[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 82 (Tuesday, May 16, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1664-S1675]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Requests--Executive Calendar

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I rise today to address the Senator 
from Alabama's decision to hold hundreds of nominations--literally 
hundreds of nominations--that have been submitted to this body, and I 
want to join my colleagues who have taken the initiative and stand 
alongside with them and our men and women in uniform who protect our 
right to speak in these Halls every day and our other fundamental 
liberties in this country.
  We ask our men and women in uniform to do more now than ever before, 
particularly as we are engaged in countering Vladimir Putin's murderous 
assault in Ukraine. I have visited them in Germany, where they are 
training Ukrainians. I have spoken to them at the border in Poland, 
where they are providing essential military weapons to the Ukrainians. 
I have seen them at work all around the globe, as have my colleagues.
  Even though we are at peace formally right now, it is only because 
they are a deterrent to our adversaries and enemies around the globe. 
The threats are rapidly evolving and rising, and the U.S. military is 
the only force that can stem the tide of autocracy, which is the reason 
why I am so, so outraged that the Senator from Alabama is choosing to 
cripple our military by placing on hold a series of critical 
nominations.
  Earlier this year, Secretary Austin issued a memo, a policy memo, 
guaranteeing that servicemembers would have easier access to 
reproductive healthcare. They can now take nonchargeable leave and 
receive per diem while traveling to receive care, finally establishing 
a parity with every other medical procedure, every other healthcare 
procedure available to DOD personnel.
  The Secretary's decision rectified a DOD policy that marginalized the 
women who serve in our Nation and provide that essential guarantee of 
peace and freedom. It damaged readiness. It truly does put people first 
that we have corrected that egregious error.
  Instead of celebrating that servicemembers now have access to 
healthcare and policy programs that they have consistently sought, 
Senator Tuberville called the policy--and I am quoting--``a waste of 
time and resources.'' He believes that protecting the well-being and 
privacy of those who serve--and again, I am using his words--is 
``immoral'' and ``illegal.'' I disagree. I couldn't disagree more. 
Servicemembers shouldn't have to wonder whether they are going to 
receive healthcare.
  Providing access to reproductive care certainly isn't a distraction; 
it increases readiness and preparedness and the strength of our force. 
He is doing the very thing he accuses the new policy of doing, which is 
to damage readiness and jeopardize our Nation's security. He is doing 
it by holding up the President's nominees.
  Let me just talk about those individuals whose nominations he has 
blocked.
  Rear Admiral George Wikoff is the President's nominee to be the next 
commander of the Navy's 5th Fleet. He is an accomplished Navy aviator, 
a former TOPGUN instructor, and has

[[Page S1665]]

extensive experience in the theater he has been nominated to command. 
His service is essential to the 15,000 personnel responsible for 
defending American interests in the Persian Gulf and Arabian Seas. It 
isn't a luxury or convenience; it is essential that he be there.
  Rear Admiral Fred Kacher was nominated to lead the Navy's 7th Fleet, 
which is tasked with deterring Chinese aggression across the Pacific 
Ocean. Nearly 30,000 sailors and marines are assigned to the 7th Fleet 
and constitute our first line of defense in the Pacific.
  While Iran and China search for every opportunity to threaten 
American interests in the Middle East and Pacific, Senator Tuberville's 
response is to deprive the 5th and 7th Fleets of their incoming 
commanders.
  He is holding our next military representative to NATO, Rear Admiral 
Shoshana Chatfield, a remarkable officer with more than 30 years' 
experience. She is the recipient of the Defense Superior Service Medal, 
the Bronze Star Medal, the Legion of Merit, and the Meritorious Service 
Medal.
  During the largest land war in Europe since World War II, the Senator 
from Alabama is blocking Admiral Chatfield's promotion. Again, not a 
luxury, not a convenience, not superfluous; it is essential to our 
national defense.
  And he is blocking MG David Hodne's nomination to the role of deputy 
commander for the Army's Futures Command. That Futures Command position 
oversees the design of force capabilities into the future and ensures 
our soldiers maintain lethal advantages on the battlefield.
  His hold is preventing the Army's next Vice Chief and Chief of Staff 
from assuming command.
  Later this year, Gen. Charles Brown's nomination to become the next 
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be blocked if the Senator 
from Alabama does not lift his hold.
  Let's be clear about what is at stake here. Blocking these 
nominations, simply because of his putting personal beliefs above 
national security, is a threat to our national defense.
  He is doing Putin and Xi's jobs for them. He claims that this action 
is about the President trying to legislate from the White House. He 
claims that the Department of Defense had an abortion policy for 
decades.
  Respectfully--and I mean very respectfully--to a colleague in this 
body, I would remind him for decades that women in the military had to 
hide their abortion from their commanders and that referrals for care 
operated on a whisper network.
  If it were up to the Senator from Alabama, he would override the 
medical recommendations of military doctors and commanders across the 
force.
  I hope that he will stand with the military and their families and 
forgo future action blocking this essential set of nominations.
  The Senator from Alabama is entitled to his opinion. The military 
that he is so keen to stop from advancing its nominees defends the 
Constitution that gives him that right to his opinions and his right to 
speak from his heart and his conscience. But families who sacrifice so 
much already are waiting for this body to act. They are waiting so they 
can enroll their children into new schools, find new churches, start 
new jobs. Harming the military and their families serves only the 
interests of our adversary.
  I urge my colleague from Alabama to lift his hold and let the 
military continue to defend our freedom from those who seek to destroy 
it.
  And, in the meantime, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed 
to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: Calendar 
Nos. 46 through 52, Calendar Nos. 82 through 107, Calendar Nos. 110 
through 113, Calendar Nos. 130 through 139; that the nominations be 
confirmed en bloc; that the motions to reconsider be considered made 
and laid upon 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?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I am here to 
express my support for Senator Tuberville, who is, of course, opposing 
the Department of Defense's ongoing attempt to use taxpayer funding to 
fund abortion.
  Now, until recently, this was an understood policy. The policy to 
which my friend and colleague refers is, of course, embodied in a 
statute. It is not just a policy. It is a policy rooted in law. Under 
10 USC, section 1093, the Pentagon is prohibited from using Department 
of Defense funds or facilities to perform abortions.
  You see, because, in a word, divided as a country on issues related 
to abortion; people have sharply divided views on this. In fact, there 
is a pretty wide spectrum of views. But one thing that does tend to 
unite Americans overwhelmingly is the idea that, regardless of how you 
feel about abortion, you don't want your U.S. taxpayer dollars going to 
fund abortions. People don't want that. There is overwhelming 
bipartisan consensus among the American people on that.
  Only here in Washington is this regarded as controversial because 
Americans just consider that common sense--common sense that has been, 
for decades, codified in Federal law.
  The last time I read the Constitution, Congress makes the laws, not 
the Department of Defense. And when there are laws that the Department 
of Defense doesn't like, the Department of Defense isn't free to just 
reimagine the laws as the Secretary of Defense wishes those laws were 
written.
  And yet the Department of Defense's policy memo from just a few 
months ago does just that. It attempts to sneak around the laws that we 
have already passed.
  This policy memo violates at least the spirit, quite arguably the 
letter of the law. They are trying to get around that, and they have 
made no secret of that fact.
  So Senator Tuberville is right to oppose this egregious policy. We 
should commend his courage and his dedication to upholding the 
Constitution and standing for those who cannot stand for themselves.
  And so I would say, let this be a message to Secretary Austin. Look, 
Secretary Austin, if you want to make the laws, run for Congress, run 
for the House, run for the Senate. But you cannot legislate from the E-
Ring of the Pentagon. It is not your job. That is our job, not yours.

  Until then, Secretary Austin, stand down--stand down, soldier--and 
let the lawmakers actually make the laws. But you certainly don't get 
to rewrite them just because you feel like it.
  Now, as to the suggestion made by my friend and colleague moments ago 
that Senator Tuberville would override the recommendations made by 
board-certified medical doctors to women as to the best outcome for 
their health, it is not at all fair. It is incompletely inaccurate. In 
fact, it is utterly untethered from what Senator Tuberville is doing 
and what he has ever said on this. On no planet is Senator Tuberville 
trying to tell women in the military or dependents of military families 
that they may not have an abortion. All he is standing behind is what 
Federal law already says, which is that you can't use Federal funds or 
Federal facilities within the Department of Defense to fund abortions. 
And that is exactly what is happening here.
  Now, as to the specific personnel mentioned just moments ago, when we 
look at, say, Admiral Chatfield or Admiral Wikoff or General Hodne's or 
anyone else on the list, if there is any one of those people whose 
service, whose promotion is so mission critical to American national 
security, let's bring those forward. There are mechanisms, procedures, 
in the Senate, after all, that would allow not only each of them but 
everyone on this list to be confirmed.
  Yes, it takes a little bit more time. But what the Department of 
Defense and those advocating for its position here are doing is coming 
to us as U.S. Senators and asking us to waive our procedural rights, to 
waive our procedural objections so that they can have their policy.
  Senator Tuberville has raised a legitimate, bona fide opposition to 
that policy because it is in violation of the spirit, if not the 
letter, of 10 U.S.C. 1093.

