[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 79 (Wednesday, May 10, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1590-S1597]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: 
Calendar Nos. 46 through No. 52, No. 82 through No. 107, No. 110 
through No. 113, No. 130 through No. 139; that the nominations be 
confirmed en bloc, the motions to reconsider be considered made and 
laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate; that no 
further motions be in order to any of the nominations; that the 
President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, reserving the right.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, I want to thank my friends from the 
House for their support today. But the question today is, What kind of 
Nation do we want to be? This debate speaks to the moral fabric of our 
society.
  We boast the most powerful military in the history of the world. The 
purpose of that military is for the strongest among us to protect the 
weak.
  In America, those with the broadest shoulders guard those with the 
narrowest. Yet the Biden administration wants to mobilize our military 
against the weakest and the most defenseless--the unborn. I believe 
that is wrong. It is immoral.
  My colleague has described an abortion as just another medical 
procedure. He mentioned Lasik. He also talked about bunions.
  The children of our Nation are not just another routine medical 
procedure. That is why I am standing here to object.
  For 40 years, we have had a bipartisan agreement--40 years. Americans 
may have different views about abortion, but the majority of this 
country believes that taxpayers should not have to fund abortions. 
Secretary Austin blew up 40 years of tradition, an agreement, by just 
one memo--one memo. There was no debate in the Senate. There was no 
vote in the House. And here is why. They didn't have the votes. This 
administration couldn't change abortion laws here in the Senate or the 
House, so they wrote a memo.
  Our Cabinet Secretaries aren't supposed to be politicians. They are 
there to uphold and enforce the laws made in this building. Yet 
Secretary Austin is the most political Secretary of Defense we have 
ever seen.
  I am glad to hear Senator Warren got her prompt reply from Secretary 
Austin this week. As I recall, she made her request on April 6. She got 
a response a month later. That is certainly not the kind of treatment I 
have received from the Pentagon. Maybe it has got something to do with 
my political party.
  Nearly a year ago I joined 12 other Republicans in a letter to 
Secretary Austin, this past July. We asked the Secretary to 
substantiate the comment he made about abortions being necessary for 
military readiness. We are still waiting for a reply.
  In November, we sent the Department another letter. This time it was 
just asking for a short and small briefing--just a briefing. That is 
all we were asking for. We heard they were going to move forward with 
an abortion policy that was illegal. Secretary Austin did not reply.
  In December, I informed Secretary Austin in writing that I would hold 
his highest nominees if he went forward with this unlawful abortion 
policy. Well, in February, Secretary Austin implemented that policy, so 
I kept my word. The very next day, we put a hold on his nominees.
  You know, I didn't get a phone call from Secretary Austin until 1 
month after I put the hold into effect--1 month. During the call, he 
offered me absolutely no compromise. He didn't offer to meet or 
discuss. Unlike Senator Warren, since then, I have heard nothing from 
Secretary Austin except what he has said about me--the things that are 
pretty negative--in Armed Services Committee hearings.
  Ten months into this dispute, the Pentagon and I are still waiting 
for one single fact to support this argument--one single fact.
  I read Secretary Austin's letter to Senator Warren. It is long on 
opinions, short on facts. I also read the boilerplate letter signed by 
the former Secretaries of Defense that were put out this week. It reads 
like a Democrat press release. The letter simply repeats the same 
unsubstantiated claims made by Senator Warren, Senator Bennet, and 
Senator Schumer. Frankly, I think these letters vindicate my opinion. 
These letters were part of a coordinated effort by the Democrats to use

[[Page S1591]]

the authority and the prestige of the Secretary of Defense to distract 
from the facts. Frankly, I don't think that will work either.
  The Biden administration has done everything possible to turn our 
military into just one more institution for leftwing social 
engineering. Well, for all of history, Secretary Austin will be the 
Defense Secretary who oversaw America's worst military defeat since 
Vietnam.
  The Senator from Colorado has twice now accused me of 
mischaracterizing what he did just a few months ago. My goal is to end 
an illegal abuse of taxpayer funds. That is what we are trying to do 
here today.
  Senator Bennet's hold was so he could get a meeting with Secretary 
Austin. So how did Senator Bennet's threatened hold end? Senator Bennet 
got what he wanted. Senator Bennet got his meeting with the Secretary 
of Defense. Again, this is more than I received.
  So let's remember what I am asking for. I am asking for the Pentagon 
to drop a policy that is illegal. I am asking Secretary Austin to do 
his job and follow the law. I understand that Senator Bennet is a 
strong supporter of abortion. That is all understood. But if he wants 
this abortion policy, then let's pass a bill.
  But it hasn't been done that way. Democrats know that they can't get 
that done. They know they don't have the votes. The burden is not on me 
to pass legislation to stop this illegal policy. That is not my job. 
The burden is on the administration to stop breaking the law.
  I am glad that Senator Warren is concerned about our military 
readiness. Maybe she will actually vote for this year's Defense bill. 
She hasn't voted for it since 2017. Senator Warren has a long history 
of holding military leadership nominations--a long history. In fact, 
she held the nomination of one of our witnesses at the most recent 
Armed Services Committee hearing, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. 
This was the same witness she asked about my hold, was it a big 
problem? Senator Warren has held his nomination several times. And 
guess what. She got what she wanted from the Pentagon, just like 
Senator Bennet with his hold on military nominations.

