[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S356-S362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Peter Hegseth
Now, I mentioned that Presidents have the flexibility to appoint many
political folks to positions in the U.S. Government, but for the top
ones--for the Secretary of Defense, for example--the Founders of this
country--those who wrote the Constitution--put a little bit of check
and balance in that. They said the Senate has the right to advise and
consent on those very top positions because those are incredibly
consequential decisions, and we want people of good judgment and good
character in those positions. So that is what the Senate is engaged in
right now, is a debate under the advice and consent clause of the U.S.
Constitution.
I think we all recognize that we are here at a very perilous moment
in the world. We have Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine. Our
allies are watching closely to know whether we are going to stand with
the people of Ukraine. Other people are watching too. President Xi of
China has one eye on what is happening in Ukraine and he has another
eye on Taiwan. We have huge challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. We
have a very combustible Middle East, with the malign actions Iran
continues to take. We have a very fragile cease-fire in Gaza, with the
return of hostages. If you look around the world, it is in a very, very
sensitive and explosive moment.
We should keep that in mind as we decide whether we are going to
provide advice and consent to Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense--
somebody who will be overseeing 3.4 million servicemembers and
employees; someone who will be second to the President in making
decisions on the operation of our nuclear forces; someone who will
oversee what represents over half of the entire discretionary budget of
the United States of America--$850 billion.
So in this moment, it is especially important that we look at his
qualifications because what we don't want is somebody who is untested
and incompetent and someone of low character running the Defense
Department in the highest position of that Department. Yet, as we have
heard from ample testimony, that is exactly what will happen if Pete
Hegseth is confirmed to be Secretary of Defense.
As our colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member of
the Senate Armed Services Committee and someone who served in the 82nd
Airborne, has said, servicemembers with Mr. Hegseth's record would be
disqualified not just from the highest position of the Defense
Department but any position in the military.
This Secretary of Defense would be overseeing all of those men and
women whom we ask to uphold the highest tradition and values of our
country, and yet the person who would be in charge, if confirmed, would
be somebody who would be disqualified from being one of them. That is a
terrible message to send.
Let's take a look at the record on management as well as the personal
conduct of the person President Trump has nominated to be head of the
Defense Department, Mr. Hegseth.
He led two veterans organizations and, based on the testimony, in
both cases engaged in financial mismanagement and wasteful spending.
When managing a budget of under $10 million, he repeatedly overspent
until the organization was on the edge of bankruptcy.
In his next leadership role, he continued to overspend, including on
social events and excessive drinking. His successor in that position
was told:
Among the staff, the disgust for Pete was pretty high. Most
veterans do not think he represents them nor their highest
standard of excellence.
He was told that funds had been used to fund Mr. Hegseth's partying
and drinking, as well as his use of work events to ``hook up with women
on the road.''
Mr. Hegseth has a disturbing history of sexual harassment. In 2017,
he was credibly accused of raping a woman in a California hotel room.
We learned yesterday that Mr. Hegseth paid the woman $50,000 to prevent
her from talking about the assault. We also know that he failed to
disclose that information to the transition team, attempting to keep it
secret.
We can understand why he didn't want the American people and the
Senate to know that.
So I really wonder how the Senate could possibly confirm Mr. Hegseth
for an entry-level security clearance, let alone the enormous
responsibility of leading the Department of Defense and the men and
women who serve there.
Let's take a look at another aspect of Mr. Hegseth's record, because
whoever is Secretary of Defense has to understand that they represent
the great American military--every single person in it, regardless of
background, regardless of religion, regardless of race, regardless of
sexual orientation. That is their job. They all bleed red. They are all
out there fighting for the United States of America. They have all
sworn to defend our country.
And, yet, if you look at his statements, it is very clear that he
believes military service is for some, but not all, Americans who want
to serve. His remarks are centered on disparaging women, people in the
LGBT community, and Muslim Americans.
Let's look at the women serving in the military. He has said:
I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in
combat roles.