[[Page S1666]]

  It takes a lot of gumption--that is audacity--for the Department of 
Defense to ask for our help to facilitate the confirmation of these 
nominees when they have taken away from us the prerogative that is 
uniquely ours.
  It is no coincidence that the very first clause, in the first 
section, of the first article of the Constitution says that ``[a]ll 
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 1, section 7 makes even more abundantly clear that we are the 
sole lawmaking organ of the Federal Government; that in order to pass a 
Federal law, you have to get the same legislative proposal passed in 
the House and then in the Senate and then submit it to the President 
for signature, veto, or acquiescence.
  Secretary Austin has bypassed all of that. He would make himself the 
legislative and the executive branches at once. It is not his role. It 
is not his job. And he has the audacity to come here and question our 
patriotism, question our commitment to American military readiness, 
simply because we will not expedite his own request to get these people 
moved through faster.
  If he wants to circumvent these processes ordained by the 
Constitution, Senator Tuberville is in no position where he has to 
agree to help them expedite it, nor should he.
  On that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I come to the floor to talk about how 
we are currently failing our most senior military leaders, a failing 
caused entirely by my colleague the senior Senator from Alabama.
  Members of our All-Volunteer Force answer the call to service by 
choice. No one is making them serve. They choose to serve. For their 
sacrifices, we owe them many things--fair pay, healthcare, veterans' 
benefits--to make sure they land on their feet after their service is 
done. And we must also make sure they can do the hard, sometimes 
dangerous, work they volunteered for without partisan politics getting 
in their way.
  And yet my colleague has placed an indefinite hold on the nominations 
of all general officers, preventing a still growing number of our most 
senior leaders from taking on the challenges of their next positions 
and leaving critical gaps in our military leadership.
  My colleague from Alabama is harming our military readiness and our 
servicemembers not out of concern about the promotion process or the 
ethical or professional qualifications of any of the nominees, he is 
doing it to score cheap political points, to fundraise with his base, 
and to try to force a policy that he personally disagrees with to 
change, not by legislating it like the voters of Alabama sent him here 
to do but holding our most senior military leaders hostage.
  If my colleague had legitimate concerns about the fairness of the 
promotion process or felt these nominees were not qualified ethical 
leaders, this might be a different story.
  In fact, as my colleague pointed out, I once held some, but certainly 
not all, nominations. But I only did it for 14 days because I was 
attempting to stop the administration in the White House at the time 
from inserting politics into a nonpartisan promotion process.
  I had legitimate, well-founded concerns that an Army colonel--a 
single colonel's promotion would be withheld from consideration as 
political retaliation against him.
  I held the list of promotions for just 14 days until I received 
assurances that he had received fair consideration, just like the rest 
of his peers, and then I released my hold.
  Put it another way. I wanted to make sure that the military promotion 
process--the one we use to make sure our military is led by the best, 
most qualified people--was not being politicized.
  My colleague is doing the exact opposite. He is trying to change DOD 
policy not by legislating but by holding up well-deserved promotions to 
the detriment of leaders who have willingly served decades in uniform, 
all the servicemembers who are supposed to serve under them, and our 
national security because he wants to insert politics into this 
historically nonpartisan process.
  If he doesn't like the DOD policy, then he can engage in the NDAA 
legislative process to change it. It is coming up. The Senator will 
have a chance to do that.
  The nominations that my colleague is holding represent experienced 
professionals who, if confirmed, will tackle some of the biggest 
challenges that our military faces.
  In some cases, the positions are completely vacant, and that job just 
isn't being done at all. I will only talk about a few of these 
nominations today, but the already long list grows each month.
  In a moment, I will ask the Senate to confirm MG Heidi J. Hoyle, U.S. 
Army, to be a lieutenant general and the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-4, of 
the U.S. Army. The Army G-4 develops, implements, and oversees Army 
strategy, policy, plans, and programming for logistics and sustainment, 
some of the most challenging, if not the most challenging, issues for 
the Army to address.
  Take it from a broken-down old soldier, logistics might not be sexy, 
but without them the Army doesn't run. And the logistics and 
sustainment needs of tomorrow's fight will be very different from those 
of the last wars we have fought.
  We need to be working through these problems now, figuring out new 
strategies and plans, developing new systems that will serve our 
soldiers better. That is exactly what the Army G-4 does. It is not 
optional; it is necessary. And we need Major General Hoyle's 
leadership, or it is our troops, out in front, who will suffer.

  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the 
consideration of the following nomination: Calendar No. 48, Major 
General Heidi J. Hoyle, to be Lieutenant General; 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Before the Chair entertains that motion, the 
Chair would like to remind all Senators that rule XIX reads as follows:

       No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any 
     form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators 
     any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming of a Senator.

  Senators are reminded to address each other in the third person and 
through the Chair.
  Is there an objection to the request?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Again, 
for the fourth or fifth time, I am fighting against taxpayer-funded 
abortions--funding from taxpayers that was never, ever approved by this 
Congress.
  By the way, poll after poll shows that Americans agree with exactly 
what I am doing. The American people do not support taxpayer-funded 
abortions. Period.
  Democrats have had a few retired Secretaries, in the last few weeks, 
agree with them; but other retired military leaders and thousands of 
servicemembers and veterans just happen to agree with me, just like the 
majority of Americans. In fact, earlier today, a letter representing 
more than 3,000 servicemembers and veterans was sent in full support of 
my hold. Those servicemembers and veterans said:

       This policy is not just illegal, it shamefully politicizes 
     the military, circumvents the authority of Congress, and 
     exceeds the authority of the Department of Defense.

  They sent that letter to Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell. I would 
encourage them to please read it.
  Also, earlier today, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin and retired Lt. 
Gen. James Carafano penned an op-ed condemning the Pentagon's policies. 
They said:

       The Pentagon's new abortion policy has everything to do 
     with activist politics and nothing to do with Congress's 
     obligation to raise and maintain armed forces to provide for 
     the common defense.

  So I object, and I will continue to object.
  I will end with one comment from the retired military leaders' op-ed:

       America is a global power with global interests and 
     responsibilities. We can't afford a

[[Page S1667]]

     military distracted by politics. The quickest way to make 
     this right is for Secretary Austin to immediately rescind his 
     radical abortion policy.

  Because of this, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Warnock). Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, I am disappointed the Senate is not 
able to confirm MG Heidi Hoyle today. As I said earlier, the work Major 
General Hoyle would do, if confirmed, is vital to the success of our 
Army.
  And now I want to consider another patriot whose promotion is being 
held by my colleague from Alabama: Brig. Gen. Rebecca Sonkiss, U.S. Air 
Force.
  Brigadier General Sonkiss is the current commander of the 618th Air 
Operations Center, the Tanker Airlift Control Center at Scott Air Force 
Base in my home State of Illinois.
  The 618th Air Operations Center is responsible for operational 
planning, as well as scheduling, directing, and assessing a fleet of 
about 1,100 aircraft that conduct combat delivery and strategic 
airlift, air refueling, global air mobility support, and aeromedical 
operations around the world.
  General Sonkiss, a command pilot who has had a distinguished career 
of service to her country, is leading the 618th Air Operations Center 
as it does some of the most complex, most important, least celebrated 
work in the Air Force. And yet her promotion is being held up, not 
because of concerns about the fairness of the process or her own 
qualifications. No, her promotion has not been granted because one 
Senator would rather use her and other servicemembers like her to try 
to manipulate the DOD into doing what he wants instead of engaging in 
the legislative process.
  I ask that it be in order to make the same request with respect to 
Calendar No. 110, 23 nominations.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the request?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, here again, the Senate has procedures for 
dealing with any nomination, including these military promotions. These 
could be brought up individually; they could be voted on; and those 
whose promotions have the greatest urgency could be dealt with. We 
could stay in session until all these are done. Neither Senator 
Tuberville nor any other Senator, to my knowledge, would interfere with 
that, nor could we.
  What Senator Tuberville refuses to do, with very good reason, is to 
pretend like nothing has happened; pretend like nothing has changed; to 
pretend that he didn't have repeated conversations with high-ranking 
officials within the Department of Defense in recent months expressing 
his concerns about rumors that this very policy was being considered; 
to pretend that he didn't tell them then there would be serious 
consequences if they decided to proceed in violation of 10 U.S.C., 
section 1093. No, this is not fair to put this on him.
  When the Pentagon comes crawling back after they did what they did to 
him--after they did what they did to the law, to all Americans--that is 
manifestly unfair. To all of a sudden put it on him to make sure it is 
his job to make sure that everyone gets confirmed--and, oh, by the way, 
you also have to help--you are being told--you have to help the 
Pentagon, even though the Pentagon has just cut you off at the knees.
  Look, it is very clear. When the law says you may not use Federal 
taxpayers for abortions, that is a thing. When you have Department of 
Defense specific legislation that says you may not use Department of 
Defense funds, you may not use Department of Defense facilities to 
perform abortions, that is a thing.
  To argue otherwise and to try to point out that this policy memo 
somehow complies with that is too cute by half.
  No. 1, it is still, quite arguably, in violation of the letter of the 
law. You are still doing this to bring about an abortion. You are using 
Federal taxpayer dollars from the Department of Defense so that someone 
has an abortion. You are paying for someone's travel to that State--per 
diem to that State--3 weeks of paid leave time to that State, and it is 
specific to abortion. That is what that is.

