have babies.
I also want to say, if the Senator from Utah and the Senator from
Alabama are hard on the question of supporting people in our military,
women having more babies, then, by golly, join us in the fight to put
more money into pre-K and more money into DOD schools, more money into
flexible spending accounts to cover childcare costs, more money into
promoting new parental leave policies to provide 12 weeks of paid leave
when a woman has a baby.
As the Senator from Utah has acknowledged, DOD's travel policy covers
people who are doing more than having abortions. Travel policy is not a
vacation. Servicemembers, under this policy, are limited to--and I will
read the words--``the minimum number of days essential to receive the
required care and travel'' as quickly as possible.
The message this policy sends is that the Department of Defense,
unlike the Senator from Utah and unlike the Senator from Alabama,
supports women in making their own healthcare decisions. This policy
was based on conversations and support groups and focus groups with
servicemembers. This is what servicemembers said they needed. This is
the support they want.
I am much more troubled by the signal sent by Republican Senators who
are holding up the Department of Defense from protecting women's
healthcare.
I look forward to working with the Senator from Utah and the Senator
from Alabama in order to work on more policies to support military
families.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 84.
If confirmed, this nominee would command the Fifth Fleet, which
operates in the Middle East.
Unless the Senator from Alabama thinks that the Fifth Fleet doesn't
matter, I would remind him that, last year, the Fifth Fleet prevented
an Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps navy vessel from confiscating a
Fifth Fleet unmanned surface vessel in the Arabian Gulf. If we want to
ensure that the Islamic Revolutionary Guard doesn't take other U.S.
assets in the region, we cannot possibly support leaving this command
post vacant.
Mr. President, I renew my request with respect to Calendar No. 84.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
The Senator from Utah.
Mr. LEE. Mr. President, in reserving the right to object, first of
all, my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from
Massachusetts, a moment ago, referred to the Pentagon's policy as a
bill. Perhaps this was a Freudian slip, but one way or another, it was
an acknowledgment of the fact that it is a change in policy--a change
in policy that is in conflict with the spirit if not also with the
letter of Federal law. So, as a bill--and I think it is fair to
characterize it as such--it ought to have to be passed through
Congress.
Now, my friend from the State of Massachusetts has used the language
of the text of statute 10 U.S.C., section 1039 in much the same way, I
would imagine, that Secretary Austin and his advisers parsed it and
cribbed it and manipulated it in their development of this policy.
But let's remember the reason I say that it violates the spirit if
not also the letter of it. It is that there is an argument to be made
here that it is. Funds available to the Department of Defense may not
be used to support abortions. How is this money being used? Well, with
the extra leave time that you wouldn't get in the absence of this and
with the travel to another State, it is for the purpose of an abortion.
It is conditioned on your getting an abortion.
My friend and colleague from Massachusetts points out that it is also
there with respect to fertility treatments--IVF or otherwise. Well, all
that may be the case, and I have a couple of responses to that.

[[Page S1329]]

No. 1, I do not and would never object to that if that is what this
were. In fact, I would relinquish my objections altogether if this
policy were about helping military women gain access to fertility
treatments. There is no provision in Federal law--not in title 10 and
not anywhere else that I am aware of--that prohibits the Secretary of
Defense from doing that. That would, moreover, not amount to a major
departure from established policy. So, if that is really what is on the
table here, I wouldn't object to that at all.
But it is the part about abortion. The Senator is conditioning the
use of these funds--the receipt of additional leave time, the receipt
of an expense account, and 3 weeks off--to go have an abortion. That is
using Federal funds to get an abortion, to fund an abortion, because
that is part of that.
Moreover, the suggestion that this applies evenhandedly, equally--
that it was equally intended to promote access by military women to
fertility treatments--is at odds with and belied by the fact that the
President, ever since the Dobbs opinion was released at the end of the
last term of the Supreme Court, has been calling this an all-of-
government cause--an all-of-government cause--to make sure that they
can get around Dobbs in any way that they possibly can. This is, was,
always has been, and always will be about abortion.