Now, I watched some of the hearing. I saw him try to wheedle out of
statements that he had made very clearly, like this one I just read.
And, frankly, nobody should be fooled by this eleventh hour conversion
as he seeks to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He said what he said,
and it was actually part of a pattern when it came to women serving in
the military.
In his 2024 book called ``The War on Warriors,'' Mr. Hegseth
criticized both the don't ask, don't tell, as well as its repeal,
writing that these policies are just part of a social justice agenda.
I would say to those men and women who are serving in our military
who have been condemned and criticized by Mr. Hegseth, we all thank you
for your service. Most of us thank you for your service.
In his 2020 book, ``American Crusade,'' Mr. Hegseth portrays
contemporary cultural and political conflicts in the United States. He
portrays them as part of the Crusades--the Crusades--and frames
``Islamism'' and Muslim immigration as existential threats to American
society.
Again, we have a military comprised of people of all different
faiths. They have all sworn an oath to defend this country, and we
should not have a Secretary of Defense that maligns a big group based
on their faith and engages in that kind of bigotry.
And yet, in 2015, a former employee reported that Hegseth chanted:
``Kill all Muslims.'' In a ``drunk and violent manner'' he said that.
So these are just some examples of the words and conduct of the
person that we are considering to be Secretary of Defense for all the
men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and in the Pentagon. And we
should not want any member of our military to be fearful of the person
who is leading them. And, yet, if you are falling into one of these
groups--or even if you are not--you should be very scared about what he
has said, maligning certain Americans and trying to pit people against
each other based on faith, based on gender, based on sexual
orientation.
[[Page S357]]
I want to turn to one other category of important issues that we
would think--I hope we would think--should be upheld by the Secretary
of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has lacked moral clarity and expertise about
lots of elements of the military and war, including the laws of armed
conflict. And his comments suggest that he does not believe that the
U.S. Armed Forces should follow the laws of war.
One of the very important principles we instill in our professional
U.S. military is the importance of following the laws of war. And yet
Mr. Hegseth has lobbied for pardons of military members who were turned
in, based on testimony of their peers, for illegal behavior and
convicted by military courts. He defended military contractors
convicted of war crimes, including killing 14 unarmed
Iraqi citizens without cause, just for fun, just because
they thought they could get away with it.
He has repeatedly mocked the laws of armed conflict and expressed
unequivocal support for servicemembers who have been convicted of war
crimes. In his book, so-called ``The War on Warriors,'' he writes:
Should we follow the Geneva Conventions?
Aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to
our own rules?
A former colleague of ours and a great American hero, Senator McCain,
would be turning in his grave to hear these kinds of comments. I want
to read what Senator McCain said about the importance of the laws of
war.
War is retched beyond description, and only a fool or a
fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. The Geneva
Conventions and the Red Cross were created in response to the
stark recognition of the true horrors of unbounded war. And I
thank God for that. I am thankful for those of us whose
dignity, health and lives have been protected by the
Conventions.
Senator John McCain in 1999.
Hegseth, 2025: Let's just get rid of those rules of war--put in place
because of the hard-earned lessons of, as Senator McCain said, the
wretchedness of war.
Mr. Hegseth has also talked about going back to the days of illegal
waterboarding and ignoring the Geneva Conventions on the rules when it
comes to torture in interrogation, saying that we should--again, as he
said--just sort of ignore those rules; do our own thing.
Here is what Senator McCain said about that when it was debated here
in the U.S. Senate:
I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners
will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that
victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading
information if they think their captures will believe it. I
know they will say whatever they think their torturers want
them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering.
Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which
most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all
people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights,
which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not
only joined, but for the most part authored.
Senator McCain.
Now, I know that President Trump disdains that great American hero,
Senator McCain. In fact here is what Candidate Trump said back in 2015:
He's not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was
captured. I like people who weren't captured.
Says somebody who never served in the military.