  If, in any other circumstance, someone were asked: Are you using 
Federal dollars for abortions? The answer would be, unequivocally, 
``yes.''
  I know those raising these consent requests are trying to get Senator 
Tuberville to capitulate, trying to get him to reverse course, trying 
to get him to help the Department of Defense when the Department of 
Defense hid from him what they were going to do, then undercut Federal 
law in the process, that is not fair. That is what this is about. That 
is what you are trying to do.
  I am happy to stand with Senator Tuberville in defending his rights. 
On that basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard. The Senator from Illinois.
  Ms. DUCKWORTH. Mr. President, by refusing to confirm nominations to 
positions of vital importance within the DOD, the senior Senator from 
Alabama and some of his colleagues continue to risk our military 
readiness and our national security. And they continue to deny 
patriots, who have voluntarily served our country for decades, the 
promotions they have earned as a means of trying to influence policy 
through extortion, instead of through legislation or oversight.
  I call on all my colleagues to join me in opposing the actions of the 
senior Senator from Alabama for the sake of our military readiness and 
for those who serve.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, to the extent any one of these nominations--
or all of them taken together--to the extent military readiness is 
invoked, implicated, is threatened, challenged, by all means, let's 
figure out a workaround. By all means, let's have the Department of 
Defense realize that as this policy debate happens, it should be the 
very last entity putting American national security at risk.
  So if that is what this is resulting in, then the Department of 
Defense, with all due respect, needs to stand down on this until such 
time as this can be debated and discussed.
  The fact is that every single year--every single year--the Department 
of Defense has the luxury that very few other branches have in that we 
devote an enormous amount of time to debating a policy bill--every 
year, year after year, going back for the last half century--the 
National Defense Authorization Act. This is the kind of thing that, if 
it is going to be addressed, if they want a change of law, then that 
change of law ought to be pursued on the floor of the Senate.
  The National Defense Authorization Act would present an opportunity 
for the Department of Defense to pursue that change. It can do it that 
way. It can do it in a stand-alone bill if it wants to. What it may not 
do is change the law on its own.
  So, look, to the extent that this implicates military readiness--
which let's just take those words on their own face--that seems to me 
that should apply with at least as much force, if not a ``for sure'' to 
the Department of Defense rather than to Senator Tuberville. It is the 
Department of Defense that is asking for his help. It is the Department 
of Defense that is using Federal funds to facilitate the performance of 
abortions.
  If anyone is threatening national security, it is not Senator 
Tuberville. And if these are threatening America's national security, 
particularly those you have identified, bring those to the floor. We 
have procedures to do that. It takes time.
  I understand, perhaps, that is not what this Democratic majority of 
the Senate wants to do. That is the Democratic majority's prerogative. 
But that being the prerogative, they can't all of a sudden put that on 
Senator Tuberville.
  Finally, as to the suggestion that Senator Tuberville is extorting 
anyone--extortion, of course, is a crime. That is a really 
inappropriate reference to use here, but let's go with it for a second 
for purposes of this discussion. Who is extorting whom? Who is it that 
receives all this money and then goes about saying: We are going to 
change the law. Now, it is up to you to help us make sure that every 
one of these people gets a promotion.
  If you are going to use that term, you have to realize it cuts both 
ways. I don't think it has any place on the floor. But if you are going 
to use it, it swings both ways. And it may well hit you.

[[Page S1668]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am going to yield to my colleague 
from Hawaii in just one moment.
  I would like to clarify--because I am a member of the Armed Services 
Committee, as Senator Tuberville is. We work together on a lot of 
issues. I will support his right, as part of the NDAA process, to raise 
this issue as an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act.
  As my colleague from Illinois has rightly suggested, and I think we 
can all agree, that is a clear forum to raise any issue. We disagree--
deeply disagree--on this one.
  And there are many votes on the NDAA through the markup session that 
we will conduct over not just several hours but several days. And every 
year, we report out from the Armed Services Committee--in the 12 years 
I have been on it--consistently, a bipartisan measure. There may be a 
couple of no votes, but it is deeply bipartisan. We can work together 
on our national defense.
  Blocking these nominations is contrary to that spirit, in my view, 
because it, basically, prevents us from moving forward with vital 
leadership in the U.S. military if there is bipartisan support to 
advance. So I am hoping that, again, my colleague from Alabama, whom we 
work with on many issues, will simply take that forum as a way to move 
forward.
  I yield to the Senator from Hawaii.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.
  Ms. HIRONO. Mr. President, earlier today, every Member of this body 
received a briefing on the ongoing threat Iran presents to our national 
security and that of our allies around the world. It was a stark 
reminder of the serious challenges and threats the United States and 
our allies face around the world. It also underscores the importance of 
ensuring our military is ready and able to respond to any threats that 
may arise.
  Right now, though, one Senator is willfully undermining our 
readiness. I happen to chair the Readiness Subcommittee on the Armed 
Services Committee. Our servicemembers can only do their jobs if they 
are in place to do so, and, right now, the Senator from Alabama's hold 
on 196 general and flag officer promotions is preventing these brave 
men and women from entering new roles in which they are urgently 
needed.
  Since March, the Senator from Alabama has refused to allow movement 
on any of these promotions, depriving our military of critical leaders 
in key posts around the globe. Among the nearly 200 promotions 
currently on hold is the next commander of Naval Sea Systems Command, 
who is responsible for overseeing the Shipyard Infrastructure 
Optimization Program, a critical infrastructure investment in our 
public shipyards in Hawaii and across the country.
  The blanket hold also includes the Director of the Defense Logistics 
Agency, or DLA. DLA oversees the defense supply chain for all services 
and will be essential to the safe defueling and closure of the Red Hill 
Bulk Fuel Storage Facility on Oahu, a leak which impacted over 90,000 
people living on Oahu.
  The Senator from Alabama is also holding nominees to command the 
Fifth and Seventh Fleets, which are responsible for deterring threats 
from Iran and China, respectively. For any Member of this body to 
willfully degrade the readiness of these units is, in my view, 
unthinkably irresponsible.
  To be clear, these are not controversial nominees. These are 
decorated, patriotic men and women who have devoted their adult lives 
to serving our Nation and who wish only to continue doing so.
  My colleague from Alabama is placing a blanket hold on close to 200 
promotions in the DOD because he disagrees with DOD's commonsense, 
humane policy to allow travel for servicemembers seeking reproductive 
services.
  Thousands of servicemembers are posted in States that do not allow 
them to receive reproductive services necessitating this travel. This 
is a policy my colleague objects to, resulting in his hold on these 
promotions.
  The travel policy does not include paying for abortions. How many 
times must this point have to be made? Why do my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle continue to read into the policy that which is 
not there?
  Nowhere does the policy allow the DOD to pay for abortion. There is 
no language in this policy that talks about facilitating the provision 
of abortion. Show me this language. You can't because it is not there. 
This is a travel policy for reproductive services.
  So my colleague from Alabama is more concerned with pushing his 
ideological agenda than with the realities our troops face, even if 
that means depriving servicemembers of critical healthcare.
  In addition to undermining our national security, this reckless hold 
is creating chaos for these servicemembers, many of whom will have to 
relocate their families and put their children in new schools.
  These promotions are carefully timed to ensure critical positions 
don't go unfilled, and also that the servicemembers and their families 
can transition into new homes and schools with as little disruption as 
possible.
  Beyond being reckless and fundamentally ill-informed, the Senator 
from Alabama's--I consider it a stunt; it is a slap in the face of our 
servicemembers. They should be able to do their jobs without political 
interference, without someone putting their ideological agenda ahead of 
the need for us to make these decisions.
  For the sake of our servicemembers and our country, we need to end 
this dangerous blockade. That is why, in a moment, I will be asking the 
Senate to confirm Calendar No. 85. If confirmed, this nominee would 
command the Navy's Seventh Fleet, which at any given moment has almost 
75 ships and submarines and over 27,000 sailors and marines, operating 
and in contact with both the Chinese and Russian Navies.
  Encompassing many allies, partners, and competitors, the Pacific and 
its forward-deployed fleet should not be left without its appropriate 
commander.
  I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration 
of Calendar No. 85; 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.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Mr. President, I rise to object. I continue hearing 
about this word ``readiness'' from my colleagues.
  We have had a law in place for nearly 40 years. The law provides 
taxpayer-funded abortion in case of rape, incest, or threat to the life 
of the mother. Nobody, in 40 years--nobody--on either side of the aisle 
has complained about this. This was a bipartisan consensus 40 years 
ago.
  The law was not affected by the Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision 
did not apply to Federal military installations.
  On July 8, 2022, just 2 weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, the 
Biden administration said they needed to expand abortion to counteract 
the Dobbs decision. By memo, they said the VA would pay for abortion 
travel and time off. By memo, they said HHS would pay for late-term 
abortions. By memo, they covered all Federal workers, and they acted to 
expand abortion at the Pentagon.
  The Pentagon is now giving servicemembers and their dependents 
reimbursements for travel and additional paid time off for elective 
abortions.
  We are not talking about cases of rape, incest, or threat to the 
health of the mother. Despite what some of my colleagues have said, we 
are talking about elective abortions. Despite what some of my 
colleagues have said, that is what this is all about.
  Ordinary servicemembers get 30 days off a year--30 days off. Under 
this policy, servicemembers who get abortions would get 30 days off 
plus an additional 3 weeks. Servicemembers who get abortions get paid 
more time off than servicemembers who do not get abortions.
  The Pentagon is spending money without the consent of Congress. This 
money was never authorized. It was never appropriated. Nobody voted for