Like I say, the rest of it would be unobjectionable. I wouldn't raise
any objection to it. I can't imagine my friend and colleague from
Alabama would anyway. So that is a bit of a red herring, and it is a
bit of a smokescreen to say that this is about fertility treatment. It
is not about that.
With respect to the readiness component of it, look, I get it. As for
the hard-working men and women of the military, for whom I have deep
respect, in having gained promotions, we want to be able to promote
them and approve their promotions. Yes, that needs to happen. And to
the extent that any one of those people really needs to be processed
and approved very quickly, there are ways to do that. We could
tick these off one after the other. Senator Tuberville mentioned that
we took care of one just in the last week or so on the floor. We could
be doing that right now. If you want to see where the Senate's
legislative priorities are, they are not with this. They are with other
things. If this really were a priority, we would, through the
leadership of the Democratic majority leader, be in a position to do
that. He has chosen different priorities and not this one.

Look, at the end of the day, this thing--you could dress it up any
way you want, but this is a major change in policy that is utterly at
odds with the spirit if not also the letter of Federal law. As such,
changing it should require a change in statute. If he wants to push for
that, he is free to do so. If it doesn't pass, then he is stuck with
that. If he is not content with being able to advocate for it from the
outside, he should run for the House, or he should run for the Senate.
He must not be allowed to legislate from the E-Ring of the Pentagon.
Mr. President, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
The Senator from Massachusetts.
Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I listen to the Senator from Utah as he
works mightily to twist the language of the statute, which is entirely
clear: The Federal Government cannot perform abortions. Federal money
cannot be used to ``perform.'' That is the relevant verb here. Under
this policy from the Department of Defense, the individual who gets an
abortion or whose family member gets an abortion is responsible for all
of the costs of the performance of that abortion. That part is clear.
But I am very troubled by what the Senator from Utah said about
fertility treatments. He said he would be glad to remove all objections
if he knew that someone were going to get a fertility treatment or
fertility treatments but just not if someone were going to get an
abortion. I would like to suggest, with respect, a couple of things
here.
The first one is, you may want to understand the science a little bit
better because one of the consequences of many fertility treatments is
that it doesn't work and results in an abortion, in which case, someone
who goes for fertility treatments knows that they may be signing up
down the line for an abortion because, although they very much wanted
to have a baby, it did not work out. This is where they find themselves
medically and is the decision that they want to be able to make for
themselves--a decision that the Senator from Utah wants to take away
from them.
I also want to make the point about--we asked this in committee, the
Senator may remember, in the Senate Armed Services Committee hearings,
to the commanders to the military commanders, the commanding officers:
Do they want to ask these questions? And the answer was, across the
board, no, they don't want to be in the business of asking why it is
that you need reproductive healthcare services and then making the
careful calculation about whether or not your wife is in the middle of
what appears to be a miscarriage and she needs to go somewhere where
she can get treatment because she can't get it where the base is
located. That is a stunningly intrusive question to ask--one that, by
the way, no private employer could ask.
If the Senator from Utah and if the Senator from Alabama want to
change the law and say that it should be the job of commanding officers
to ask each woman who says, ``I need time to travel elsewhere for
reproductive services,'' and to inquire into detail about their
healthcare needs and substitute their own decisions about what is the
appropriate healthcare response, they could try to promote a bill for
that. I don't think the Senators are going to get the votes in the U.S.
Senate.
Put it up if that is what you want to do, but you don't get to do it
through the backdoor by saying, when it now turns out that
servicemembers find out they need reproductive care that is not
available near the bases where they have been stationed by their
military command, that they cannot travel elsewhere for that care.
The Senator talks about the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law
is that we respect our servicemembers and that we respect the women of
the military to make their own healthcare decisions. That is what this
rule from the Department of Defense is all about.
So, in a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No.
49. This is a person who was the Chief of Staff for Operation Warp
Speed, one of the greatest achievements of the Trump administration to
rapidly develop tests and distribute lifesaving COVID vaccines. We
should all be grateful for his leadership, not hold up his promotion to
play political games.
