[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.