[[Page S1669]]

this. Even my friend from Connecticut didn't vote for this policy. The 
Democrats' strongest abortion supporters never voted for this. Nobody 
voted for this, and now Senators are down here defending this.
  They are outsourcing the work of the U.S. Senate. Follow the law or 
change the law in this building.
  That is the reason I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate 
proceed to the consideration of the following nominations en bloc: 
Calendar Nos. 46 through 52, No. 82 through No. 107, No. 110 through 
No. 113, No. 133 through No. 139; that the nominations be confirmed en 
bloc; that 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; and that the President be 
immediately notified of the Senate's action.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, again, when 
faced with a problem, the Department of Defense has decided to anoint 
itself a lawmaker, even though it is not in charge of making laws. It 
doesn't have that power. That power is reserved to us--to us 
exclusively--under article I, section 1 and article I, section 7.
  So if Secretary Austin wants to make laws, he should run for the 
Senate or he can run for the House. But he can't do this from his perch 
as Secretary of Defense. That doesn't work in our system of government.
  So here again, we are being asked to consider national security 
implications of these advancements and of any delay that might be 
caused as a result of the Department's unwise decision to try to remake 
abortion law, to try to rewrite laws restricting the use of Federal 
funds in facilities within the Department of Defense for abortions.
  I have another idea. I have an idea about how we might resolve this. 
I can't speak for Senator Tuberville, but I can speak for what I could 
advocate for Senator Tuberville. I can speak for what I suspect Senator 
Tuberville would seriously consider.
  We can deal with all this right now. We could probably get all of 
these folks confirmed tonight if they will just do one thing. This 
would be a nice compromise position. I suspect he would withdraw his 
objections and we could get everybody confirmed if the Department of 
Defense were to suspend this policy. Suspend it and say: Do you know 
what? You are right. We should have addressed this legislatively. We 
will bring it up in connection with the Defense Authorization Act.
  You know, they may well be able to get the votes in the Senate to do 
that. I am not here to prejudge that position, but that would be the 
appropriate way of doing it. And that, by the way, would allow my 
friends on the other side of the aisle to accomplish what they want, 
and really to accomplish what Senator Tuberville wants, which is to get 
these folks confirmed.
  But what he is not willing to do is ignore the fact that they are 
rewriting the law to their own image, to their own liking, to their own 
political preferences. That is not something they can do, and that is 
certainly not something they can ask us to play a part in doing.
  Senator Tuberville is standing on principle. He is standing for the 
law. He is standing for the principle that we understand. The American 
people, while sharply divided on many issues related to abortion, are 
united--overwhelmingly united--on the fact that we do not use taxpayer 
funding for abortions. That is what they are doing here.
  So you want to get these folks confirmed? We can get them confirmed 
tonight, but the Department of Defense needs to suspend this until such 
time as it can get the law changed through Congress.
  If that is on the table, I would love to discuss it. I would love to 
advocate to Senator Tuberville on behalf of that, if you are willing to 
consider it. But that is not on the table at the moment, and on that 
basis, I object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I think this is now the fifth time that I 
have been out here with the Senator from Alabama. We started this off 
some time ago, and we obviously have a profound and fundamental 
disagreement here. You know, I am deeply worried about this because I 
don't think this is actually about the Senators who are here. It is 
about people serving in our Armed Forces. It is about people living in 
the United States of America, and it is about some really fundamental 
things that have changed in the United States.
  The Senators on the other side of the aisle, tonight, have been 
talking about a 40-year consensus about the funding of abortions by the 
Federal Government, which is not actually even at issue in this 
discussion because that is not part of the rules that have been 
changed.
  I think that even the Senator from Utah's language here suggests that 
he knows that about the rules that have been proposed by the Department 
of Defense.
  But the reason we are on this floor again is that the Senator from 
Alabama has said he will never compromise, and there is nothing that 
can convince him to change his mind, that he will be out here as long 
as it takes.
  And let's ask the question: What is he defending? What is he 
defending? His position is that we shouldn't pay a travel allowance for 
members of the armed services who are going from a State that banned 
abortion to a State where they can get reproductive healthcare. He is 
against that, so he is holding up every single flag officer in the 
United States of America as a result of that--a tactic that has never 
been used in the history of the U.S. Senate in 230 years or more than 
that. That is what he is using because he is so offended that people 
can have their travel covered for this procedure.

  He has never come here to object to the fact that people can get 
their travel covered for all kinds of medical procedures, even though 
none of those procedures are written into the underlying statute by the 
U.S. Congress because that is not our job. We delegate that to the 
Department of Defense.
  So he is going to be out here, and he is going to fight this until 
there is no travel allowance for people who need to travel. They have 
to cover it on their own dime, just like they have to cover that 
reproductive surgery or abortion on their own dime, despite what the 
Senator from Alabama said. He is going to be out here until it all 
freezes over, until he ensures that--you just heard him say it--anybody 
who leaves has to take paid leave.
  Let's be precise about it. Women who leave to travel to another State 
where an abortion is legal, under his scenario, will have to pay for 
that travel themselves even though we pay for that travel for all kinds 
of other things. He will be out here fighting this, making sure that 
not a single flag officer can ever be promoted in the Department of 
Defense, no matter who it is, no matter how important it is, until he 
is assured that women in the Defense Department are stripped of the 
ability to have a little bit of extra time to talk to their commanding 
officer when they are confronting one of the most difficult decisions 
anybody can make.
  Those are the three rules that are at issue here--travel that is paid 
for, a little bit of extra time, and some paid leave.
  Why are we having this debate? We are having this debate because for 
the first time in the history of the United States since 
Reconstruction, we have lost a fundamental freedom, we have lost a 
fundamental right, and that is the result of the Dobbs decision.
  People come out here, and they are talking about a 40-year consensus 
on this or that. We had a 50-year consensus in this country about a 
woman's access to abortion. We had a 50-year consensus among the courts 
and among the American people about what a woman's right to choose 
looked like. And we had a 40-year campaign, year after year after year, 
to create a U.S. Supreme Court--a majority of whom subscribe to, in my 
opinion, the mythological legal doctrine of originalism--to strip the 
American people of that right, to strip the American people of that 
freedom, because if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom 
today. That has dramatically upset the expectations of the American 
people, including those who serve in uniform.

[[Page S1670]]

  Tragically, in my opinion--and this is one of those things where 
people can have fundamental moral disagreements and fundamental 
religious disagreements and fundamental positions that are totally 
different from one another, which I completely respect. I resolved 
these things in my own mind with the idea that this is a decision a 
woman should be left to make with her doctor. That is what I believe. 
But in the wake of this decision that was fought for for so long by so 
many politicians in America--50 years or more than 50 years--we have 
now lost that fundamental freedom. We have now lost that fundamental 
right. It is no longer a choice between a woman and her doctor.
  In the wake of the Dobbs decision, there are 18 States that have now 
banned abortion--18 States. There are nine States--I just got a thumbs-
up on the other side from the staff--there are nine States that have 
banned abortion without any exception for rape or incest.
  The Senator from Alabama's State is a State that has banned abortion. 
It is a State where there is no exception for rape or incest. It is a 
State where, if you are a doctor and you have performed an abortion, 
you could go to jail for 99 years.
  My State is totally different from that. My State is the first State 
in America, I think, that codified a woman's right to choose before Roe 
was even decided, in our State. In the aftermath of the Dobbs decision, 
we are the first State to say that we believe this should be a choice 
between a woman and her doctor.
  We are going to fight that out in the country. A majority of people 
support the position that Colorado has taken. Fifty-five percent of the 
people in Alabama support the ability of women to be able to make this 
choice under some circumstances. Yet the Senator from Alabama has 
decided that his remedy can force his view of morality and of 
principle. His perspective is that he is going to do something that no 
Senator has done for 230 years, which is to hold up every flag 
officer's promotion in the Department of Defense.
  Last week, seven former Secretaries of Defense, Republicans and 
Democrats, said that this block is ``harming military readiness and 
risks damaging U.S. national security.'' I am not saying that. I am not 
saying that. Seven former Secretaries of Defense have said that.
  Mr. President, I would ask unanimous consent that the letter be 
printed in the Record so everybody can see that it is both Republicans 
and Democrats who are saying that about the unprecedented hold being 
put here by the Senator from Alabama.
  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 ofintelligence 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. I also want to say finally, and I will stop, that the 
rules the Department of Defense has had to put in place in the wake of 
the Dobbs decision stripping women of this fundamental freedom, 
stripping women of this fundamental right--these rules don't do what my 
colleagues are saying they are going to do.
  Once again, it is a travel allowance. It says you can take paid 
leave. It says you can have a little bit more time to notify your 
commanding officer. That is all it is saying. My colleague from Alabama 
has unleashed the equivalent of this procedural nuclear weapon because 
that offends his principles, that offends his sense of what is right.
  I am not here to debate with him his sense of what is right, but I do 
believe that it is right that people who are serving in the Armed 
Forces of the United States of America, people who have enlisted to 
defend this country, who do not have the right to pick and choose which 
State they are going to be in and serve in, whether it is--of all 
people in this country, of all people in this country--I have heard 
people say--in fact, I even heard the Senator from Utah say this; I 
have read him saying this--that one of the great things about living in 
America is that you can move from State to State. That is one of the 
great things of our federalist system, is you can take advantage of the 
laws that are consistent with your values and get away from the ones 
that are not. That is not true for our men and women in the military.
  This is one of the practical consequences that the Dobbs majority 
never grappled with because they applied their view of originalism to 
the fundamental--to the issues we are facing today as a country.
  The very first call I got after that decision was made--almost the 
first call--was from a woman who had served as an officer in the Air 
Force who told me a personal story that she had been through. She said 
to me: Michael, they have no idea what the effect of readiness is going 
to be on our Armed Forces. They have no idea.
  I don't think they would have ever believed that it would have been 
Members of the U.S. Senate who would have affected the readiness in the 
wake of Dobbs the way that it is being done tonight.
  So I would ask respectfully for the Senator from Alabama to withdraw 
his

