[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 14 (Thursday, January 23, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S327-S329]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Peter Hegseth
Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Madam President, we are in the midst of considering
Peter Hegseth to be the next Secretary of Defense. I don't think there
is a more important office in this country, having power and
responsibility for 3.4 million Americans, most of them in uniform, many
of them civilians, all of them potentially putting their lives in
harm's way.
The President's choice to lead the Department of Defense is not only
one of the most significant he will make but is also probably the most
unqualified nominee for this position of immense authority and
responsibility in recent history.
It is clear that his history of mismanagement--he drove two veterans
organizations into the ground financially--makes him patently incapable
of the powerfully challenging management task that he will have as
Secretary of Defense. This sprawling enterprise has to be directed and
guided by someone who has had some significant management
responsibility in the past. I hesitate to say how much because the
standard and the bar have always been extremely high under both
Republican and Democratic administrations, including President Trump's
first term when he appointed General Mattis.
I voted for General Mattis. He was obviously a Republican nominee,
but he had the experience--not just in combat but also at the Pentagon.
Now, I know the President wants to be a disrupter and a change agent.
The Pentagon may be in need of some change and disruption, but not
chaos, not financial mismanagement such as characterized Pete Hegseth's
service as the head of Vets for Freedom and then Concerned Veterans for
America.
What can be said about his service in those two organizations is that
year after year, he spent more than he raised. He had deficits year
after year--not by a little bit, by hundreds of thousands of dollars.
So at the end of his service at Vets for Freedom, the board did an
intervention. They had a forensic study done, which showed that there
were tens of thousands of dollars in unpaid debt, and they, in fact,
ousted him.
He then went to Concerned Veterans for America and same pattern,
roughly the same financial failings--deficits year after year,
significant in their number and total amount. There again, he left
under a cloud, with a nondisclosure agreement, so we don't have,
necessarily, the full story.
Just as a management issue, this nomination is fundamentally flawed.
He left those two separate organizations smoldering in ruins after just
a few years as their executive director.
We have documents from whistleblowers that detail a toxic workplace
environment at those organizations. It was rife with alcohol abuse and
sexual harassment under his leadership. Former employees have detailed
that Mr. Hegseth routinely used organization funds to pursue personal
pleasures, usually involving alcohol and women. His underlings referred
to them as ``party girls.''
These veterans service organizations ran fiscal surpluses before Mr.
Hegseth's tenure, and upon his exit, their budgets were really in
flames. In one case, the organization simply ceased to exist. Vets for
Freedom was absorbed by another organization.
He testified that he is proud of the work he did while he was at Vets
for Freedom and Concerned Veterans for America, but he made a career of
advocating for policies that would, in effect, contract and even defund
the Veterans' Administration and harm servicemembers, veterans, and
their families.
For years, he lambasted veterans who pursued disability compensation,
and he advocated for for-profit colleges that make their living preying
on servicemembers and veterans. These organizations and the policies he
advocated could potentially have done grave harm to our veterans.
During his confirmation hearing, Mr. Hegseth also refused to answer
questions regarding the use of Active-Duty military within the borders
of the United States.
One of the President's own former Secretaries of Defense stated
unequivocally that ``the option to use active-duty forces in law
enforcement's role should be only used as a matter of last resort and
only in the most urgent and dire of situations.'' Yet the President is
apparently laying down plans to use the Active-Duty military to conduct
mass deportations and to quell civil unrest.
Americans don't want the military, our men and women on Active Duty,
raiding restaurants and farms, looking for individuals who have
overstayed their visas. If the President is unwilling to invest in ICE,
it should not be the Department of Defense, the Pentagon, our Active-
Duty men and women going into homes, workplaces, schools, churches,
hospitals, and in effect performing the raids--the law enforcement
duty--that really are specifically prohibited by statute.
Pete Hegseth will be behind these policies. Many of them he has
already endorsed. Most of them, unfortunately, were not delved into in
any depth in his hearing because so much of it was on the sexual
improprieties and alcohol abuse and other personal issues that would be
disqualifying.