  So I am glad Senator Warren is concerned about military readiness. It 
excites me that she is excited about the military. Maybe now Senator 
Warren and Senator Schumer will support funding our military at a level 
necessary to actually win a war. That is something else that they have 
resisted doing throughout their long careers in Washington.
  If Democrats were actually concerned about readiness, then we would 
be voting. The U.S. Senate has had more than 30 days off already this 
year. If we want to pass this, let's vote. But we have had 30 days off. 
That is not including the weekends. The rhetoric just doesn't match the 
reality of how this is being handled.
  This is more than enough time for us to have confirmed literally all 
the nominations we have been talking about. We could have already done 
this, taking them one at a time. This could have been done. Yet that is 
not what we are doing.
  This week, we are having another 3-day workweek. We are getting ready 
to go on recess 8 days from now. If my Democratic colleagues actually 
were concerned, then we would be voting on these nominations.
  And if Secretary Austin is so worried he can't live without these 
nominees, he can suspend his memo. That is all he has to do. Drop your 
memo, and these nominees will proceed by unanimous consent. I am a man 
of my word. I will stand down. Until then, I am standing up for the 
Constitution and the unborn, and that is why I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Kansas.
  Mr. MARSHALL. Madam President, I am proud to stand with my friend, 
the senior Senator from the great State of Alabama, as he continues to 
fight against the Department of Defense's attempt to circumvent 
Congress and ignore existing Federal law which prevents the Department 
of Defense facilities from being used to provide or facilitate 
abortions for servicemembers.
  The policy is immoral, taking the Department of Defense abortions 
from less than 20 per year to over 4,000 abortions annually.
  It is beyond me why the White House wants to pick this fight. The 
policy is illegal. It forces taxpayers to subsidize abortion in 
violation of Federal law. The policy is outside the Department of 
Defense's mission to uphold and fight for life, not destroy it.
  The Biden administration and Senate Democrats claim this is harming 
our military readiness. With policies like this, they continue to 
destroy recruiting. If readiness was truly a concern of theirs, they 
wouldn't have discharged 8,000 troops for choosing not to take the 
COVID vaccine, a vaccine with minimal benefits to an otherwise healthy, 
young population.
  Look, this policy is wrong, and until the military gets back to 
providing for our common defense and out of the business of abortion, I 
will proudly stand with Senator Tuberville.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I want to say thank you to my colleagues 
from Alabama and Kansas for being out here on the floor today. I regret 
that we are here with this conflict and this confrontation, but I think 
that it reflects the deep divisions that exist in this country when it 
comes to abortion. That is something that I have always said that I 
understand deeply; that I respect people's different points of view 
when it comes to abortion in the United States. I do.
  It has led me to conclude--and I know that not everybody agrees with 
this, although the majority of Americans certainly agree with this. The 
majority of Coloradans agree with this. It has led me to conclude that 
this is a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctor. 
That is who should make the decision. It shouldn't be made by the 
government.
  But at the same time I realize there are differences of opinion. I 
hope that people on the other side realize that there are differences 
of opinion here too.
  But unlike the position that my colleague from Alabama espouses on 
the Senate floor, he is not with the majority of Americans on this 
issue. That might be a point of pride for him.
  But I want to first call attention to the reason we are here tonight, 
which is that I just asked for unanimous consent to move forward the 
promotions of the flag officers at the Department of Defense. This is 
the fourth time that I have been on this floor asking us to do what 
Senates have done for 230 years. Never in the history of the United 
States of America, literally, never in the history of the United States 
of America has there been a Senator who put a blanket hold on every 
single flag officer at the Department of Defense. Talk about playing 
politics.
  By the way, I will correct the record for a third time, if not the 
fourth time. My hold had nothing to do with flag officers. Mine had to 
do with a political appointee. You can look it up. I will find that 
article, and I will put it in the record again.
  In contrast to my hold, what the Senator from Alabama is doing and 
now the Senator from Kansas and the rest of the people who are 
supporting this, including Members of the House of Representatives who 
were here tonight, is a blanket hold on 200 military flag officers--a 
blanket hold on 200 military flag officers. That has never happened in 
the history of the United States.
  These are really important command positions. They are really 
important. I am not going to go through all of them. The leader of the 
Fifth Fleet in Bahrain is on this list. The leader of the Seventh Fleet 
in the Pacific is on this list. These are positions that are critical 
to checking Iran and to checking China as well.
  I was just in Bahrain. We visited with people with the Fifth Fleet, 
including people from Colorado who are stationed there. We know how 
important the mission is. I assume they know how important the mission 
is.
  I have heard them say out here--the Senator from Louisiana before--
that it is not the generals who are important; it is the enlisted 
people who are important. Both are important. Both are important. You 
can't tell me that it is a good idea to have the Fifth Fleet not have 
the commander that it is supposed to have, not to mention the fact

[[Page S1592]]

that people who have spent their entire lives--their entire lives--
learning what is needed to get promoted into a position with that kind 
of trust, that kind of duty and patriotic responsibility, and when it 
comes time for them to fulfill their mission, that some politician on 
the floor of the Senate says: No, I am putting a blanket hold on you 
and 200 other people because of my politics.
  I will come back to that in a second.
  Our military representative to NATO is on this list. The future 
Director of Intelligence at U.S. Cyber Command is on this list. So it 
is not surprising that, while the Senator from Alabama may have his own 
particular view about military readiness, other observers of what is 
going on here, including veterans of the DOD, are saying it is the 
Senator from Alabama who is affecting our readiness.
  Just last week, seven former Pentagon Chiefs from Republican and 
Democratic administrations--both Republicans and Democrats--sent a 
letter saying that the Senator from Alabama's block is ``harming 
military readiness and risks damaging U.S. national security.'' That is 
not me. That is them.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed 
in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

     Letter From Seven Former United States Secretaries of Defense

                                                      May 4, 2023.
     Hon. Chuck Schumer,
     Senate Majority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Mitch McConnell,
     Senate Minority Leader,
     U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
       Dear Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell: As former 
     Secretaries of Defense, we strongly urge the Senate to act 
     expeditiously on the nearly 200 nominees for general and flag 
     officer who are being blocked from Senate confirmation.
       The blanket hold on the promotion or reassignment of these 
     senior uniformed leaders is harming military readiness and 
     risks damaging U.S. national security. Because the Senate is 
     required to confirm every general and flag officer for 
     promotion or for reassignment, this practice has 
     traditionally been a pro-forma exercise, except where there 
     have been specific concerns about individual nominees, which 
     were then handled separately.
       The current hold that has been in place now for several 
     weeks is preventing key leaders from assuming important, 
     senior command and staff positions around the world. Some are 
     unable to take important command positions, such as leading 
     the 5th Fleet in Bahrain and the 7th Fleet in the Pacific, 
     which are critical to checking Iranian and Chinese 
     aggression, respectively. Others include the next military 
     representative to NATO, a post essential to coordinating 
     allied efforts in support of Ukraine, as well as the future 
     Director of Intelligence at U.S. Cyber Command. Leaving these 
     and many other senior positions in doubt at a time of 
     enormous geopolitical uncertainty sends the wrong message to 
     our adversaries and could weaken our deterrence.
       Moreover, if this blanket hold is not lifted, nearly 80 
     three- and four-star commanders who are ending their terms in 
     the coming months will not be able to be replaced. Worse, 
     this will impact certain members of the Joint Chiefs of 
     Staff, including the Chairman of the JCS.
       There are also real-world impacts on the families of these 
     senior officers. Most cannot move and resettle their 
     families; their children cannot enroll at their next schools 
     on time; and spouses cannot start new jobs at the next duty 
     station. We can think of few things as irresponsible and 
     uncaring as harming the families of those who serve our 
     nation in uniform.
       We appreciate that Senators can have sincere and legitimate 
     concerns about a Pentagon policy, including as it may relate 
     to broader domestic or social issues. These lawmakers also 
     deserve timely and thorough responses to their questions. 
     However, we believe placing a hold on all uniformed nominees 
     risks turning military officers into political pawns, holding 
     them responsible for a policy decision made by their civilian 
     leaders.
       Rather, senators should leverage the numerous means 
     available to them to challenge and change DOD policy, such as 
     introducing legislation, conducting oversight hearings, or 
     amending the annual National Defense Authorization Act.
       We, therefore, strongly urge the Senate to ensure the 
     continued readiness of the U.S. armed forces by lifting the 
     blanket hold and promptly voting to confirm these uniformed 
     nominees.
           Sincerely,
     Hon. William J. Perry,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
     Hon. William S. Cohen,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
     Hon. Robert M. Gates,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
     Hon. Leon E. Panetta,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
     Hon. Chuck Hagel,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
     Hon. James N. Mattis,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.
     Hon. Mark T. Esper,
       Former U.S. Secretary of Defense.