[[Page S1671]]

hold, to allow the Senate to move forward, as it has done for the last 
230 years, to approve these candidates who have themselves signed up to 
serve and themselves done the work to get promoted. Let's have the 
argument that we need to have as a nation--that we need to have as a 
nation--about this fundamental freedom and about this fundamental right 
without holding our Department of Defense hostage.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, I appreciate the thoughtful insight provided 
by my friend and colleague, the distinguished Senator from Colorado. In 
particular, I appreciate his acknowledgment that issues related to 
abortion really involve deep and profound areas of fundamental 
disagreement among and between Americans.
  I also appreciate his acknowledgment that this really is about Dobbs; 
it really is about abortion. This didn't arise in a vacuum.
  I also appreciate his reference to federalism. He knows me well, and 
he knows that I am a fan of federalism, this concept that there are 50 
States that have united for common purposes related to our national 
defense; weights and measures; trademarks, copyrights, and patents; 
regulating trade or commerce between the States and with foreign 
nations and with Indian Tribes; and a handful of other purposes, but 
then we leave the rest of the governing to the States.
  We come together in the same manner articulated by the Iroquois 
Indian Chief Canassatego from the Onondaga Tribe, who at a conference 
in Albany explained to early Americans the secret to the Iroquois 
Confederacy's longevity, to its peace, to its security. The Tribes came 
together. When they were united, they couldn't be broken, but each one 
maintained its independence.
  A quiver of arrows bound together is almost impossible to break. One 
arrow by itself can be broken easily. It is that same vision--largely 
unheard of in the rest of the world--that helped create a uniquely 
American experiment in self-government. This has been the recipe to our 
success, to our longevity as a constitutional Republic, to our ability 
to exist as now 50 separate States with different opinions.
  There are great consequences to moments when we take debatable 
matters--matters of profound and fundamental disagreement, as described 
by my colleague--and we place them beyond debate. This is precisely 
what happened some 50 years ago when the Supreme Court of the United 
States arrogated to itself at once the power of lawmaker and the power 
of constitutional draftsman. You see, what they did was they took away 
the power from the 50 respective States to decide these issues of 
profound and fundamental disagreement regarding the sanctity of life: 
when it begins, when unborn human life deserves protection of the law 
and when it does not.
  Oh, yes, last year, the Supreme Court of the United States finally 
undid that usurpation of constitutional authority. They were acting as 
lawmakers. It was not their role. They were taking something Federal, 
relegated to the States. It wasn't theirs. Even if it were a Federal 
issue, it wouldn't be theirs to make law in this area because there is 
absolutely nothing in the Constitution of the United States that makes 
abortion something to be decided at the Federal level by nine lawyers 
wearing robes, sitting at the Supreme Court of the United States. Not 
one jot, not one tittle, not one syllable pertains to that. So the 
Supreme Court of the United States was right in making that decision.
  I understand that my friend and distinguished colleague, the Senator 
from Colorado, disagrees with me on that front, as is his right. 
Importantly, however, this debate is not about that. This debate 
doesn't even deal with abortion. It doesn't deal with abortion 
directly. It doesn't deal with whether or under what circumstances the 
law should allow a woman to pursue an abortion. I have strong feelings 
about that that differ sharply from those of my friend and colleague 
from Colorado, but that is not what we are talking about here.
  What we are talking about here is that the American people recognize 
that this is an issue that sharply divides Americans--an issue that my 
colleague describes as a matter of profound and fundamental 
disagreement. What does unite them is the idea that Federal taxpayer 
dollars shall not be used for abortions.
  This is codified elsewhere, in the Hyde amendment, in the Mexico City 
policy. It is codified in matters particular to the Department of 
Defense in 10 U.S.C., section 1093. That is what we are dealing with 
here.
  We can't make the mistake of accusing Senator Tuberville of trying to 
impose his morality or his conception of under what circumstances a 
woman ought to be able to obtain an abortion. I believe Senator 
Tuberville's views on that are similar to mine, but those are not at 
issue here. What is at issue here is whether taxpayer dollars from U.S. 
taxpayers ought to be spent in this area.
  My colleague also suggested that this is somehow not different from 
what we do in other areas. There are all kinds of medical procedures 
for which members of the military can travel from one State to another 
in order to obtain those procedures. Understood. But those aren't the 
procedures at issue here.
  This is specific to abortion. We are specifically creating measures 
for abortion--not for appendicitis, not to have bunions removed, not 
for other procedures. It is for abortion.
  What you are doing here is to say we will pay your travel. We will 
give you a per diem. We will give you 3 weeks of paid leave time. You 
don't have to use your accumulated leave time in order to do that.
  That is unique to abortion. That means they are paying for abortion.
  So, no, I am not willing to concede, and I have not conceded, that 
the law has no application here. I believe it violates the spirit--if 
not also the letter--of the law. It certainly violates the spirit but, 
inarguably, the letter.
  When there is a Federal law that says you may not use this for 
abortion, if you use it for things that are entirely around abortion--
we will pay for your travel out of State to get the abortion; we will 
give you additional leave time with an attached value to it; we will 
give you per diem while you seek that abortion--that is about abortion.
  Imagine a young college student--a young college student who has 
something that every college student probably wishes they had, a rich 
uncle. Imagine there is a college student. We will call him Bill. Bill 
has got a rich uncle. We will call him Thurston--Thurston Howell III. 
Thurston Howell III has got an enormous amount of money--more money 
than he knows what to do with. He is what you might call a 
gazillionaire. He says to his nephew Bill: Bill, I don't have any kids. 
You are the only one who is going to be able to carry on the family 
name. You are attending my alma mater, and I want you to live in style. 
I want you to enjoy life. I am going to pay for your tuition. I am 
going to pay for your room and board. In fact, not just your housing, I 
am going to buy you a house located close to the campus where you can 
live in style. I will get you a car, pay your healthcare expenses, and 
everything. I am going to do all of this for the rest of the time you 
are in college.
  Bill, you see, is in his first semester, about to wrap up the first 
semester. So he is excited about all he is about to gain.
  But his uncle, Thurston Howell III, imposes one restriction on those 
funds. He says: Now, I know that you have pledged with and are now a 
member of the Sigma Beta Fraternity. And the Sigma Betas at this 
university are known for one thing. They are infamous. Everybody knows 
they throw really big, exciting keg parties, drunken frat parties. They 
love those things.
  So Mr. Howell says to his nephew, Bill: Look, as a Sigma Beta, you 
are going to do what you are going to do. That is your decision. I am 
not going to tell you that you can't drink while receiving money. But I 
am going to say this: You may not use my money for your drunken frat 
parties. And, by the way, I want you to submit quarterly receipts to me 
so I can review what you are doing.
  Well, the first quarter of the next semester goes by, and Thurston 
Howell III is reviewing Bill's receipts. He is aware that some huge keg 
parties have been thrown. He has heard that the latest of them happened 
to be carried out in the house that he bought for his

[[Page S1672]]

nephew Bill and that there was a lot of alcohol served there, just as 
there is at every Sigma Beta party. Then he sees in the receipts--
receipt after receipt--one for invitations, one for streamers, one for 
various forms of video entertainment that they had set up there, a big 
expense for a lot of red cups, and even an expense line for ping-pong 
balls, you know, for beer pong.
  He goes to Bill, and he says: What have you done? I have asked you 
not to use this for your drunken frat parties. I don't want to be 
paying for your alcohol-filled ragers.
  Bill says back to him: Well, no, every other member of the fraternity 
paid for the alcohol. I just paid for the invitations and the streamers 
and the red cups and the ping-pong balls and the video entertainment 
system and the DJ.
  I don't think Thurston Howell III would be all that convinced that 
Bill hadn't violated the terms of the support agreement.
  Now, sure, Bill could argue with him all along. He could say: No, you 
are wrong, Uncle Thurston.
  It doesn't make Uncle Thurston any more inclined to go out of his way 
to continue to provide that funding. If anything, what we are dealing 
with here is far clearer than the restriction placed on Bill in my 
hypothetical.
  Congress has said unequivocally: We are not going to use Department 
of Defense funds, we are not going to use Department of Defense 
facilities for abortions.