Colleagues, I urge us to apply the standards that Senator McCain
would apply. I urge us to listen to our colleague Jack Reed, who served
in the 82nd Airborne and, with great diligence, serves as the ranking
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I would ask our
colleagues, based on this record of personal misconduct, financial
mismanagement, Pete Hegseth's disregard for many men and women who
serve in the military--based on his own statements--and his contempt
for the rules of war that John McCain so eloquently upheld, when it
comes to this Senator--I hope other Senators--when it comes to
providing advice and consent as part of our constitutional duty under
the Constitution and balance of powers, I will withhold my consent, and
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Pete Hegseth to
serve as the Secretary of Defense.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when I came out of graduate school, I was
hired by Secretary Weinberger as a Presidential Management Intern--now
called PMF, or Presidential Management Fellows--five of us who were
brought in to do a series of rotations to bring, well, an injection of
policy determination to the conversation in Secretary of Defense's
Office.
And it was really quite an enlightening experience. My first
assignment involved being desk officer for Jordan at the Defense
Security Systems Agency, because the desk officer who worked for both
Jordan and Lebanon had to pay a lot more attention to Lebanon because
we had the horrific bombing of the Marines in the tower.
And then there was an argument inside the defense establishment about
how to keep Russia from going forward at a faster pace technologically.
And the research and development side said: If you classify everything,
you will slow us down and Russia will catch up.
And the policy said: Unless we classify everything, the Russians will
steal so much, they will speed up and catch up.
And there was this fundamental difference of opinion about how to
control technology in order to maintain our technological lead over
Russia.
And I was asked to set up a steering committee and bring both parties
to the table to try to work out where they could work together and try
to resolve their differences.
And in the course of things, I was drafted to become a programmer to
do computer studies of survivability related to what strategies with
our strategic forces would decrease the risk of nuclear war happening?
What would strengthen deterrence? And then on to a service at NATO, and
then to an R&D budgeting cycle, where I learned many of the budget
games the Defense Department employs in order to get a whole lot of
money that seems to be never accounted for.
In fact, it has become universally recognized that the Defense
Department can never pass a budget, can never pass a budget test--that
is, an audit--because they don't track anything very closely, and there
are just all kinds of loose ends left.
And year after year, Democrats and Republicans have said: Audit the
Secretary of Defense. Audit the Defense Department. We want to know
where our funds go.
And here we are, decades and decades later, and we still have that
same problem.
You know, it was a valuable several years that led, then, to me
working for Congress on strategic nuclear issues. And in the decade of
the 1980s, we saw some real advances in our security. We saw some real
advances in terms of the stability of the nuclear dynamic with the
then-Soviet Union.
And, in fact, the folks who put together the Doomsday Clock, which
was very close to midnight when I started working on defense issues,
was turned back some 13 or 15 minutes from midnight by the late
eighties because of a series of agreements and policies and force
changes that had been worked out over the eighties.
The Defense Department is massive. It is massive--an annual budget of
about $850 billion, 3.4 million people working for it, 2.5 million
servicemembers, 900,000 civilians. It is massive. It is complicated.
But what experience does Mr. Hegseth bring? He ran two little
micrononprofits, and he ran them into the ground. He had documented
problems with drinking on the job. He had credible and repeated
accusations of sexual assault. He showed disrespect for female
servicemembers and diverse servicemembers, including the current--well,
the former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown.
What?
This man who couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag, who
mismanaged the enterprise he had undertaken--that is the man we are
going to confirm to run the U.S. military that has massive needs for
reform?
Is this man some expert in military strategy? No. Is he some esteemed
driver of the new technology of war with drones? No. Did he have
diverse experiences inside the Defense Department that gave him many
perspectives about the incredible sections of the Defense Department
that deal with so many different issues? No, no.
So why are we having this conversation? What has happened to the idea
of
[[Page S358]]
credible leadership? I can tell you what happened. The President of the
United States, President Trump, said: Do what I want, or I will primary
you. And now we have a bunch of folks across the aisle that are not
doing their job under the Constitution. The Constitution says it is our
responsibility to advise and consent, to vet nominees and to make sure
they are qualified before they take these positions.
