[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 117 (Monday, July 10, 2023)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2265-S2267]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



             Unanimous Consent Request--Executive Calendar

  Mr. REED. Madam President, today I rise to speak on general and flag 
officer confirmations, specifically, the urgent need to confirm the 
next Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.
  The Senator from Alabama strongly objects to an entirely legal and 
appropriate travel regulation implemented under a long-established 
Department of Defense authority which ensures all servicemembers and 
their families have equal access to medical care.
  To show his disagreement with the legal civilian-crafted regulation, 
the Senator from Alabama has held up the apolitical nominations of 251 
senior military officers for over 4 months. My colleague from Alabama 
has made it clear that he will continue his hold on these military 
officers unless and until he gets his way. He does so despite

[[Page S2266]]

precedent and, again, with a less than meritorious legal case--in fact, 
no legal case at all, I would argue--and the fact that Members of his 
own party have objected to this blockade, including the Republican 
leader.
  This blockade weakens our national security. Every day it goes on, it 
has a more significant impact on operations within our military, all 
branches of the military. While our military will always do whatever is 
necessary to get the job done, they will always be ready--as they will 
tell you--and they will give their all.
  This hold is unnecessary, unprecedented, and, at a critical time in 
national security, it is driving the U.S. military to a potential 
breaking point. It is also an affront to the military and their 
families, who so many of us just lauded for their sacrifices during the 
Fourth of July festivities. My colleagues thanked them profusely, but 
do not recognize that they are professional officers who deserve 
consideration, not as political chips but as men and women of our 
services.
  Those of my colleagues who support this unprecedented delay are 
themselves politicizing the military by the very nature of their 
actions. These promotions have always been confirmed by unanimous 
consent very soon after being reported to the floor or, on the rare 
occasion, a single overwhelming vote without cloture. But now, in 
refusing to confirm these promotions, the uniformed military, 
previously and appropriately shielded from partisan politics, is being 
thrust into the midst of politics. This behavior was once reserved only 
for individual political appointees, civilian political appointees on 
specific matters of dispute, usually with some reasonable or negotiable 
outcome. No more. It seems it is ``my way'' or no way at all. And that 
is a sad demonstration of individual hubris.
  The Senator from Alabama often says if we really wanted these 
generals and admirals, we would just vote, but I would like to explain 
that. The Senator is not allowing a simple vote; he is demanding 
cloture first on every nomination. So we asked the Congressional 
Research Service what it would take to process 251 nominations with 
cloture. They estimate to file cloture on all the nominations being 
held, it would take approximately 5 hours. Then 2 days later, the 
Senate could start voting.
  It will take approximately 668 hours to confirm all these military 
nominations. That is 27 days if the Senate works around the clock, 24 
hours a day. If the Senate just did military nominations for 8 hours a 
day, it would take 84 days. So ``just vote'' is not an answer. This is 
not a feasible solution to this issue.
  Now, let me be clear. We have offered the Senator from Alabama 
opportunities to voice his opinion on the policy matter which he 
opposes. For example, before recess, we marked up the Fiscal Year 2024 
National Defense Authorization Act. During that markup, we had a 
separate debate and vote on Senator Ernst's bill, S. 822, entitled 
Modification to Department of Defense Travel Authorities for Abortion-
Related Expenses Act. We then had the debate and vote a second time 
when the Ernst bill was offered to the chairman's markup of the NDAA. 
And I expect we will likely be debating this issue on the NDAA when it 
comes to the floor. This is yet another opportunity to vote on the 
policy my colleagues find objectionable.
  And as long as I have been here, the essence of this body is, when 
you have a difficult issue, you debate it, you discuss it, and then you 
take a vote. We have already taken several votes, and still this 
unprecedented hold goes on. I don't think we can continue to allow 251 
men and women who have served and sacrificed--and their families, which 