Let's make no mistake. There is a lot of focus on this latest
affidavit. There is significant information--not anonymous smears,
significant information--
[[Page S328]]
in that affidavit, but there was already enough on the record, in fact,
acknowledged during that hearing by Mr. Hegseth himself, as to
information that would be disqualifying if he as a major were up for
promotion, if he as a corporal were up for promotion to a sergeant;
facts about marital infidelity--open, blatant, matter of public
record--that would be disqualifying to him within the military and in
fact might even subject him to discipline within the military; other
reported instances of drunkenness, of misconduct, all of it in the
public record acknowledged by him--at least as to the marital
infidelity.
So the focus on those personal aspects of his background took time.
And by the way, we had very limited amounts of time because we were not
permitted a second round of questioning. We were not given access to
the FBI background report. We were not given, in fact, the benefit of a
full FBI background investigation--an adequate one--because there were
gaps, as shown by the affidavit, as to who was interviewed, and that is
in part why that affidavit is important, because it shows that there
were, in fact, gaps in the FBI's investigation.
The American people don't want the National Guard or our military
reserves or their Active Duty, their own neighbors, on the streets of
Des Moines, Cleveland, Hartford, Montgomery--places where they call
home--checking their papers, conducting surveillance operations that
could sweep vast amounts of their private data. That is our military
going into our workplaces and our homes collecting information.
The Founders of this Nation never envisioned our military as a police
force, and neither did Congress. That is why we have the Insurrection
Act and other measures that forbid that kind of intrusion. In fact, it
was that kind of invasion of their homes by the British military that
caused them to adopt many of our constitutional guarantees against the
use of the military for those kinds of purposes.
Mr. Hegseth declined to state his opposition to such deployments when
asked during his hearing. What he said, and I take him at his word, is
that he will heed the President's direction as Commander in Chief.
The reason he was chosen for this job obviously is not his experience
as a manager; it is not his bona fides as a leader of major
organizations; it is his loyalty to the President, to Donald Trump. And
more than loyalty, it is fealty. It is that acquiescence, obedience,
obsequiousness, blind loyalty that would lead him to take that order
and, in turn, order American troops into people's homes.
There is no question that beyond what could happen in America on our
soil, his confirmation would also present enormous problems for our
allies and partners in the Middle East. I have been working with the
senior Senator from South Carolina for some years to encourage the
normalization of relations between the State of Israel and the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia. It is an enterprise and an effort that I think has
occupied many of us in this Chamber. We have visited the region
together.
And one of our objectives, in fact, is a treaty or agreement that
would bind us closer together--Israel, Saudi Arabia, America, perhaps
the UAE--as part of normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and
the regional nations and Israel.
Suffice it to say that the recent cease-fire announcement between
Israel and Hamas is a historic shift in regional politics. I believe
that Mr. Hegseth's personal beliefs would diminish our support of the
peace process or derail it entirely because of comments he has made
about Islam and Muslim nations. Those comments were explored in some
detail in his testimony.
My concern is there have been numerous reports in addition to his own
words that appear to convey a hostility on his part--if not outright
antagonism--toward Islam and Muslims. A former employee of Concerned
Veterans for America alleges that he shouted racist and Islamophobic
chants during an official tour in Ohio, well-publicized and well-known,
in the region where Muslim Nation and Islam are predominant.
In his book ``American Crusade,'' he expressed concern about Muslim
birthrights and said the present moment for Christians is like the time
of the Crusades and that Christians must arm themselves metaphorically,
intellectually, and physically.
Our fight is not with guns. Yet. [Not with guns. Yet.]
Well, we are not in a time where we need a crusader in the old-
fashioned sense of that word and who says that Christians must arm
themselves metaphorically, intellectually, physically--physically--for
a fight that may be coming.
We are trying to engage those nations in a common purpose toward
normalization, peace and stability, an expansion of the Abraham
Accords. People in Israel are hoping that progress can be made, that
there can be a successful effort to build on the Abraham Accords.