  Mr. BENNET. Quote:

       Leaving these and many other senior positions in doubt at a 
     time of enormous geopolitical uncertainty sends the wrong 
     message to our adversaries and could weaken our deterrence.

  Today--today--the Secretary of Defense, Secretary Austin, wrote:

       The longer that this hold persists, the greater the risk 
     the U.S. military runs in every theater, in every domain, in 
     every Service.

  He said that this uncertainty ``diminishes our global standing as the 
strongest military in the world.''
  I don't think it is surprising that he would say that or that it is 
political that he would say that. It is stating the obvious when you 
can't do something that we have done for 230 years because of politics 
that has infected the floor of the Senate.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have Secretary Austin's 
letter printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      May 5, 2023.
     Hon. Elizabeth Warren,
     U.S. Senate,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Warren: Thank you for your letter requesting a 
     full accounting of the impact on our national security and 
     the risks to our military readiness resulting from Senator 
     Tuberville's indefinite hold on the confirmation of our 
     general and flag officers.
       I appreciate and share your deep concern over this hold, 
     which is unprecedented in its scale and scope. Delays in 
     confirming our general and flag officers pose a clear risk to 
     U.S. military readiness, especially at this critical time.
       The Department of Defense has 64 three- and four-star 
     nominations pending for positions due to rotate within the 
     next 120 days. These include the Chief of Staff of the Army; 
     the Chief of Naval Operations; the Commandant and Assistant 
     Commandant of the Marine Corps; the Director of the National 
     Security Agency and Commander of United States Cyber Command; 
     and the Commander of United States Northern Command.
       Additionally, several one- and two-star nominations are now 
     on indefinite hold for general officers and flag officers 
     slated to take command or support critical positions across 
     the Joint Force. Within the next nine months, approximately 
     80 three- and four-star rotations are projected across the 
     Department. Those positions include the Chairman of the Joint 
     Chiefs of Staff, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, and the 
     Vice Chief of Staff of the Air Force. In total, between now 
     and the end of the year, the Department projects that 
     approximately 650 general and flag officers will require 
     Senate confirmation.
       This indefinite hold harms America's national security and 
     hinders the Pentagon's normal operations. The United States 
     military relies on the deep experience and strategic 
     expertise of our senior military leaders. The longer that 
     this hold persists, the greater the risk the U.S. military 
     runs in every theater, every domain, and every Service.


                           Mission Vacancies

       The tenure of Service Chiefs is limited by law, and thus, 
     incumbents must vacate their positions at the appointed time 
     and may only be extended under extraordinary circumstances. 
     Collectively, these positions oversee more than 1.2 million 
     active and reserve component Service members and provide 
     Service personnel and resources to the commanders of the 
     unified combatant commands. By law, Service Chiefs preside 
     over the capabilities, requirements, policies, and plans of 
     their Services and serve as the principal military advisors 
     to the Secretaries of the Military Departments. Put simply, 
     our Service Chiefs train and equip the Joint Force. Without 
     these leaders in place, the U.S. military will incur an 
     unnecessary and unprecedented degree of risk at a moment when 
     our adversaries may seek to test our resolve.
       The hold causes especially acute, self-inflicted problems 
     in new domains of potential conflict. The Director of the 
     National Security Agency and Commander of United States Cyber 
     Command, is responsible for supporting every combatant 
     commander and Service member around the globe--including 
     troops in hostile or hazardous areas--with actionable signals 
     intelligence and cybersecurity support. The Director also 
     ensures

[[Page S1593]]

     that military communications and data remain secure and out 
     of the hands of our adversaries, safeguarding our advanced 
     command, control, communications, computer intelligence, 
     surveillance, and reconnaissance capabilities against the 
     People's Republic of China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, ISIS, 
     and more. Failing to fill this position weakens the 
     cybersecurity of the United States.
       Furthermore, delays in confirming a large number of one- 
     and two-star general and flag officers jeopardizes our 
     current and future readiness. The Department relies on these 
     experienced leaders to execute tactical actions every day and 
     extend our strategic advantages for the long term. General 
     and flag officers at this level are responsible for executing 
     strategy, acquiring new technologies, enhancing tactical 
     effectiveness, conducting joint training, and strengthening 
     global alliances. These general and flag officers also 
     provide direct leadership and mentorship to thousands of 
     enlisted Service members and junior and field grade officers 
     across the Department. Their importance cannot be overstated.