  That is what the Department of Defense has done. It is a policy 
change, and a policy change that my friend from Colorado has 
acknowledged is a policy change. He believes it is justified somehow by 
the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. He is welcome to that opinion, 
but it is not accurate.
  There is no clause in there that says that there is an exception if 
the Supreme Court changes its jurisprudence with regard to Roe v. Wade, 
Casey v. Planned Parenthood, and their progeny. Not a jot, not a 
tittle, not a scintilla supports that.
  So, now, unhappy that some of these nominees aren't moving, Secretary 
Austin sends his emissaries, sends his friends in the Senate to go and 
attack Senator Tuberville. Why? Because Senator Tuberville is standing 
up for what the law says.
  He is not trying to impose his morality on women in the military--far 
from it. He is just trying to impose the law, to make sure the law is 
followed, and that when the law is not followed, he is not going to 
help the Department of Defense move things any faster. That is well 
within his right to do, and I applaud him for it. We need more of that 
very kind of courage in the U.S. Senate.
  As the Supreme Court has learned--as we have all learned from that 
experience--we don't end these profound and fundamental disagreements 
by taking debatable matters beyond debate. That is what the Supreme 
Court tried in Roe v. Wade, and it failed, especially because it was 
untethered from the Constitution and fundamentally at odds with it.
  This effort here to rewrite the law from the E-Ring of the Pentagon 
will fare no better.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, the hour is late, and I am conscious that 
we are supposed to get off the floor. I know the staff needs to go 
home. So I won't belabor this.
  I will say that I will put to one side, and I am sure that my 
colleague, my friend from Utah, would agree, that we are not talking 
here about a drunken frat party and the fortunes or misfortunes of an 
ungrateful student and their rich uncle. We are talking about people 
that, in real life, are having to make decisions that are the most 
fundamental decisions that any individual can make.
  They have had 50 years' worth of expectations about what those 
decisions are going to look like, and those expectations have been 
completely upset by the Supreme Court, first, when this originalist 
majority ruled that if it wasn't a freedom in 1868, it is not a freedom 
today. It is something that, when I was in law school, I never imagined 
that I would ever have read out of a Supreme Court opinion, certainly 
not on something of this magnitude.
  But then in the wake of it, 18 States banned abortion. In the wake of 
it, nine States banned abortion without exceptions for rape or incest. 
In the wake of it, in Alabama, they are saying that if doctors use 
chemicals for abortion, they can be prosecuted with a statute that was 
written to attack fentanyl or methamphetamines. And in the wake of it, 
Members of the U.S. Senate come to this floor and use a procedure that 
has never been used before in the history of America to hold up every 
single flag promotion just to make sure they can make it harder for 
somebody who is facing the most difficult decision that they can ever 
make; to make it harder for them to decide when they are going to talk 
to their superior officer; to make it harder for them to travel 
somewhere where, yes, they have to pay for that abortion out of their 
pocket; to ensure that you have to use paid leave to do it; that that 
is such an injustice that we are going to come out here and hold up 
every flag officer's promotion.
  Some people, after this ruling--I never heard the Senator from Utah 
say this, and I am not ascribing this to him. But there were people 
after that ruling who said: Don't worry about this. You don't have to 
worry about this. This is just States' rights. It is the laboratory of 
the States. It is going back to the States.
  And 18 States have banned abortion, and many of those States are 
States where people in the armed services serve. They have no choice 
over where they serve.
  I am not the originalist on this floor tonight, but I can read the 
plain language of those regulations, and I could see from that plain 
language that there is nothing in there that pays for abortion.
  There was no objection out here on this floor when somebody at the 
Defense Department put in procedures, as the Senator from Utah says, 
for appendicitis or for bunions or for whatever is on his list. There 
was no objection. There was nobody coming here to the floor indignantly 
saying that their rights as a Senator had been somehow stripped as a 
result of that rulemaking--far from it, because people recognized that 
in order for the Department of Defense to function just like any other 
administrative Agency, they have to be able to make decisions based on 
delegated powers from the U.S. Congress. And in the face of what has 
happened with the Dobbs decision, the Defense Department is trying to 
get to a place where there is a reasonable outcome for people who have 
to make this decision.
  I think there is a lot of benefit to federalism, but one of those 
benefits ought to be that, if you are serving in the Department of 
Defense and the Department of Defense assigns you, as is the Department 
of Defense's right, without your permission or without your say-so, 
without your OK, that it is reasonable for the Department of Defense to 
notice when you are living in a State that has banned abortion with no 
exceptions for rape or incest. It is reasonable for the Department of 
Defense to notice that you are living in a State where, if you are a 
doctor and you performed an abortion, you could go to jail for 99 years 
or, if you are living in the ``Republic'' of Texas, where they have 
actually put a bounty of $10,000 or $20,000 so that, if a neighbor or a 
friend turns you in for pursuing reproductive healthcare--an abortion--
you can get that money because you let somebody know that you have done 
that.
  I mean, I admit this has all changed because of Dobbs, and now we are 
trying to grapple with that. We are all trying to grapple with that, 
and we all have differences of opinion about that.
  But I think what we are saying is, don't make a difficult situation 
even harder for the people who have signed up, volunteered to be at the 
Department of Defense; don't create more uncertainty at the Department 
of Defense by holding up these flag promotions just to get your point 
of view, just to be able to make sure that it is harder, not easier, 
for people to access reproductive healthcare.
  And I think that is why, when the Senator from Alabama says that 
nothing is going to convince him, that he is going to be doing this as 
long as it takes, I am really worried that that is going to take 
forever because the majority, certainly, of the American people are not 
going to agree that we should make it harder for people who are in this 
position.

[[Page S1673]]

  And by the way, just on the other point about what the Federal law 
actually says here: We voted, I think, the other day, if I am not 
wrong, on a CRA--or whatever those administrative things are around 
here--because the Senator from Alabama was angry that the VA had 
changed the exceptions for providing abortion from just the life of the 
mother to situations where there is rape or incest. He was so angry at 
that, he came out here to address that.
  So don't think this isn't about that subject, that this isn't about a 
woman's right to choose. That is exactly--that is why these guys are 
out here. I am not saying the Senator from Utah. That is why this 
objection has been made.
  So I think the American people need to understand--I hope they 
understand--who is standing up here on this floor tonight for a woman's 
right to choose, for that fundamental constitutional and human right, 
and who is opposing. And I know that there are significant 
disagreements, as I said earlier, in our country about those two 
issues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, there are myriad ways in which concerns of 
those serving in the military, concerns of dependents of those serving 
in the military, could be accommodated in a way that doesn't violate 
the letter, if not--or at least the spirit of the law. Among other 
things, the military, if it wanted to, could, without offending this 
provision of law or any provision of law that I am aware of, give 
military personnel some say in where they live.
  If there is some State that, for one reason or another, whether 
related to this issue or another, is offensive to them; if it would, in 
their judgment, impair their health or otherwise be objectionable to 
them--perhaps just be objectionable to them on this basis--the military 
could, without implicating this or any other statute of which I am 
aware, give them some say in it, give them the ability to say ``I don't 
want to serve there; I would like to be transferred somewhere else.'' 
That wouldn't involve Federal funds funding or at least facilitating 
abortion.
  So the fact that we have different States with different laws and the 
fact that those laws may impact people differently depending on where 
they happen to be living, where they happen to be serving at the time, 
doesn't mean that the only answer is for the Department of Defense to 
ignore 10 U.S.C. 1093 and pretend that nothing has changed and pretend 
that nothing has changed relative to its relationship to Congress.
  Now, as to Senator Tuberville, let's remember, he went to the 
Department of Defense. If I am not mistaken, he went to the Secretary 
of Defense himself. He outlined his concerns because there have been 
rumors circulating about this policy for months.
  Senator Tuberville, remember, is a member of the Armed Services 
Committee. The Senate Armed Services Committee has an oversight role--
an important one--over the Department of Defense. It was his right, it 
was his duty to know what was going on in the Department of Defense. He 
inquired again and again and again, and they wouldn't tell him.

  Finally, he got an audience with the Secretary of Defense and 
informed him, as I understand the conversation, of the fact that there 
would be dire consequences, including this one, if he chose to proceed. 
The Secretary of Defense considered that risk, and he undertook it 
nonetheless. He stood before the law and the wishes of a U.S. Senator 
and the promise of a U.S. Senator that this would be the consequence, 
and he did it anyway.
  I can't speak to why he chose to do that, but it was, in fact, his 
choice; it was, in fact, his decision.
  So, now, as to the suggestion that there are other procedures for 
which people can travel interstate and that we haven't raised 
objections with regard to those, those aren't covered by this policy. 
This one is about abortion. This one is there to say: If you want to 
get an abortion, then you get the 3 weeks of extra leave, paid leave; 
then you get the per diem; then you get the reimbursed travel. You get 
all of that if you are getting an abortion.
  That is not there for anything else. It is not there for the 
treatment of other medical conditions that are common--strep throat 
treatment that happens to be unavailable in one area or another or--I 
don't know--schistosomiasis. I don't know what that is, but I heard the 
term on ``M.A.S.H.'' once. It is a real dire medical condition. Maybe 
you are serving in one State, and they can't treat that in one State 
because of that State's quirky laws. This policy doesn't offer any 
relief on that, no.
  This applies specifically to abortion, implicating the concerns of 
the American people--legitimate concerns, I would add--over the use of 
Federal funds for that purpose. That unites Americans more than perhaps 
any other, and with a lot of good reason.
  They are telling these military women: We are so supportive of this 
particular thing that we are going to pay for your travel; we are going 
to reimburse everything; we are going to give you a per diem and give 
you 3 weeks of paid leave.
  I do wonder sometimes how one would feel, as a woman serving in the 
military, being told that. What if you are a woman who may become 
pregnant who wants to become pregnant? Does this create the kind of 
hostile environment in which a woman wanting to serve in the military 
and wanting to have children feels that the Department of Defense is 
so, so resistant to childbearing among its female servicemembers that 
it is willing to pay out a lot of money to do that?
  In any event, this is not something that one can easily reconcile 
with the policy embodied in 10 U.S.C. section 1093. That can be 
changed. There is nothing etched into the Constitution about that. 
Congress could change it. But to do that, you would have to have the 
votes. To have the votes, you would have to have some sort of 
legislative effort to do that. There hasn't been one here.
  Why? Well, because it is a lot easier to just decree it, just pen a 
memo and issue the memo, saying: We are going to make it so. We are 
going to ignore it.
  As to the suggestion that this is not something that can be compared 
to a drunken frat party, well, fair point; it cannot. No, it is much 
more serious than that. The American people don't feel so passionately 
about a drunken frat party that they have put in place a Federal law 
saying that the Department of Defense may never use funds to hold 
certain kinds of parties, including those involving alcohol.
  This involves unborn human life. Now, I understand that not everybody 
approaches unborn human life and its sanctity and the degree to which 
it should be protected under law the same way, but that is exactly why 
this policy exists, and that is exactly why the policy is embodied in a 
Federal statute. This stands squarely in the face of that, and it 
disregards it.
  Senator Tuberville has every right and every reason to stand up for 
this.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Padilla). The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I hope we will bring this to a close, but 
I would first of all say that--stating the obvious--neither the Senator 
from Utah nor I are a woman, and I am not going to suggest that I know 
how people who are women in the military necessarily feel about this.
  I suspect, far less often than the person whom the Senator from Utah 
is concerned about, which is somebody who feels like they are somehow 
discriminated against because they are going to carry a child to term 
versus somebody who is going to face this really hard, hard, hard 
choice, that a much more likely feeling and sense of harm will be the 
complete loss of any sense of privacy that they are going to have as a 
result of Dobbs and the effect of Dobbs and the effect of what these 
people are arguing tonight on the floor of the Senate about: making it 
harder to travel; about saying that, no, you can't have more time to 
talk to your commanding officer about a decision that you have to make; 
no, the entire unit is going to know what it is that you are going to 
have to confront because, unlike every other medical procedure that we 
are dealing with, when it is abortion, then everybody is going to know, 
and your right to privacy has been eviscerated.
  I guarantee you, for every single person who feels the way that the 
Senator from Utah suggests that some people feel, like somehow they are 
being discriminated against because they are