I will also be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 113. If
confirmed, this would be the commander for the Naval Sea Systems
Command, which manages 150 acquisition programs and billions of dollars
in foreign military sales. This role is crucial to making sure the Navy
gets the ships it needs on time and on cost, and holding it up only
hurts great power competition with China.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 82.
These 27 Air Force nominees have collectively served their country for
over 600 years. Among the nominees is a NASA astronaut who received his
master's degree from MIT and commanded NASA's third longest duration
commercial crew mission.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 85.
If confirmed, this nominee would command the Seventh Fleet, which
operates in the Pacific and is the Navy's largest forward-deployed
fleet. If our country wants to check Chinese aggression, we must ensure
this post is filled with strong and capable leadership.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 47.
If confirmed, this nominee would be the commanding general for the U.S.
Army Space and Missile Defense Command and the U.S. Army Forces
Strategic Command. This nominee has held air and missile defense
assignments throughout the Middle East, the Indo-Pacific, and Europe.
America needs someone with this kind of experience to be confirmed for
this post.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 97.
Collectively, these 60 nominees have served in the Navy for more than
400 years. Among these nominees is an MIT graduate who served as the
commander of the USS Gerald Ford--the

[[Page S1330]]

first new aircraft carrier class we have built in over 40 years. He has
logged 2,600 hours in 22 different aircraft. He is eager to serve his
country, and he is being held up by one man in the U.S. Senate.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 46.
This nominee studied at the Air War College at Maxwell Air Force Base
in Alabama. He currently serves as commander of the 10th Medical Group
and commands surgeons at the U.S. Air Force Academy. Leaders like her
ensure the health and readiness of our military.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 83.
This nominee studied at the Squadron Officer School at Maxwell Air
Force Base in Alabama, as well as the Air Command and Staff College and
the Air War College in Alabama. Alabama has invested a lot in her. She
is now capable and ready to serve as the Chief of Staff for the Air
Mobility Command at Scott Air Force Base in Illinois. She should be
confirmed.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 48.
If confirmed, she would serve as Deputy Chief of Staff for the Army's
G-4, which is responsible for the Army's strategy policy plans and
programming for logistics and sustainment. If we want to be ready to
fight, we need to confirm her position.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 50.
Collectively, these two women--two women--have served the Army for over
60 years. They deserve to be promoted.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 51.
If confirmed, he would serve as Deputy Chief of Staff for Strategic
Deterrence and Nuclear Integration for the Air Force. As we contend
with Russia's reckless threats to use nuclear weapons against Ukraine
and China rising as a nuclear power, we need sober and expert advice to
keep Americans safe from the threat of nuclear weapons. We need to
confirm him.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 52.
If confirmed, this nominee would be the Military Deputy and Director
for the Army Acquisition Corps. The Army is not only leading and
modernizing our own forces, they are playing an essential role in
making sure Ukraine has all of the munitions and weapons for victory
against Russia. We cannot--cannot--allow this post to become vacant.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 86.
Collectively, these 11 nominees have served over 275 years in the Air
Force. Among these nominees is the commander of the 439th Airlift Wing
at Westover Air Reserve Base in Massachusetts, the largest Air Reserve
base in our Nation.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 87.
Collectively, these two nominees have served the Air Force for over 55
years. One of the nominees currently serves as mobilization assistant
to the command surgeon for Air Combat Command, which is responsible for
the health of 81,000 Active-Duty and civilian personnel.
The holds imposed by the Senator from Alabama are punishing the
people who make sure that those who serve are healthy enough to combat
any threat to U.S. national security.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 88.
Collectively, these 10 nominees have served over 280 years, with nearly
20,000 flying hours of experience. These nominees include a Special
Operations forces commander, a mobilization assistant to the commander
responsible for training 293,000 students a year, and another
mobilization assistant to the commander of Space Operations Command.
I know how important space operations are to the Senator from
Alabama. I cannot believe he is willing to jeopardize these essential
missions to train and lead our forces.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 89.