                        Power Projection Abroad

       General and flag officers provide oversight of the 
     Department's military and civilian staffs, help decide how we 
     employ our forces, and take care of the Service members, 
     civilians, and families in their organizations. Delays in 
     confirmation will soon foist vacancies on the most senior 
     military positions across each of the Services, imposing new 
     and unnecessary risks on U.S. warfighters across multiple 
     theaters of operations.
       The hold also makes it harder for the United States to 
     fulfil its global leadership responsibilities, including to 
     our treaty allies and our valued partners around the world. 
     Our smoothly running normal processes and predictable 
     military transitions have long set helpful expectations among 
     allies and partners. Now, however, this hold has created 
     unnecessary uncertainty. That diminishes our global standing 
     as the strongest military in the world, which is in large 
     part based on our stable processes and orderly transitions.
       General and flag officers have the authority to make 
     decisions and commit resources, develop key policies, work 
     with our allies and partners, and confront our rivals and 
     foes. The full impact of this hold may not be immediately 
     noticeable because of the resilience built into our military 
     organizations, but over time, the hold will cause cascading 
     impacts to our readiness and needlessly hinder our ability to 
     meet our strategic objectives in the Indo-Pacific, Europe, 
     the Middle East, and beyond.
       The absence of experienced and Senate-confirmed senior 
     leadership limits our ability to deepen our cooperation with 
     our allies and partners through multilateral training and 
     cooperative engagements. Recent exercises, such as Balikatan 
     2023 with the Armed Forces of the Philippines or joint U.S.-
     Israeli naval activity in the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, may 
     become even more difficult if delays in confirmation force 
     other leaders to take on the responsibilities of officers 
     held up by the Senate. This hold could force senior leaders 
     to become dual-hatted, which would force them to juggle 
     competing priorities and sap their ability to excel.


                        Knowledge and Expertise

       Our general and flag officers cultivate their expertise and 
     experience over decades of service. Military units need 
     leaders, and our Service members deserve to be led by fully 
     confirmed general and flag officers. The failure to confirm 
     leaders in key roles transfers strategic risk down the chain 
     of command and forces our units to operate with less 
     experienced decision makers in charge. By destabilizing the 
     senior military promotion and rotation process, we put our 
     short- and long-term readiness at significant risk.
       Failure to fill these positions in a timely manner is 
     simply irresponsible. We owe it to our Service members to 
     provide them with the best leadership possible, and the 
     current hold jeopardizes the continuity and effective 
     transition of leadership.


                      Service Members and Families

       This hold disrupts not only our most senior military 
     leaders but their families as well. Service members and 
     military families are resilient, but the current hold adds 
     another layer of stress and unnecessary uncertainty.
       The damage here includes not just the disruption to our 
     most senior officers, but also profound confusion and 
     disturbance to our rising one- and two-star general and flag 
     officers and their families. Extended holds increase the time 
     from selection to promotion, which could further delay 
     promotion timelines by 12 to 24 months. This impedes not only 
     the current cadre of officers but those in the groups behind 
     them as well.
       General officer and flag officer end strength is tightly 
     controlled by statute. Promotion of one cadre of officers is 
     possible only with the retirement of others. Long-term holds 
     have a corrosive and cascading effect: they prevent our 
     rising officers and their families from being able to predict 
     promotion and rotation windows, which can increase the 
     pressure to leave the military in favor of greater stability. 
     The more our normal promotion processes are jolted, the more 
     we risk the loss of the diverse warfighting and technical 
     expertise that America needs to confront its 21st-century 
     security challenges.
       The current hold also means delaying or canceling permanent 
     change of station moves--not only for those now nominated and 
     on hold but also for numerous officers and their families who 
     must be extended on station to prevent critical gaps. 
     Military children will be unable to move to new schools when 
     the next school year begins, which imposes needless 
     additional stress on those students and their families. 
     Military families enrolled in the Exceptional Family Member 
     Program may endure serious delays or be unable to access the 
     services and support that they need and deserve when they 
     transition to their new duty stations. And outstanding 
     military spouses may not be able to accept or start new jobs 
     because they cannot predict when they could start. The 
     families of our general and flag officers serve right 
     alongside their Service members.
       The current hold imposes additional burdens upon our 
     military families that are both unnecessary and 
     unconscionable.


                          A Perilous Precedent

       As such, the Department urges the Senate to resolve the 
     current situation as swiftly as possible to limit these 
     serious consequences. Never before has one Senator prevented 
     the Department of Defense from managing its officer corps in 
     this manner, and letting this hold continue would set a 
     perilous precedent for our military, our security, and our 
     country.
       The ripple effects of this unprecedented and unnecessary 
     hold are increasingly troubling. Ultimately, the breakdown of 
     the normal flow of leadership across the Department's 
     carefully cultivated promotion and transition system will 
     breed uncertainty and confusion across the U.S. military. 
     This protracted hold means uncertainty for our Service 
     members and their families and rising disquiet from our 
     allies and partners, at a moment when our competitors and 
     adversaries are watching.
       As public servants and officials sworn to protect and 
     defend our Constitution, I hope that we can all acknowledge 
     the national security risks posed by these needless delays 
     and come together to safeguard the lethality and readiness of 
     the most powerful fighting force in human history.
       Thank you for your continued strong support for our Service 
     members and our national security. I again urge swift action 
     to confirm all U.S. general and flag officers.
           Sincerely,
                                             Lloyd J. Austin, III.

  Mr. BENNET. Today, any American who wants to read this stuff can 
actually read all of it and see all of it.
  The Senator from Alabama--and he said it again tonight--has said that 
he will continue to hold these promotions for ``as long as it takes''--
``for as long as it takes''--to which, I think, the obvious question 
is, As long as it takes to what? What is the political principle for 
which he is on the floor, using the unprecedented tactic of holding up 
every single flag promotion in the DOD and our U.S. military? What is 
it that he is trying to do? What principle is he trying to enshrine?
  The rule that he is objecting to and the rule that my colleague from 
Kansas is also objecting to is a rule that does three things.
  One thing it does is to say, if you are in need of reproductive 
healthcare and you are a woman who is in our military, that you can 
take paid leave to be able to do that. You don't have to take unpaid 
leave to travel to a place if you are stationed in, for example, a 
place like Alabama where abortion is illegal--I think only with the 
exception for the life of the mother.
  There is no exception for rape or incest if you are serving in a 
State like Alabama--where a doctor could go to prison for 99 years for 
performing an abortion, where they are having debates down there about 
whether or not they can use laws that are written for fentanyl and 
apply them to the use of chemicals during an abortion. It is a State in 
which, by the way, a majority of Alabamians says there should be some 
access to abortion.
  But if you are somebody who is stationed there through no fault of 
your own, you don't get to decide where you are going to be if you sign 
up and you get sent to, for example, Alabama. What the Secretary of 
Defense said was, OK. We are going to pass a rule that says that if you 
have to take leave, you can take paid leave.
  We are going to say that if you need to take a minute to think about 
whether you want to talk to your superior officer about the condition 
that you are in and the procedure that you have to take, then you can 
take a little bit longer to do that, to tell your commanding officer.
  We are saying, also, that we can pay for your travel just like we do 
for other care--to leave your duty station and go someplace else. Those 
are the three things.
  So when he says ``as long as it takes''--I gather what he means when