The current cease-fire agreement is the result of both the Trump
administration and the Biden administration coming together--the two
teams, Brett McGurk and Envoy Witkoff--making sure that peace was the
objective, not antagonism or hostility. Ambassador Witkoff, I don't
think, would want a Secretary of Defense talking about a crusade
against Muslim nations.
I don't think that a more problematic and concerning nominee has been
put before this body, and I urge my Republican colleagues to review
what Senator Murkowski and Senator Collins said when they announced
that they were going to oppose this nomination, as they did earlier
today.
Senator Murkowski said:
I have met with him and carefully reviewed his writings,
various reports, and other pertinent materials. I closely
followed his hearing before the Senate Armed Services
Committee and gathered substantial feedback from
organizations, veterans, and Alaskans. After thorough
evaluation, I must conclude that I cannot in good conscience
support his nomination for Secretary of Defense.
She went onto talk about some of the allegations that have been made
against Mr. Hegseth:
Although he has recently revised his statements on women in
combat since being nominated, I remain concerned about the
message that confirming Mr. Hegseth sends to women currently
serving and those aspiring to join. Women have served our
nation with distinction, overcoming immense obstacles to
excel in combat and leadership roles, and they deserve to
know that their leader honors and values their commitment to
our nation.
Now, the reason for that comment by Senator Murkowski was statements
made by Mr. Hegseth 30 days before his hearing about the lack of value
in women serving in the military and the inability, lack of capacity of
women to serve in combat. He reversed himself, what one of my
colleagues called ``nomination conversion'' and modified his previous
remarks. But he couldn't tell you what caused him to have a different
opinion.
And in the course of that hearing, he truly revealed that he
continues to have that view of women, which is a problem for recruiting
women. They are now 18 percent of our military force. And more than
just recruiting women, retaining women, especially when the scourge of
sexual assault continues to be so problematic in the military. We
fought it for years. A number of us on the Armed Services Committee
have supported measures that would provide for more effective
prosecution through a system of investigation outside the chain of
command. We adopted those reforms, and military leaders have joined us
in seeking to combat sexual assault and harassment.
And here we have someone who has been accused, very credibly and
plausibly, not just in this affidavit but by others, and the record is
replete with them. There are accusations. There are no convictions
here. Mr. Hegseth denies them. But, again, simply what he acknowledges
having done would disqualify him from a role of command in the
military. And that background and record can't help but discourage
women from joining and staying in the military.
Senator Murkowski goes onto say:
While the allegations of sexual assault and excessive
drinking do nothing to quiet my concerns, the past behaviors
Mr. Hegseth has admitted to, including infidelity on multiple
occasions, demonstrate a lack of judgment that is unbecoming
of someone who would lead our Armed Forces. These behaviors
starkly contrast the values and discipline expected of
servicemembers. Men and women in uniform are held accountable
for such actions, and they deserve leaders who uphold these
same standards.
[[Page S329]]
Mr. Hegseth complained in our hearing that the military was lowering
its standards for the men and women who serve in uniform. The only
standards being lowered here are the standards for the Secretary of
Defense if Mr. Hegseth is confirmed. President Trump is, in effect,
dumbing down the Department of Defense, and it threatens to do great
damage to that powerfully important institution.
Senator Murkowski goes onto say:
Above all, I believe that character is the defining trait
required of the Secretary of Defense, and must be prioritized
without compromise. The leader of the Department of Defense
must demonstrate and model the standards of behavior and
character we expect of all servicemembers, and Mr. Hegseth's
nomination to the role poses significant concerns that I
cannot overlook. Given the global security environment we're
operating in, it is critical that we confirm a Secretary of
Defense, however, I regret that I am unable to support Mr.
Hegseth.
What a powerfully damning statement. Not damning, necessarily, Mr.