This nominee is currently commanding the largest Army command in the
Caribbean. That promotion was particularly significant for him
personally because he is from Puerto Rico. During his promotion
ceremony, he said that he assumed the command ``fully aware of the dire
consequences to our Nation and to our freedom if we fail to sustain a
high level of readiness in a world in which security challenges are
becoming more complex.'' Blocking his promotion only exacerbates those
security challenges.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 91.
This nominee is currently serving in Birmingham, AL, as the Chief of
Staff, United States Army Reserve Deployment Support Command. This is a
constituent of the Senator from Alabama who cannot receive the
promotion he deserves.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 92.
This nominee is currently the Director for Joint Reserve Intelligence
Support Element for Europe and Eurasia for the Defense Intelligence
Agency, helping to make sure Ukraine and our allies in Europe have the
critical national security information they need to be victorious on
the battlefield. Yet she can't receive the promotion she deserves
because the Senator from Alabama is playing politics with women's
healthcare.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 93.
This nominee is currently the deputy commander for support for
providing security assistance to Ukraine. He is doing everything he can
to make sure Ukraine defeats Russia. Yet the Senator from Alabama is
making sure he doesn't advance to the promotion he has clearly earned.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 95.
Collectively, these eight nominees have served in the Marine Corps for
over 200 years. They deserve their promotions.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 96.
Collectively, these nominees have served the Navy for over 55 years.
Both are currently serving in the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery,
making them responsible for the health and safety of our sailors, our
marines, and their families. The pandemic has already driven so many
skilled healthcare professionals out of the workforce. We need to
retain and promote these kinds of professionals to continue to protect
the readiness of our forces.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 98.
Collectively, these two nominees have served the Navy for 55 years.
Both nominees are making sure the Navy has the supplies needed to be
ready, including one currently serving as the Chief of Staff for Navy
logistics who supports our fleet in the Pacific. A mother of three, she
has fought to make sure the Navy is supporting other mothers who serve.
The Department has done the right thing to support women's rights,
while the Senator from Alabama is fighting to take those rights away.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 99.
These two nominees have collectively served the Navy for over 60 years.
Both nominees have extensive experience managing our major weapons
programs, and this promotion would place one of them in charge of
aircraft carrier programs. Making sure our weapons work and enhance
security is one of the most important missions, and we need to retain
that experience if we want to keep our Nation safe. The Senator from
Alabama's actions threaten to drive people like these nominees out of
the military.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 100.
This nominee is currently serving as the Director of Health and
Training at the Defense Health Agency and is a recognized member of the
American Board of General Dentistry. If he is confirmed, he will be the
Deputy Chief of the Bureau of Medicine and Surgery. Our servicemembers
deserve the best healthcare we can deliver, and promoting people like
this nominee ensures that we uphold the highest standards of care.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 101.
If confirmed, this nominee would be the commander of Naval Supply
Systems Command, which makes sure the Navy has everything they need to
serve all around the world.
The rear admiral who helped Americans understand the importance of
naval power to national security put it best when he said that
logistics was ``as vital to military success as daily food is to daily
work.''

[[Page S1331]]

The Senator from Alabama's actions deprive our Navy of the leadership
the Navy counts on so that they will reliably have the tools they need
to succeed militarily.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 102.
These 13 nominees have collectively served in the Navy for over 400
years. These nominees include multiple commanders of carrier strike
groups, including one born in Springfield, MA. Another nominee is the
Deputy Director of Special Operations and Counterterrorism for the
Joint Staff. If confirmed, one nominee would command the Naval Surface
Force, which is responsible for manning, training, and equipping the
entire surface force. If my colleagues want to protect the seas and
fight terrorists, they should not stand in the way of these promotions.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 103.
This nominee is currently the executive assistant for the Director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency. If we want to continue to make sure
the United States has the best information about current and future
threats, we should confirm people like this, not hold up the promotions
they have already earned.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 104.
These two nominees have collectively served the Navy for over 55 years.
One nominee is currently serving as information warfare commander for
Carrier Strike Group 5 in Yokosuka, Japan. The other is the Chief of
Staff for U.S. Fleet Cyber Command and the Tenth Fleet. As we continue
to see warfare expand to the information and cyber domains, we need to
promote Navy captains like this.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 105.