[[Page S1594]]

he says ``withdraw the memo''--it is as long as it takes to make sure 
that a woman cannot travel from her duty station to someplace else and 
have that paid for like other procedures; that a woman has to take 
unpaid leave--she can't get paid leave even though she can for other 
procedures; and that a woman has to tell her commanding officer the 
minute that she learns of this.
  Those are the three things. Those are the three things. That is why 
he is objecting to every single flag officer's promotion. I don't know 
what to do about that because I will bet you--I can't prove it, but in 
standing here tonight, I will bet you that 80 percent of the American 
people, no matter what their positions are on the underlying issue 
here, would agree with those three policies.
  By the way, I didn't compare abortion to bunions or abortion to 
LASIK. What I said was those other procedures are things to which the 
same rules apply. That is what I said. The reason that is important to 
this debate and to the discussion that we are having right now is that 
my colleague from Alabama is saying that if it doesn't say 
``reproductive services'' or ``reproductive healthcare'' or 
``abortion'' in the statute books, that means that there is no ability 
for the Secretary of Defense to write rules to protect the rights of 
our enlisted--in this case, enlisted women. That is what he is saying.
  What I have pointed out is that there is no place in the statute that 
says that you can go get your foot work done or LASIK surgery. That is 
not in the statute because this body and the House of Representatives 
confers judgment for this on the leaders of the Defense Department. 
And, unlike the Senator from Alabama, I actually have a lot of sympathy 
for the minefield that they are having to navigate.
  By the way, one other thing I just want to point out for the record 
so that it is absolutely clear is that nothing in this rule says that 
the U.S. Government is paying for an abortion. There is nothing in 
this. There is nothing in these three things. So to anybody on that 
side who says that is what this is about, that is a debate for another 
day. That is not the debate for this.
  But why would I say I have sympathy? Why do I have sympathy? I have 
sympathy because something has happened in America that I could never 
have imagined 30 years ago. I don't remember now when it was 30 years 
ago--1997? I can't do the math. I hope the pages can do the math--1993? 
I don't even have the date right. It was when I was in law school. 
Something has happened that I never would have imagined, and that is 
that the Supreme Court of the United States, for the first time in our 
history--for the first time since Reconstruction--has ripped away from 
the American people a fundamental right, a fundamental freedom. When I 
was the pages' age here, I never would have imagined that would have 
happened. When I was in law school, I never imagined that would have 
happened.

  That is because, from our founding until today, in general, this 
country's history has always been about expanding freedoms and 
expanding rights and making our country more democratic, more fair, and 
more free. But, after a 50-year campaign--none of this was accidental. 
After a 50-year campaign led by some people on the other side of the 
aisle here, they finally got what they wanted, which is Roe v. Wade's 
being overturned, and we are having to deal with the consequences of 
that as a society, as a country. The Secretary of Defense is having to 
deal with that.
  When they say there has been a 40-year consensus, that consensus was 
ripped violently from the American people by the Supreme Court. It 
stripped us of a 50-year consensus when it came to a woman's right to 
choose, when it came to that fundamental freedom. Then there were some 
people on the other side of the aisle who said: Don't be so hysterical. 
This is just returning it to the States. You don't need to worry about 
it.
  I don't think that was ever a genuine thing to say, but let's look at 
the facts here. Eighteen States have banned abortion since this 
happened. Nine of those States have no exceptions for rape or incest. 
In Texas, they are paying $10,000 bounties if your friend or your 
neighbor or the person down the street reports on you and reports that 
you are going to pursue something that has been a fundamental right in 
the United States of America for 50 years--something that has been a 
fundamental right in the State of Colorado, the State that I represent.
  My colleague says that I am pro-abortion. That is not why I am out 
here. That is not why I am out here. I am sure he didn't mean to say 
that. I am out here because I believe that my judgment isn't better 
than the judgment of a woman and her doctor and that the government 
shouldn't be making the decision. I am proud to live in a State that 
was one of the first States--probably, I think, the first State in 
America--to enact a woman's right to choose even before Roe v. Wade was 
passed, and it was the first State to codify Roe v. Wade after--after--
the Supreme Court overturned that precedent.
  Think about what is happening in Florida. It is one of the biggest 
States in America. It is one of the largest States. I can't remember. 
Is it the third largest State or the fourth largest State? It is huge. 
It is huge. They have just banned abortion in Florida at 6 weeks--
banned it at 6 weeks. When I was the age of these pages and when I was 
in law school, that would have been unimaginable.
  There might be a reason the Governor down there signed that law at 11 
o'clock at night. There might be a reason--because 65 percent of 
Floridians think it is a terrible idea. They think that this should be 
a decision that is made between a woman and her doctor. They don't need 
their Governor telling them. They don't need a Senator telling them. 
They don't need the Federal Government telling them or weighing in on 
this incredibly difficult decision.
  And we are here tonight because, as a result of that--I would say--
balancing act, that commonsense approach that the Secretary of Defense 
has tried to take here when it comes to the people who are serving in 
our military, we now face real harm to our national security.
  Part of the challenge is the recruitment challenge that my colleagues 
talk about on the Republican side. And I can tell you the studies that 
have been done that have asked the question about what the reversal of 
Dobbs is going to mean for recruitment in the Department of Defense. 
The Presiding Officer won't be surprised to know it is not good. It is 
not going to make matters better if you think that you can be assigned 
to a State where they have outlawed abortion or they are saying that 
doctors can get a 99-year prison sentence or there are no exceptions 
for rape or incest or the life of the mother; or you are in Florida, 
and now you have a 6-week ban. That may affect the recruiting that goes 
on in the U.S. military, not to mention the 700,000 civilians who serve 
in the Department of Defense.
  Servicemembers don't decide where they are going to serve; DOD 
decides. Before Dobbs, our troops at least had some assurance. Today, 
they don't have any assurance. That is why we are here.
  So any talk of this 40-year consensus ignores completely what has 
happened, and what has happened is the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. 
Wade.
  I just want to say to my colleagues, tonight, that I think it is 
important for the American people to understand, it is important for 
the next generation of Americans to understand, that this did not 
happen by accident. For 50 years, there has been a campaign in America 
to strip us of this fundamental right, to strip us of this fundamental 
freedom.
  When I was in law school, in the early 1990s, it was just after this 
new legal doctrine had been invented in America called originalism. I 
have said here on the floor that I think whoever came up with that name 
should get the Pulitzer Prize for political names. It is genius. It is 
genius because the idea is that, somehow, by putting on your 
originalist view of the world, you are going to be able to divine what 
the Founding Fathers were writing when they wrote the Constitution; 
that, if you are a judge, you are restricted to what they refer to as 
the plain meaning of the Constitution; and that, if you can't get to 
the plain meaning, you should be able to divine their intention as 
close to the text as possible, as if it is possible to divine the 
original intent of the Founders, because, if you are somebody who 
believes that you can do