Hegseth as a human being. I respect his service. I said at the hearing
that I was grateful and respectful of his service to our Nation,
including leading troops in combat and advocating for veterans. But
these concerns about his personal background and about his lack of
experience negate that respect for his service as a Secretary of
Defense--as a Secretary of Defense.
We are not choosing him to be a colonel to be promoted. We are
choosing him to lead the entire U.S. military, to make decisions that
will be a matter of life and death.
I was moved, as well, by the statements made by our colleague Senator
Collins very much along the same lines. And I want to repeat some of
what she said, again, in the hope that our colleagues will listen to
both of them. She said, as an expert, if I may say, on the global
challenges that this country faces now:
[T]he Secretary is going to be facing a number of
incredibly complex problems that are going to require highly
skilled management ability. I am concerned that Mr. Hegseth
does not have the management experience and background that
he will need in order to tackle these difficulties.
I am also concerned about multiple statements, including
some in the months just before he was nominated, that Mr.
Hegseth made about women serving in the military. He and I
had a candid conversation in December about his past
statements and apparently evolving views. I am not convinced
that his position on women serving in combat roles has
changed.
That is, in some ways, the nub of the problem: what he has said, how
he has failed in past management positions, how he lacks that
credibility as a manager and a leader.
Senator Collins continues:
Women compromise nearly 18 percent of our Active-Duty
military. They continue to make critical and valuable
contributions to our national defense. I have long advocated
that women who wish to serve in and can meet the rigorous
standards of combat roles should be able to do so, and
numerous women have proved they can accomplish this difficult
feat. Currently, thousands of women are serving in combat
roles, and many others serve in noncombat functions. Their
service is essential to the success of our military. Mr.
Hegseth also appears to lack a sufficient appreciation for
some of the policies that the military is required to follow
because they are codified in the laws of the United States of
America. While I understand his point on the importance of
up-to-date and workable rules of engagement, our prohibitions
against torture come from American laws and treaties ratified
by the United States, including the Geneva Conventions.
Therefore, I will vote against the nomination.
Mr. Hegseth has demeaned and dismissed the importance of the Geneva
Conventions. In fact, he has berated the lawyers in the Department of
Defense who set standards and guidelines for what can be done.
I will never forget talking to our former colleague--our great
colleague, a friend and mentor to me--John McCain, about why he opposed
torture and waterboarding--that kind of physical abuse--and why he
believed that these laws have to be followed by our military, not just
as a matter of humanity but as effective military strategy. Torturing
to gain information often produces false information, but it also
reduces the quality of our military performance.
Yet Mr. Hegseth seems to dismiss those ideas about the Geneva
Conventions, about standards for military conduct, as categorically as
he does many other of the standards that should apply.
I hope my colleagues will listen to Senator Murkowski and Senator
Collins because, in their statements, they say more effectively than I
am in this lengthier talk on the floor how important a vote against Mr.
Hegseth is to the future of our national defense.
Much has been written about him. I urge my colleagues to review an
article that appeared in The New Yorker--``Pete Hegseth's Secret
History''--by Jane Mayer, which talks about some of these instances,
not anonymous smears, as he said so many of them were, but a sourced
and substantiated account of the kinds of misconduct that were detailed
in a whistleblower report and other documents--again, not an anonymous
smear but specific and explicit facts that were claimed. You don't have
eyewitness proof in sworn testimony before the Armed Services
Committee, but this report is powerful in what it shows.
I hope that my colleagues, in the hours that we have left before we
will vote again on Mr. Hegseth's nomination, will reconsider, perhaps,
their vote earlier today; that they will recognize they will be
responsible if things go wrong, and we hope to God always that nothing
goes wrong, especially all of us who have family members who have
served--mine in the U.S. Marine Corps. My oldest son is a combat
veteran, and my second son, Michael, is a Navy SEAL.
The responsibility of the Secretary of Defense to order men and women
into harm's way is a truly awesome responsibility. Mr. Hegseth is not
the person to have that responsibility, and I hope my colleagues will
recognize that fact and vote against his nomination.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. HUSTED). The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. THUNE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________