[[Page S1674]]

not in the position to have to deal with the most difficult decision 
that anybody could make, that the number of people who are concerned 
about what this has done to the right to privacy--and this not just in 
the Department of Defense but in our country--is far greater, is far 
greater.
  And I would also just say that if States' rights were of such 
paramount importance, that there wouldn't be people in this country 
right now trying to make it illegal for States to allow people to use 
chemicals to perform abortions, even though that is how a majority of 
abortions in this country are performed.
  And I don't agree with the Senator from Utah that we should have a 
military where I can just decide, as an individual, that I am not going 
to serve in a State because the laws of that State are ones that I 
don't agree to or I don't subscribe to or I morally disagree with. That 
is not how the military is supposed to work.
  I would argue that is a lot more important than what the Constitution 
has to say about weights and measures.
  I suspect there is also a reason why no Senator in the history of 
America, on any issue of profound importance, as this issue is, has 
held hostage every single flag officer promotion of the Department of 
Defense.
  I suspect there is a reason why that has never happened before--
because we know the damage this is doing, and we know that sometimes, 
once you put yourself into a cul-de-sac, it is really, really hard to 
get out of it, especially when the majority of the American people 
don't agree with you on the substance and don't agree with your tactic. 
But that is where we are tonight.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the argument made by my friend and my 
distinguished colleague from Colorado resonates with me. He doesn't 
want this to be treated ``unlike every other medical procedure.'' I 
couldn't agree more. That is all Senator Tuberville is suggesting. It 
shouldn't be treated any differently than the others, because other 
medical procedures--you don't get 3 weeks of paid leave; you don't get 
per diem; you don't get your airfare and whatever else paid for. Just 
treat it the same way. It is not just that it is a good idea; it is not 
just that it is fair; it is that it is also consistent with Federal 
law, which says we don't use Federal funds for abortions. We just don't 
do that.
  So here, not only are we doing the opposite of what he said he 
wanted, which is to not have abortions treated unlike every other 
medical procedure, but we are using Federal funds to do it. I find that 
difficult to reconcile with the law and with the policy embodied in 
that law.
  As to the suggestion of States' rights, I want to be very clear here. 
Speaking of federalism--I don't speak of this ever as States' rights. 
States don't have rights. States have power. They have authority. 
Rights are the opposite of power and authority. Rights are things that 
you invoke against authority, as a carve-out to that authority.
  So with regard to federalism, there is no reason why someone serving 
in the military couldn't be given some sort of preference not to serve 
in a particular State, whether because of a moral objection to a 
State's policy or a practical medical objection. That would be an 
entirely permissible way, as far as I am concerned, for the Department 
of Defense to deal with the issue raised by the Senator from Colorado. 
But what they can't do is find a way sneakily to use Federal funds--
Department of Defense funds--in order to bring about these abortions.
  Look, it is not Senator Tuberville who brought us here. Senator 
Tuberville didn't bring us to this moment. This was a conscious, 
deliberate choice made by the Department of Defense, made by the 
Secretary of Defense, and it was an unwise one, and I am proud to stand 
behind him in that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I wrap just by saying this: I think that the choice that 
has been made is a practical choice that has been made in the wake of a 
fundamental freedom and a fundamental right being stripped from the 
American people, and we are not going to solve that disagreement 
tonight.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
names of people and the positions of these ranking officers who are not 
going to be promoted all around the world as a result of what the 
Senator from Alabama has done. That is why we are here tonight.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. We can confirm every one of those folks tonight, right now.
  Mr. BENNET. Let's do it.
  Mr. LEE. Do it right now. If the Department of Defense takes it off 
the table and says they will suspend it until such time as the Senate 
can debate, discuss it, and bring about the necessary change to Federal 
law, I will agree to that right now, and we will get them confirmed 
tonight.
  Mr. BENNET. Mr. President, I would ask my colleague, addressing the 
Senator from Utah through the Chair, where in the rules there is 
language that says the Department of Defense will pay for an abortion. 
Where is it? Because it is not in the plain text, you know, and that is 
the basis for this objection. That is the basis for the moral 
objection, if there is one, and that is the basis for the offense that 
the Senators have taken from the idea that the Department of Defense 
would steal from the Senate the ability to make these judgments on 
their own. I can't find anything in the plain text that says it. We 
checked--my office has checked again, as we have every night that I 
have been out here--and are assured that if a servicemember goes to 
another State to seek abortion services, that abortion is not paid for 
by the Department of Defense or by the Federal Government.
  So I would ask again the Senator from Utah to show us--he can do it 
off the floor--where the language is that is in these rules that 
explicitly says that.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. LEE. Mr. President, the statute prohibits the use of Federal 
funds to pay for an abortion--can't possibly be interpreted as having 
nothing to say about paying most of the cost associated with an 
abortion. By the time you pay someone to travel, by the time you pay 
someone to travel interstate, you give them 3 weeks of compensated 
leave, you give them per diem, most of the cost associated with that 
abortion has then been paid by the Federal Government.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.
  Mr. BENNET. I appreciate the gloss that the Senator from Utah has put 
on the plain language of this statute, which clearly does not allow--if 
it did, he would have shown us that language.
  I wish that Justice Alito and the other members of the Supreme Court 
who applied the originalist view that determined that because it 
doesn't say a woman's right to choose in the Constitution, there must 
not be such a fundamental right--I wish they had used the sort of 
statutory interpretation my colleague from Utah has chosen this 
evening. Similarly, with the approach to federalism, you know, it all 
depends on what the underlying issue happens to be.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                          Military Nominations


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 46--Col. Leigh A. Swanson to be Brigadier 
     General


                              IN THE ARMY

       Exec. Cal. No. 47--Maj. Gen. Sean A. Gainey to be 
     Lieutenant General
       Exec. Cal. No. 48--Maj. Gen. Heidi J. Hoyle to be 
     Lieutenant General
       Exec. Cal. No. 49--Brig. Gen. Laurence S. Linton to be 
     Major General
       Exec. Cal. No. 50--Brig. Gen. Stacy M. Babcock to be Major 
     General and Col. Peggy R. McManus to be Brigadier General


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 51--Maj. Gen. Andrew J. Gebara to be 
     Lieutenant General


                              IN THE ARMY

       Exec. Cal. No. 52--Maj. Gen. Robert M. Collins to be 
     Lieutenant General


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 82--to be Brigadier Col. David J. Berkland; 
     Col. Amy S. Bumgarner; Col. Ivory D. Carter; Col. Raja J. 
     Chari; Col. Jason E. Corrothers; Col. John B. Creel; Col. 
     Nicholas B. Evans; Col. Bridget V. Gigliotti; Col. 
     Christopher B. Hammond; Col. Leslie F. Hauck, III; Col. Kurt 
     C. Helphinstine; Col.