[[Page S1595]]

that, you are channeling George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Ben 
Franklin or John Adams; that you have a leg up on anybody else who is 
trying to interpret what the Constitution says because, if you know 
what they were originally saying, if you have that secret decoder ring 
to tell you what they were originally saying, then that gives you an 
elevated position over anybody else who might disagree with you. In 
fact, there isn't really room for disagreement since you have divined 
what the Founders believed.
  I have no idea where the pages are in their history lessons on the 
American Constitution. I hope they do. I am sure they do. But anybody 
who has read anything about the Constitution of the United States knows 
that almost every word is a product of compromise. Almost every word is 
a product of compromise.
  There are some things in there where it is not confusing about what 
they said. I owe my friend Angus King for this. I ask unanimous consent 
to have printed in the Record an article that he wrote, my colleague 
from Maine.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

  Amy Coney Barrett's Judicial Philosophy Doesn't Hold Up to Scrutiny

              (By Angus King Jr., Heather Cox Richardson)

       The Constitution should be the sturdy vessel of our ideals 
     and aspirations, not a derelict sailing ship locked in the 
     ice of a world far from our own.
       During her confirmation hearings, Amy Coney Barrett argued 
     that the judicial philosophy known as ``originalism'' should 
     guide judges in their interpretation and application of 
     constitutional principles. Most famously associated with the 
     late Justice Antonin Scalia (for whom Judge Barrett clerked), 
     this idea sounds simple and sensible: in determining what the 
     Constitution permits, a judge must first look to the plain 
     meaning of the text, and if that isn't clear, then apply what 
     was in the minds of the 55 men who wrote it in 1787. Period. 
     Anything else is ``judicial lawmaking.''
       In some cases, interpreting the Constitution with an 
     originalist lens is pretty easy; for example, the 
     Constitution says that the president must be at least 35 
     years old (``35'' means, well, 35), that each state has two 
     senators (not three and not one), and that Congress is 
     authorized to establish and support an Army and a Navy. But 
     wait a minute. What about the Air Force? Is it mentioned in 
     the text? Nope. Is there any ambiguity in the text? Again, 
     no. It doesn't say ``armed forces''; it explicitly says 
     ``Army'' and ``Navy.'' Did the Framers have in mind the Air 
     Force 115 years before the Wright brothers? Not likely.
       So is the Air Force unconstitutional, even though it 
     clearly fails both prongs of the ``originalist'' test? No, a 
     more reasonable and obvious interpretation is that the 
     Framers intended that the country be protected and that the 
     Air Force is a logical extension of that concept, even though 
     it wasn't contemplated in 1787. This isn't judicial 
     lawmaking; it's judges doing what they're hired to do.

  Mr. BENNET. There are supposed to be--not supposed to be; there are--
there are two Senators from every State. That is in the Constitution. I 
don't think we are going to disagree about what that means.
  I know that people on the floor staff tonight are thinking: I wish 
there was one Senator from Colorado who would stop talking.
  And I will stop talking. But that is what it says, and I can read the 
plain meaning of that--``two Senators.'' But it becomes less clear when 
the words are things like--again, credit to Angus King--``due 
process,'' or when the words don't even show up in the Constitution of 
the United States--``Air Force''--because they didn't have a single 
plane when they wrote the Constitution of the United States.
  I think that Thomas Jefferson's view of this was certainly closer to 
mine than some others, which was that they expected the government to 
evolve. They expected the interpretation of these documents, over time, 
to evolve. That is a good reminder, by the way, of the disagreements 
that the Founders had, originally.
  As to their original intent, some of them were slaveholders, in the 
case of Thomas Jefferson, in the case of George Washington, in the case 
of Madison. Some of them were abolitionists, in the case of John Adams. 
But that was a fundamental thing that ended up being wrestled to a 
horrendous compromise that allowed slavery to continue in the United 
States of America, and the results of that horrible compromise are 
going to be with us for the rest of our days.
  But if you had told me when I was in law school that a majority of 
the Supreme Court of the United States would subscribe to originalism, 
I wouldn't have believed it. I would not have believed it--maybe one 
Justice. There had never been a Justice on the Court who ever signed up 
to that thing called originalism because it hadn't been invented yet. 
You know, it had just been invented.
  But I read Justice Alito's majority opinion for the Supreme Court in 
the Dobbs case, and, man, he believes it because the fundamental 
conviction is: If it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom 
today; it is not a right today. That is what the originalist's view 
would be.
  The dissent points out that the men--the men, the men--who ratified 
the 14th Amendment in 1868 ``did not perceive women as equals, and did 
not recognize women's rights. When the majority says that we must read 
our foundational charter as viewed at the time of ratification . . . it 
consigns women to second-class citizenship.''
  By definition, how can that not be true? Women were second-class 
citizens when the Constitution was written. They were second-class 
citizens when the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. It took women in 
this country another 50 years--almost, almost--after a hundred years of 
fighting for it, to get the right to vote in America, the self-evident 
right to vote.
  And because the Supreme Court majority didn't have to wrestle with 
the realities of this freedom, the realities of this right, because for 
them the only pertinent question was: Was it around in 1868? That is 
not completely unfair to them; they were asking a question like was it 
around 300 years, 400 years ago but ignoring the 50 years that it had 
been a right, that it had been a freedom in the United States of 
America. They didn't have to contend, nor did they want to contend, 
with the effects their decision was going to have on everyday people in 
the United States of America, including people who served in our 
military.
  One of the very first calls I got after Dobbs was decided was from a 
woman whom I know who was an officer in the Air Force, who called me 
and said me: Michael, let me tell you a story about my life and 
decisions I had to make. And, now, what are people going to do?
  We talked about the privacy issues that were at stake. Those aren't 
even touched on here.
  If I were in charge, I would hope that we would have something in 
there about privacy. We don't have anything. There is not even anything 
about privacy. Everybody in the unit is going to know everything that 
there is to know.
  She wanted to talk about that, but what she really wanted to talk 
about is readiness; this is going to affect our readiness.
  In response to that concern, the Pentagon drew up these three 
policies: travel allowances for servicemembers, as I mentioned; being 
able to take your absence without unpaid leave; and more time for 
servicemembers to be able to tell their commanding officers. That is 
all it is.
  Now the Senator from Alabama is out here saying that, you know, it is 
making the DOD into an abortion factory, or--he didn't say it tonight, 
but he said it before--into an abortion travel agency, and that is why 
he is holding up these 200 flag officers.
  I am really worried--I am really worried--about what the implications 
of this are because I don't know what is going to make him stop, and I 
don't know what damage is going to be done to our national defense in 
the meantime.
  I will say I believe very strongly that this country should codify 
women's rights to choose at the national level. I believe that. I 
believe that. Most Americans agree with that position. Most Americans 
disagree with the Supreme Court. Most Americans disagree with the 50-
year campaign that has reversed Roe v. Wade.
  We have to adjust to this new reality. It is not about evading laws 
or evading statutes. It is about supporting the men and women in our 
military, in our armed services. That is what this is about. That is 
what this is about.
  To hold hostage the promotions of flag officers at DOD because of 
your particular view of a woman's right to choose or whether Dobbs was 
rightly