makes this impact thousands, not just 251--I don't think we can let 
them fester any longer, wondering if they are going to get their 
promotion or not.
  But, today, let me speak about one specific person whom, I do not 
think, we can ignore, and that is the position of the Commandant of the 
U.S. Marine Corps. By law, the present Commandant of the Marine Corps, 
Gen. David Berger, must end his service tomorrow, the 11th of July. His 
replacement, Gen. Eric Smith, who had a hearing before the Armed 
Services Committee on June 13 and then was voted out unanimously on 
June 21, awaits our action.
  General Berger does not require further congressional action to 
retire, but General Smith needs the Senate to act to become the next 
Commandant. I can guarantee you that General Berger takes no comfort in 
ending his career with his successor unsettled.
  I went this morning to a ``relinquishment of office'' ceremony for 
General Berger. Now, anyone with any experience with the military knows 
that the typical ceremony is a change of command, but that could not be 
accomplished today because the next commander has not been confirmed, 
the new Commandant. To the military in particular, ceremony matters. 
The visual of the outgoing leader passing the guidon, or battle colors, 
to the incoming leader shows the continuous, unbroken leadership of an 
organization--in this case, the whole of the Marine Corps.
  In 2019, General Berger received the battle colors from Gen. Robert 
Neller. This morning, the colors were not passed from one Commandant to 
another. They were relinquished--relinquished--a word that is seldom 
associated with the military. They were relinquished from a retiring 
Commandant to an Acting Commandant, and that is embarrassing--not for 
the U.S. Marine Corps, but for the U.S. Senate. To hear a retiring 
Commandant publicly ask the Senate to do its job is an indication of 
how misguided this approach has been. We need to act, but because of 
the Senator from Alabama and those who support him, we are unable to do 
so.
  General Berger has faithfully served our Nation--voluntarily--for 42 
years. He has fought our Nation's wars. He has selflessly served, and 
he has done so exactly how we expect our military leaders to serve. For 
the past 4 years, he has led the Marine Corps through a difficult 
transition on the way marines fight so that they are ready for the 
challenge of the Indo-Pacific. But, tomorrow, he leaves the Marines 
without a confirmed leader because of the inability of this body to do 
its job.
  General Berger's successor, Gen. Eric Smith, is cut from the same 
cloth. General Smith was born in Kansas City, MO, and raised in Plano, 
TX. He earned his commission in 1987 through the Naval Reserve Officers 
Training Corps at Texas A&M University. Like every other servicemember, 
he has served our Nation wherever it has sent him. He has served in 
peace, and he has served in multiple wars.
  So for those who say this current hold only impacts the generals and 
the admirals, tell that to the marines General Smith commanded included 
in Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment during Operation 
Assured Response in Monrovia, Liberia. Tell that to the marines of the 
1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment who General Smith led during 
Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tell that to the marines of Regimental Combat 
Team 8 he led during Operation Enduring Freedom.
  In General Smith we have a Purple Heart recipient. This man has 
literally shed his blood for his country. And with 36 years of service, 
he has achieved the rank of four stars. He stands ready to continue his 
service to our Nation and the marines he will lead for 4 more years. He 
simply awaits our action.
  Our action and inaction matter. More than just our generals and 
admirals are watching. Some argue that this delay impacts only the 
nominees. They are wrong. These holds ripple through the ranks, and--
trust me--young officers and noncommissioned officers are watching. How 
we treat their leaders will influence the decisions of future 
generations about whether the military is worth the sacrifice asked of 
them and their families.
  Right now, a number of military officers who were planning to retire 
are on an indefinite hold because they have no one confirmed to take 
their jobs. Others want to go to new commands but cannot for the same 
reason. Their families cannot move to their new homes. Their children 
cannot get ready for a new school. Their spouses cannot take new jobs.
  This is not a game. These are real lives that have been upended. Due 
to the pure obstinacy of the Senator from Alabama, the Senate is, in 
effect, holding thousands of loyal members of the U.S. military and 
their families in limbo. I believe we owe them more than that.