[[Page S1675]]

     Abraham L. Jackson; Col. Benjamin R. Jonsson; Col. Joy M. 
     Kaczor; Col. Christopher J. Leonard; Col. Christopher E. 
     Menuey; Col. David S. Miller; Col. Jeffrey A. Philips; Col. 
     Erik N. Quigley; Col. Michael S. Rowe; Col. Derek M. Salmi; 
     Col. Kayle M. Stevens; Col. Jose E. Sumangil; Col. Terence G. 
     Taylor; Col. Jason D. Voorheis; Col. Michael O. Walters; Col. 
     Adrienne L. Williams
       Exec. Cal. No. 83--Col. Corey A. Simmons to be to be 
     Brigadier General


                              IN THE NAVY

       Exec. Cal. No. 84--Rear Adm. George M. Wikoff to be Vice 
     Admiral
       Exec. Cal. No. 85--Rear Adm. Frederick W. Kacher to be Vice 
     Admiral


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 47--to be Brigadier General: Col. Sean M. 
     Carpenter; Col. Mary K. Haddad; Col. James L. Hartle; Col. 
     Aaron J. Heick; Col. Joseph D. Janik; Col. Michael T. 
     McGinley; Col. Kevin J. Merrill; Col. Tara E. Nolan; Col. 
     Roderick C. Owens; Col. Mark D. Richey; Col. Norman B. Shaw, 
     Jr.
       Exec. Cal. No. 87--to be Brigadier General: Col. Kristin A. 
     Hillery; Col. Michelle L. Wagner
       Exec. Cal. No. 88--to be Major General: Brig. Gen. 
     Elizabeth E. Arledge; Brig. Gen. Robert M. Blake; Brig. Gen. 
     Vanessa J. Dornoefer; Brig. Gen. Christopher A. Freeman; 
     Brig. Gen. David P. Garfield; Brig. Gen. Mitchell A. Hanson; 
     Brig. Gen. Jody A. Merritt; Brig. Gen. Adrian K. White; Brig. 
     Gen. William W. Whittenberger, Jr.; Brig. Gen. Christopher F. 
     Yancy


                              IN THE ARMY

       Exec. Cal. No. 89--Col. Carlos M. Caceres to be Brigadier 
     General


                              IN THE NAVY

       Exec. Cal. No. 90--Rear Adm. Shoshana S. Chatfield--to be 
     Vice Admiral


                              IN THE ARMY

       Exec. Cal. No. 91--Col. William F. Wilkerson to be 
     Brigadier General
       Exec. Cal. No. 92--Col. Evelyn E. Laptook to be Brigadier 
     General
       Exec. Cal. No. 93--Brig. Gen. Ronald R. Ragin to be Major 
     General
       Exec. Cal. No. 94--to be Brigadier General: Col. Brandon C. 
     Anderson; Col. Beth A. Behn; Col. Matthew W. Braman; Col. 
     Kenneth J. Burgess; Col. Thomas E. Burke; Col. Chad C. 
     Chalfont; Col. Kendall J. Clarke; Col. Patrick M. Costello; 
     Col. Rory A. Crooks; Col. Troy M. Denomy; Col. Sara E. 
     Dudley; Col. Joseph E. Escandon; Col. Alric L. Francis; Col. 
     George C. Hackler; Col. William C. Hannan, Jr.; Col. Peter G. 
     Hart; Col. Gregory L. Holden; Col. Paul D. Howard; Col. James 
     G. Kent; Col. Curtis W. King; Col. John P. Lloyd; Col. 
     Shannon M. Lucas; Col. Landis C. Maddox; Col. Kareem P. 
     Montague; Col. John B. Mountford; Col. David C. Phillips; 
     Col. Kenneth N. Reed; Col. John W. Sannes; Col. Andrew O. 
     Saslav; Col. Charlone E. Stallworth; Col. Jennifer S. 
     Walkawicz; Col. Camilla A. White; Col. Scott D. Wilkinson; 
     Col. Jeremy S. Wilson; Col. Scott C. Woodward; Col. Joseph W. 
     Wortham, II; Col. David J. Zinn


                          IN THE MARINE CORPS

       Exec. Cal. No. 95--to be Brigadier General: Col. David R. 
     Everly; Col. Kelvin W. Gallman; Col. Adolfo Garcia, Jr.; Col. 
     Matthew T. Good; Col. Trevor Hall; Col. Richard D. Joyce; 
     Col. Omar J. Randall; Col. Robert S. Weiler


                              IN THE NAVY

       Exec. Cal. No. 96--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. 
     Walter D. Brafford; Capt. Robert J. Hawkins
       Exec. Cal. No. 97--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. 
     Amy N. Bauernschmidt; Capt. Michael B. Devore; Capt. Thomas 
     A. Donovan Capt. Frederic C. Goldhammer; Capt. Ian L. 
     Johnson; Capt. Neil A. Koprowski; Capt. Paul J. Lanzilotta; 
     Capt. Joshua Lasky; Capt. Donald W. Marks; Capt. Craig T. 
     Mattingly; Capt. Andrew T. Miller; Capt. Lincoln M. 
     Reifsteck; Capt. Frank A. Rhodes, IV; Capt. Thomas E. Shultz; 
     Capt. Todd E. Whalen; Capt. Forrest O. Young
       Exec. Cal. No. 98--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. 
     Brian J. Anderson; Capt. Julie M. Treanor
       Exec. Cal. No. 99--to be Rear Admiral: Rear Adm. (lh) Casey 
     J. Moton; Rear Adm. (lh) Stephen R. Tedford
       Exec. Cal. No. 100--Rear Adm. (lh) Rick Freedman to be Rear 
     Admiral
       Exec. Cal. No. 101--Rear Adm. (lh) Kenneth W. Epps to be 
     Rear Admiral
       Exec. Cal. No. 102--to be Rear Admiral: Rear Adm. (lh) 
     Stephen D. Barnett; Rear Adm. (lh) Michael W. Baze; Rear Adm. 
     (lh) Richard T. Brophy, Jr.; Rear Adm. (lh) Joseph F. Cahill, 
     III; Rear Adm. (lh) Brian L. Davies; Rear Adm. (lh) Michael 
     P. Donnelly; Rear Adm. (lh) Daniel P. Martin; Rear Adm. (lh) 
     Richard E. Seif, Jr.; Rear Adm. (lh) Paul C. Spedero, Jr.; 
     Rear Adm. (lh) Derek A. Trinque; Rear Adm. (lh) Dennis Velez; 
     Rear Adm. (lh) Darryl L. Walker; Rear Adm. (lh) Jeromy B. 
     Williams
       Exec. Cal. No. 103--Capt. Frank G. Schlereth, II to be Rear 
     Admiral (lower half)
       Exec. Cal. No. 104--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. 
     Joshua C. Himes; Capt. Kurtis A. Mole
       Exec. Cal. No. 105--to be Rear Admiral (lower half): Capt. 
     Thomas J. Dickinson; Capt. Kevin R. Smith; Capt. Todd S. 
     Weeks; Capt. Dianna Wolfson


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 106--to be Major General: Brig. Gen. Thomas 
     W. Harrell; Brig. Gen. Jeannine M. Ryder


                          IN THE MARINE CORPS

       Exec. Cal. No. 107--Lt. Gen. James W. Bierman, Jr. to be 
     Lieutenant General


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 110--To be Major General: Brig. Gen. Curtis 
     R. Bass; Brig. Gen. Kenyon K. Bell; Brig. Gen. Charles D. 
     Bolton; Brig. Gen. Larry R. Broadwell, Jr.; Brig. Gen. Scott 
     A. Cain; Brig. Gen. Sean M. Choquette; Brig. Gen. Roy W. 
     Collins; Brig. Gen. John R. Edwards; Brig. Gen. Jason T. 
     Hinds; Brig. Gen. Justin R. Hoffman; Brig. Gen. Stacy J. 
     Huser; Brig. Gen. Matteo G. Martemucci; Brig. Gen. David A. 
     Mineau; Brig. Gen. Paul D. Moga; Brig. Gen. Ty W. Neuman; 
     Brig. Gen. Christopher J. Niemi; Brig. Gen. Brandon D. 
     Parker; Brig. Gen. Michael T. Rawls; Brig. Gen. Patrick S. 
     Ryder; Brig. Gen. David G. Shoemaker; Brig. Gen. Rebecca J. 
     Sonkiss; Brig. Gen. Claude K. Tudor, Jr.; Brig. Gen. Dale R. 
     White


                          IN THE MARINE CORPS

       Exec. Cal. No. 111--Maj. Gen. Bradford J. Gering to be 
     Lieutenant General
       Exec. Cal. No. 112--Maj. Gen. Gregory L. Masiello to be 
     Lieutenant General
       Exec. Cal. No. 113--Rear Adm. James P. Downey to be Vice 
     Admiral


                              IN THE ARMY

       Exec. Cal. No. 130--Maj. Gen. John W. Brennan, Jr. to be 
     Lieutenant General


                              IN THE NAVY

       Exec. Cal. No. 131--Vice Adm. Karl O. Thomas to be Vice 
     Admiral


                          IN THE MARINE CORPS

       Exec. Cal. No. 132--Lt. Gen. Michael S. Cederholm to be 
     Lieutenant General


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 133--Brig. Gen. Derin S. Durham to be Major 
     General


                              IN THE ARMY

       Exec. Cal. No. 134--to be Brigadier General: Col. Brandi B. 
     Peasley; Col. John D. Rhodes; Col. Earl C. Sparks, IV
       Exec. Cal. No. 135--Brig. Gen. William Green, Jr. to be 
     Major General
       Exec. Cal. No. 136--Maj. Gen. Mark T. Simerly to be 
     Lieutenant General


                          IN THE MARINE CORPS

       Exec. Cal. No. 137--Maj. Gen. Ryan P. Heritage to be 
     Lieutenant General


                              IN THE NAVY

       Exec. Cal. No. 138--Vice Adm. Craig A. Clapperton to be 
     Vice Admiral


                            IN THE AIR FORCE

       Exec. Cal. No. 139--Col. Brian R. Moore to be Brigadier 
     General

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Colorado.

                          ____________________