These four nominees have collectively served the Navy for over 100
years. They include a Boston University graduate managing the Navy's
new frigate program and the commander of America's shipyard in Norfolk.
The Senator from Alabama knows better than most how much work we need
to do to reach the Navy's shipbuilding goals. Blocking the promotions
of the very people working to make sure we have the ships we need to
protect the global commons only endangers our national security.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 106.
Collectively, these two nominees have served the Air Force for 65
years. One of the nominees earned her nursing degree at Boston College,
to rise to become the chief nurse of the entire Air Force. Go get `em.
The other nominee currently serves as commander for the Air Force
Medical Readiness Agency, making him responsible for leading over
44,000 personnel at 76 military treatment facilities. These nominees
are providing critical care and leadership to keep our forces healthy,
and they should not be punished because the Senator from Alabama thinks
he knows more about healthcare than medical professionals do.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 107.
Currently serving as the commanding general for Marine Corps forces in
Japan, he would be the Deputy Commandant for Plans, Policies, and
Operations for the Marine Corps if confirmed. As we approach
competition with China, we need leaders with experience in the region
to be promoted, not to have their careers stopped by politics.
In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 110.
Collectively, these 23 nominees have served over 620 years of service
in the Air Force. These nominees include the Director for Strategic
Capabilities on the National Security Council, which makes him the
principal adviser to the President on how to avoid a nuclear war, and
it includes the adviser to the National Nuclear Security
Administration, protecting the safety and reliability of our nuclear
stockpile. Another nominee makes sure that we provide all the air and
space power necessary to promote U.S. interests in the Pacific. The
current Director of Intelligence of the U.S. Cyber Command is also held
up by the Senator's antics.
Let me assure the Senator from Alabama: We do not want to play
nuclear football.
Look, we have been at this for almost an hour and a half now, but
these nominees--these 184 nominees--have been waiting for months.
Holding them up and declaring that we just don't need people in these
positions is an insult to them, and it undermines the safety and
security of the United States of America.
If we want to be able to recruit the very best and the very brightest
our country has to offer, we need to treat those people with a little
respect. That means that when we are in it on politics, we do not drag
184 of our most able leaders into the middle of it and say: Your
promotion, your pay, your next duty station are all on hold until one
Senator gets his way on one DOD policy.
That is an incredibly dangerous approach, and the Senator from
Alabama, as much as I respect him, I believe is acting in ways that are
irresponsible and put our national defense at risk. I urge him to
release his holds immediately and allow these senior military officers
to get the promotions they have earned.
I renew my request with respect to each Calendar number I have
raised.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I want to make something very, very
clear here. None of these positions the Senator from Massachusetts has
mentioned will go unfilled. Each role has its commander in place until
the relief is confirmed. That is how the military works.
Mr. President, one thing very important to me and to our country is
our military. There is only one thing more important, and that is our
Constitution that they protect. For that reason, I object.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Markey). The Senator from Illinois.
Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, I have two statements for the Record that
I want to enter into the Record, but I would like to say my debt of
gratitude to the Senator from Massachusetts.
Members of the Senate go to parades and salute the military, and we
give speeches on the floor about how much we appreciate them and their
sacrifice. This is an illustration of the Senate at its worst. We
should be standing behind these men and women who have given their
lives to our country, who will risk their lives for our country, some
earning Bronze Stars, Purple Hearts for doing it.
Listen, I want to tell you, if we are respecting these men and women,
we should give them the promotions they have worked their whole lives
to achieve and, in so doing, keep our military the strongest in the
world. I respect these men and women, and I think what is happening on
the floor of the Senate is not only dangerous but it is insulting. That
is the only word that can be used for one Senator to hold up 184 men
and women and their promotions in the military. I never thought I would
see that day in the U.S. Senate.
Whatever the reason, it is time to bring the charade to an end. We
can debate the policy in the committee and on the floor, wherever we
wish; but when it comes to these individuals, do not hold these men and
women in the military hostage to the political debate on the floor of
the U.S. Senate.
I commend the Senator from Massachusetts for raising these issues.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Iowa.