[[Page S1596]]

decided by the originalist majority that now sits on the Supreme 
Court--that is pretty tough, man. That is pretty tough. It is tough 
enough that this right has been stripped and this freedom has been 
stripped.
  I think there are people who thought it wasn't really going to happen 
in America. I said I thought it wasn't going to happen. I didn't. I 
didn't. When I was the age of the pages here, when I was in law school 
and college, the last thing from my mind is that this would happen. I 
think it is surprising to the American people, and I think it would be 
very surprising to the American people if they knew that there was a 
Member of the U.S. Senate using a procedure that has never been used in 
the history of our country to try to impose their view of social 
policy.
  And I don't think the American people should accept this. I will tell 
you, I know that Colorado doesn't accept this. In Colorado, as I said 
earlier, we protect reproductive care for servicemembers. We protect it 
for everybody in my State, and we do everything we can to protect our 
readiness as well.
  We are home, in Colorado, to the U.S. Air Force Academy; to Fort 
Carson, to Schriever, to Peterson, to Buckley; and to Space Command. In 
the case of Space Command, we have a live example of how the Supreme 
Court's decision could hurt our national security. This is one of the 
saddest stories that I know. I am sorry to be here tonight telling this 
story because I think decisions about where to locate our military 
installations should be made in the national security interest of the 
United States of America. That is what I believe. It is devastating to 
think that we could have had a situation where elected leaders--
politicians, a President--could play politics instead of making a 
decision in our national security, but in the case of Space Command, 
that is exactly what happened.
  Every top general in the Air Force who was asked recommended Peterson 
in Colorado Springs as the home for Space Command, and there were three 
reasons. One was, it could get stood up faster than if it were moved 
anywhere else; it was going to be cheaper to repurpose buildings that 
were there; and because they were also concerned that if they moved it 
from Colorado, there would be massive attrition, both in the DOD 
workforce and the civilian workforce. That was their conclusion. That 
was their conclusion: Leave it in Colorado. And President Trump 
overruled them. Every general said: Leave it in Colorado. They went 
into the White House. The President made a different decision and said: 
Move it to Alabama. Let's send Space Command to Alabama.
  How do I know he made the decision on politics, not on national 
security? How do we know that? Well, he went first on a radio program 
called--this is President Trump. He went on a radio program called the 
``Rick & Bubba Show,'' and they asked him, and he said: I 
singlehandedly moved it to Alabama. They wanted it to be somewhere 
else, but I singlehandedly moved it to Alabama.
  The GAO and DOD's own inspector general confirmed these facts--
confirmed these facts--about the generals saying it should be in 
Colorado and President Trump saying: I singlehandedly made the 
decision.
  Mayor John Suthers, who is the mayor of Colorado Springs, confirmed 
these facts. In fact, in a letter to Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, 
here is what Mayor Suthers wrote: In the spring of 2019, President 
Trump told him that ``despite any process the Air Force was pursuing, 
he''--President Trump--``would make the decision `personally', and the 
only question is whether it would be before or after the 2020 
election.''
  In February 2020 when Mayor Suthers--not that it matters, but just 
for the record, Mayor Suthers is a Republican mayor. This is not a 
Democratic mayor who is recalling these statements by President Trump; 
it is a Republican mayor.
  In February 2020 when Mayor Suthers again made his case to President 
Trump to keep Space Command in Colorado, Trump asked him if he was a 
Republican.
  He is a Republican. I don't know why that mattered, but he is a 
Republican.
  When Mayor Suthers replied that he was, President Trump asked what 
President Trump's chances were of carrying Colorado in the 2020 
election. After Mayor Suthers responded that his chances were 
``uncertain,'' he noticed that made the President seem ``perturbed.'' 
President Trump said again he would make the decision after the 2020 
election and he wanted ``to see how it [turned] out''--to see how the 
election turned out.
  The generals all recommended Colorado. They went into the White 
House. Donald Trump, President Trump, overturned what they said, and, 
in his own language, we know the reason why.
  I ask unanimous consent that this letter be printed in the Record, 
Madam President.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                    March 7, 2023.
       Dear Secretary Kendall: I am the Mayor of Colorado Springs, 
     Colorado, and have been since June 2015. I have also served 
     as the Attorney General of Colorado and U.S. Attorney for 
     Colorado. During my role as Mayor, I have been involved in 
     the effort to retain US Space Command headquarters in the 
     city.
       While I am hardly an unbiased observer of the process, I do 
     want to relate two conversations I had with former President 
     Donald Trump that led me to conclude the President's decision 
     to move Space Command headquarters to Huntsville, Alabama was 
     a wholly political one. Both conversations took place on the 
     tarmac at Peterson Space Force Base and both were witnessed 
     by high-ranking officers in the US Space Force. The first was 
     in the spring of 2019 when President Trump came to Colorado 
     Springs to speak at the Air Force Academy graduation, and the 
     second came in February 2020 when he came to the city for a 
     political rally. In both instances, I was the first to greet 
     him when he got off Air Force One and I mentioned Colorado 
     Springs had been the home of all previous iterations of Space 
     Command, and we hoped to remain the permanent home of Space 
     Command headquarters. In the spring 2019 meeting, I was 
     surprised to hear the President assert that, despite any 
     process the Air Force was pursuing, he would make the 
     decision ``personally'', and the only question is whether it 
     would be before or after the 2020 election. The February 2020 
     meeting was more extensive and enlightening. My wife Janet 
     and I were both standing next to high-ranking Space Force 
     officers. When I once again made my pitch to President Trump, 
     he asked me if I was a Republican mayor. When I replied that 
     I was, he asked what his chances were of carrying Colorado in 
     the November election. When I said they were ``uncertain'' he 
     seemed perturbed. He then turned to the high-ranking officer 
     in the Space Force and asked him, ``Is this where it should 
     be?'' The high-ranking officer replied, ``Absolutely, Mr. 
     President.'' The President then reiterated that he would make 
     the decision and said it would be after the 2020 election. 
     ``I want to see how it turns out,'' he said.
       Because of these conversations with the President, and the 
     role played by Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks in the rally 
     before the storming of the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, I 
     was disappointed, but not surprised, that the President, 
     after the decision to move to Huntsville was made a week 
     before he left office, fully admitted to Alabama Audiences 
     that he ``single-handedly'' made the decision to move the 
     command to Huntsville.
       I understand there are some in the Biden Administration who 
     contend the Trump Administration's decision to move Space 
     Command headquarters was not wholly political, despite the 
     former President's public assertions to the contrary. I hope 
     my conversations with President Trump, which were witnessed 
     by others, as related herein, will shed further light on the 
     matter.
       I would be glad to answer any questions you or anyone else 
     might have about the matter, or provide an affidavit, if 
     requested.
       Thank you for your consideration.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John W. Suthers,
                                         Mayor of Colorado Spring.