I say to my colleagues: Stop shaking and shivering under the aura of
an authoritarian President and do your job. And your job is to say no,
because this man is not qualified.
He did not even tell President-elect Trump about all the accusations
made against him. If he could not tell President Trump the truth before
he was serving and before President Trump is President Trump, how will
he be able to stand up for the truth and say what needs to be said
after President Trump is in office and he is Secretary of Defense?
The Department of Defense has failed seven audits in a row. The
Secretary of Defense must be able to get the department on track to
pass an audit. It is mandated by Congress. It has been mandated before,
and they still fail year after year. But both sides say it should
happen. We should put some teeth into that.
But I tell you, putting a man who can't manage a tiny nonprofit isn't
going to get the job done. They ran up enormous debt. And by 2008, the
financial records show they were unable to pay their creditors--
irresponsible in the max.
I know running a small nonprofit is hard. I was the director of an
affiliate of Habitat for Humanity, and I ran the housing division of
another nonprofit that developed affordable housing, and then I was
President of the World Affairs Council and had the managerial
responsibilities. And it was tough making sure we hit payroll each
month, making sure we raise more money for the aspirations we had for
those organizations. It was hard work. I worried about it all the time,
but we always met payroll. We always advanced in our mission.
Maybe, if we are going to hire somebody from a sole nonprofit to run
a gigantic organization, we should at least know they can run the small
organization before they get promoted to running an organization with
millions of people and the better part of a trillion dollars in its
budget.
A Republican strategist who worked with him at that organization
said:
I don't know how he's going to run an organization with an
$857 billion budget and 3 million individuals.
On more than a dozen occasions, Mr. Hegseth's FOX News colleagues
report smelling alcohol on him before he went on air, including just a
couple of months ago. Former employees of the nonprofit he ran reported
him being drunk on the job and having to be carried out of events.
That is the person we want running the Department of Defense?
A former employee noted in a letter of complaint that Mr. Hegseth was
drunkenly chanting ``Kill all Muslims, Kill all Muslims'' at a bar
while on a work trip.
You know, we have many faiths serving us in the defense of this
country because we are a multifaith Nation. Having a person who
advocates for killing people of a particular religious faith is not
acceptable to run the Department of Defense.
He said: Well, I will reform. I have broken the rules on drinking
before, but I will reform. How many times have you heard that from
people who are--well, they have an addiction. They try to reform. Maybe
they make it for a little while. But in the end, they relapse. Shall we
put that risk upon the security of the United States of America?
We used to have a more responsible attitude here in the Senate. In
1989, when President George H. W. Bush nominated John Tower, an FBI
investigation revealed that he was a drunk and a womanizer and Mr.
Tower pledged not to drink any alcoholic beverages during his time as
Secretary of Defense, just as Mr. Hegseth has. And then the Senate
weighed the risk of putting somebody with an addiction in charge of the
Department of Defense and rejected his nomination.
It is an insult to the servicemembers of the United States of America
to put a man with an addiction in charge of them. It is irresponsible
to the security of the Nation and all civilians of this Nation.
The Department of Defense struggles with high levels of sexual
assault of female servicemembers, so a person who has been involved in
numerous incidents of misbehavior on the issue of treating women isn't
the right person to have as the Secretary of Defense.
In 2023, the year I have numbers for, 29,000 Active-Duty troops
reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact. Mr. Hegseth has been
accused of sexual assault. He paid the accuser $50,000 in a settlement.
It took place in 2017 after a speaking appearance at a Republican
women's event in Monterey, CA. No charges were filed. But this, in
combination with multiple other reports of his treatment--accusations
of mistreatment of women, means he is the wrong person to have at an
organization in which women provide enormously valuable contributions.
During his time at the head of a veterans' organization, the
employees report that Mr. Hegseth ``sexually pursued the organization's
female staffers.'' It is not like this was one misunderstood event
somewhere in his way past life.
Women are 18 percent of our Active-Duty servicemembers, but Mr.