[[Page S2267]]

  We are 1 day away from an Acting Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. 
According to the Marine Corps History Division, there have been four 
Acting Commandants in the history of the Marine Corps, which was 
established in 1775, for those who are counting. The last Acting 
Commandant served over a century ago, in 1910, and three of the four 
Acting Commandants are the result of the previous Commandant dying in 
the position of Commandant.
  Could General Smith, the current Assistant Commandant, serve as the 
Acting Commandant? Yes, of course, he can. But we must ask ourselves 
why we would allow it. Why would the Senate allow that to happen with 
not only our near-peer competitors watching but the eyes of all who 
serve watching? We have the ability and the responsibility to act. We 
should do so.
  ``Semper Fidelis''--always faithful--is the Marine Corps motto. Let 
this Congress show a modicum of that faith today and confirm Gen. Eric 
Smith as the next Commandant.
  With that, Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: 
Executive Calendar No. 249, Gen. Eric M. Smith to be Commandant of the 
Marine Corps; 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 and the President 
be immediately notified of the Senate's action.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Alabama.
  Mr. TUBERVILLE. Madam President, reserving the right to object, the 
Senate has a lot of very important work to do. We have been out a 
couple of weeks, and it is time to get back to work. Senator Schumer, 
yesterday--or this past week--sent the Democratic caucus a long to-do 
list that includes keeping the government open, which is very 
important; our annual Defense bill, which is very important; addressing 
prescription drugs, which we are all very concerned about; the farm 
bill. There are a lot of other things that we have got to address in 
this caucus, in this room. Missing from that list was military 
nominations.
  This is my 11th time standing up here and continuing to harp on the 
fact that we need to do something about this new policy that the 
Secretary of Defense has passed down and passed to the military. So far 
this year, dozens of lower level military nominations have passed 
through unanimous consent, but a number of important nominations are 
pending or will soon be pending.
  General Smith's, as the Senator just brought up, is one of the most 
important. I have got a great deal of admiration for General Smith.
  Earlier today, General Smith became the acting head of the Marine 
Corps. He is doing the same exact job which he has been doing for 
several years. The only difference is that today he is an acting 
official. This has minimal effect on his ability to lead.
  There may be a delay in his planning guidance, and he cannot yet move 
into the Commandant's residence. But there is little doubt about 
General Smith's ability to lead effectively, even now. There is little 
doubt that soon he will be confirmed.
  I have met with General Smith. I have got great respect and 
admiration for what he has done. General Smith has dedicated nearly 
four decades to the Marine Corps. He has got a record to be very proud 
of. During our meeting, General Smith assured me that he was committed 
to keeping politics out of the military. And for me to vote for 
somebody, that is exactly what I am looking for: keep politics out of 
the military.
  The Marine Corps has done an excellent job of staying mission-
focused. One result is, because of that, the marines are the only 
branch that is meeting its recruiting goals. I believe that the Marine 
Corps is in good hands now with General Smith.
  But if Chairman Reed and the Democrats are so concerned, let's vote. 
That is all I keep asking for. Let's vote on these nominees.
  This week, the Senate will consider a DOJ nomination for an office 
that has around 20 employees--20 employees. I agree that this is an 
important nomination, but surely the Commandant of the Marine Corps is 
more important. So if the Democrats are so worried about General Smith 
being an acting official, then let's vote. I keep asking for that. 
Let's vote and clear this up.
  With that, I object.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Objection is heard.
  The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, reclaiming my time, first of all, the 
Senator from Alabama made a compelling case about the demands upon this 
Senate. They range from cyber security issues to a host of other 
important issues that we have to deal with. Yet he insists we have a 
vote.
  Now, he has very subtly made a distinction between four or five 
senior officers, and forgotten the 245 other officers who play very 
critical roles in the military. And if one respects the Marine Corps 
and one respects the proposed Commandant, the first thing I believe you 
should do is allow a vote very quickly so that there is no period of 
time that he is an Acting Commandant.
  And an Acting Commandant is different than a Commandant. Their 
policies cannot be firmly established because they are just ``acting.'' 
He is capable, but he is just ``acting.'' If we want leadership that is 
confirmed, that has not only the trappings of authority but every bit 
of influence generated by such authority, then we have to vote. That is 
why the Congress is required to confirm military officers.
  We are in a situation where just pure obstinacy is inhibiting our 
servicemembers. And I am amazed that someone would stand up and say: 
The quality I look for is a military officer who is not political, but 
what I do is make these officers political pawns in a game I am playing 
with national leadership. It is civilian leadership who proclaim these 
policies, which are legal and consistent with the history of the Armed 
Forces.
  This is a very unsatisfactory answer. We will continue to come back 
and urge that our colleagues. I particularly hope my colleagues on the 
other side, many of whom do appreciate the fact that these officers 
must be confirmed for the good of our Nation and the safety of the 
world, come around.
  I have just one example that comes to mind. The President of the 
Naval War College, Admiral Chatfield--a remarkable woman--changed 
command a few weeks ago. She is nominated to be a three-star admiral 
and be our representative in Brussels at NATO. This, at a time when 
NATO and the United States are engaged in supporting the Ukrainian 
people in trying to survive, save their people, and, indeed, probably 
save their country. But Admiral Chatfield cannot go to Brussels. She 
remains in Newport waiting--helping out a bit, I am sure, with her 
replacement, but just waiting. And meanwhile, the general officer in 
Brussels has other plans, obviously, because he knew, or hoped, that 
Admiral Chatfield would be arriving soon.
  That is the kind of disorder, disorganization, and, I would say, 
disrespect that is being generated by these holds.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Texas.