  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, and instead of removing this stain of 
politics from this decision, DOD, I am sad to say, has proceeded as if 
nothing were wrong, as if there were just a garden-variety bureaucratic 
process that they are going through, an inevitable outcome that 
preserves that political judgment, which would be a horrendous 
precedent for our country--horrendous. It would ratify a political 
decision that should have been a decision made in the interests of our 
national security. It would be a green light for future Presidents to 
do that kind of thing.
  There are estimates that the attrition could be as much as 80 percent 
if you move this from Colorado to Alabama. The reason this comes up in 
the context of this debate is that, in Colorado, we have preserved a 
woman's right to choose. In Alabama, they have banned it--no exceptions 
for rape or incest. And now the Representatives, the

[[Page S1597]]

Senators from Alabama don't want anybody to be able to pursue their 
interests and their judgments about their own healthcare.
  President Trump's decision would be a self-inflicted wound as we face 
a major land war in Ukraine and the saber-rattling that we are hearing 
in the Pacific. Every day that goes by, there is another article about 
how critically important our space assets are in this fight for freedom 
all around the world.
  I am really, really pleased that President Biden is coming to 
Colorado Springs next month to speak to the graduating class of the Air 
Force Academy, and I hope that is going to give us the opportunity to 
learn about this decision and how harmful it was and give us the chance 
to restore integrity to the process--to ensure that national security, 
not politics, drives our basing decision--and at the same time give us 
the chance once again to stand on the side of expanding rights and 
expanding opportunity in America, not restricting it.
  The Supreme Court had no interest--had no interest--in grappling with 
the consequences of their ruling on our country, on our society, on the 
men and women in uniform, on our national security. They didn't have to 
because if it wasn't a right in 1868, it is not a right today; if it 
wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom today.
  The men and women in our 21st-century Department of Defense deserve 
better than that. The men and women who have signed up to serve this 
country selflessly deserve better than that.
  I heard my colleague from across the aisle say that this was a 
country about the stronger defending the weaker. I don't think that is 
what this is about. The responsibility each one of us has--each one of 
us has--whether we are born strong or weak or rich or poor or in 
Colorado or in Alabama, to uphold our national security, to uphold our 
democracy, to make sure that we land on the side of our highest ideals.
  I think most people feel like there has been too much politics in 
America lately. I think people would see that they have fundamental 
disagreements with each other about a woman's right to choose or an 
endless number of things, but I also think people could understand what 
would happen if, instead of continuing to debate, continuing to have a 
conversation, that our attitude was ``I am just taking my ball and 
going home'' or, in the case of the Senator from Alabama, ``I am going 
to hold up 200 flag officers who have been duly promoted in our 
Department of Defense.''
  So I don't know how this is going to end, Madam President. This is 
not a great day in the history of the U.S. Senate. There is a reason 
why all of our colleagues going back for 230 years haven't put the kind 
of hold that we have seen put on today.
  It is staggering to me that, at a moment when the majority of 
Americans are saying that they think the decision in Dobbs was wrongly 
decided, that they think this decision should be made between a woman 
and her doctor, that we would be out here on the floor of the Senate 
using tactics that nobody has ever used before to impose one's personal 
view on the rest of the country.
  I would ask that the Senator from Alabama reconsider the position he 
has taken, and I would ask the Biden administration to undo the 
terrible political decision President Trump himself said he was making 
singlehandedly, over the objection of the generals in the Air Force.
  Now, in the wake of the decision in Dobbs and seeing what the 
intention is among some folks on the other side of the aisle, there is 
no excuse to picking up this military installation and moving it all 
the way across the country, the United States of America, just to 
ensure that women don't have the free exercise of their freedom and to 
ensure that it would be delayed as a result of going there and that we 
will be less safe as a result of it going there.
  I know the temptation is strong to not overturn the previous decision 
because people, I think, are worried about looking political. It would 
be political to keep this political decision in place. They need to 
listen to the words of the Republican mayor, John Suthers; listen to 
Donald Trump's own words; listen to what the generals said.
  But this is the fourth time I have been out here, Madam President, on 
this issue, and I am going to keep coming back as long as it takes. I 
appreciate your patience and your indulgence this evening.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. BENNET. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________