Hegseth dismisses them.
We need moms. But not in the military, especially not in
combat boots.
He went on to say:
I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in
combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective. Hasn't made
us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.
And he is wrong on every point. Women in combat roles have helped
fill out ranks. We do have a volunteer Army. We do recruit to get the
staff we need in the military in order to be able to operate the
weapons systems and the communication systems and the supply systems
and the repair systems--all of it. They work in every role--valuable,
valuable contributors.
We should not put a person at the head of our Department of Defense
who somehow thinks half the jobs in the world can only be done by men,
because it is wrong and because it undermines the effectiveness of the
military providing security.
He also doesn't like minorities. Well, minority groups comprise 30
percent of servicemembers. I don't care what color of skin you have. I
do care if you work hard as a member of the military to support the
security of this Nation. And people of every race are a valuable part
of our military. And a man who thinks the color of your skin controls
the content of your character and the ability and talents that you
possess doesn't belong as the head of the military.
He has said:
The dumbest phrase on planet Earth is ``our diversity is
our strength.''
You take away the diversity in our service and you will soon see our
diverse servicemembers are invaluable, and a person who doesn't
understand that should never be confirmed. That is our job. Our job,
under the Constitution, is to say: Mr. President, sometime Presidents
get it wrong. Maybe it is for political reasons; maybe you woke up and
didn't know all the background of the person. But we have to vet them,
and we have to help make sure your executive branch is successful.
That is our job. You are not helping President Trump by voting for a
man totally unqualified--the most unqualified man who could be found in
America to head the Department of Defense.
Mr. Hegseth says:
I told my platoon they could ignore directives limiting
when they can shoot.
A person who violates the directives in the military doesn't belong
running the military. There is a strong command structure in the
military, and it includes how you behave in certain situations that are
crucial to the security of this Nation. But he did not understand that.
He has argued that ``U.S. forces should ignore the Geneva Conventions
and other elements of international law governing the conduct of war.''
As my colleague from Maryland was just talking about and reciting the
wisdom of John McCain saying how the Geneva Conventions and rules on
torture serve us well, because you get misinformation when you torture
people and you get Americans tortured when
[[Page S359]]
they are captured if we are torturing people. So a man who believes in
torturing people doesn't understand how to get accurate information and
is putting our own servicemembers at risk when they are captured.
Why would any Member of this body so disrespect the servicemembers of
the United States of America as to put this man in charge?
I was honored to work for Secretary Weinberger. I believed that the
world was at great risk of the possibility of nuclear war, and that is
the issue I focused on in my time there and then my time working for
Congress. There is nothing I saw during my time in the Pentagon that
equals this level of failure to protect and defend the United States of
America. I did not see people put into command who talked about killing
members who were of a different religion than they were. I did not hear
people talking about how women should not even be there or how
diversity was a problem rather than a strength. I saw her as people
working hard together, people who had served in Vietnam together.
Many of the folks who I served with during those 2 years in my role
as a civilian being hired to work with Secretary Weinberger had served
in Vietnam. The war had ended by the time I had reached draft age, and
I so respected the service that they had given and their dedication to
the security of this country.
If you are dedicated to the security of this country, if you respect
the servicemembers of the United States of America, then do not give
them a boss who is the wrong fit in every way possible.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, we are here discussing the nomination of
the next potential Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.
Of course that job, as we all know, is probably the second most
difficult job in the country. He presides over the welfare of 3.4
million people in Active service and Active Reserve all around the
world. He presides over a budget of $850 billion. The person who has
that position has to be a preeminent strategic thinker: How do we
modernize our Navy? How do we recruit in the modern world? How do we
maintain force preparedness? How do we cement strategic alliances? It
is a job that you can't just show up and start doing; there has to be
behind it a lifetime experience that gives you some capacity to be able
to do all of these things and respond to the emergencies that
inevitably arise when you get that phone call at 3 in the morning.
There has been a lot of discussion by my colleagues about the lack of
experience of Mr. Hegseth. I share that concern. There has been a lot
of discussion about his views on women in the military, and our
distinguished Senator Tammy Duckworth is the most preeminent example of
the capacity of women to serve effectively and bravely.
Mr. Hegseth has repudiated his well-founded, longstanding view that
he is against women in the military. Frankly, it sounds to me like a
nomination-eve consideration.
Speaking, of course, to the Presiding Officer, I really respect the
military service he has provided to our country.
But the big concern I have about Mr. Hegseth, in addition to the
character issues, the experience issues, and the drinking issues--and
by the way, I am puzzled as to his assertion that if he gets the job,
he will stop drinking. Why wait?
But here is the concern I have: Unlike the Presiding Officer, I did
not serve in the military. My draft lottery number was high--this was
during Vietnam--and I wasn't drafted. Many of my college classmates
were. They served in Vietnam. Some of them came home injured, and some
did not come home. I think about them every day and how it is that they
served. Some were badly injured, and some died.
When I think about the situation most Americans are in, most of us
didn't serve, but all of us who didn't serve are so indebted to those
who did.
My high school classmates were like the young people I see now who
are volunteering to go into the military.
So we as Americans have a profound obligation to honor the service of
those who volunteer to respond to the call of the Commander in Chief,
who says: You are going to be deployed. They don't know where. They are
not involved in the discussion of whether. They are not involved in the
discussion of when. They show up.
Our democracy so profoundly depends on the idealism of young people
who are willing to subject themselves to the decisions of the Commander
in Chief, and I believe that every one of us here who is involved in
the decisions about authorizing the use of military force has an
absolutely profound obligation to do that with care because the folks
who are going to do the work and be in harm's way are going to be there
because we sent them there.
It is why I have been so insistent, as have many of us here, that we
have to have a good VA, that we have to have medical care for our
soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines.
But what we need, too, is a Secretary of Defense who honors that
idealism of these young Americans who decide to enlist. That idealism
is borne in a sense of common commitment, a sense of wanting to do
something for the common good, and it is also to live by the code of
military conduct.
There is great honor in our services. Those men and women whom I so
admire know they may have to use lethal force to defend our values, to
defend our country, to protect their fellow soldiers, but they know
there are limits, and they use it when they must but never more than
that.
By the way, that is asking a lot of our soldiers, to be restrained
when they are in a combat zone and can be killed themselves.
So what distresses me so much about Mr. Hegseth is how he used his
very powerful forum on FOX TV, in my view, to dishonor the soldiers who
acted with restraint and valor and integrity by taking up the cause of
some of our soldiers--there are not many of them, but they do exist--
who kill people, who use violence not in furtherance of our defense but
for their own reasons.
I am speaking about Mr. Lorance. Clint Lorance was a soldier. He was
sent, in 2012, as a new commander without combat experience to lead a
platoon of young soldiers who were deployed to Afghanistan with the
mission of defeating the local Taliban and winning over the area's
population--an incredibly hard task. But one day, for reasons Mr.
Lorance--then Soldier Lorance--knew, he threatened to kill a farmer and
his son, a 3- or 4-year-old boy. A day later, he ordered his men to
shoot within inches of unarmed villagers--that was including near
children.
He said: It is funny watching the villagers dance.
Mr. Lorance's men, who were honorable, brave, willing to be in harm's
way, and willing to act like warriors but were not ever willing to kill
indiscriminately, balked at his orders. And you know how hard that is
to do if you are a soldier when you are given an order even if you know
it is the wrong order. Then they were told to make false reports about
taking fire from the village to justify this conduct, but they refused
to do it.
The next day, Lorance ordered fire on unarmed Afghans who were over
100 yards from the platoon. They were killed. They filed a false report
claiming the bodies couldn't be reached.
The people I honor are the people under his command who refused to
take those orders. The people I honor are soldiers whose bravery
extends not just to putting their own physical well-being in harm's way
but who maintain that commitment to the ideals of the military code of
conduct that give us the standing and legitimacy that are so important
to our well-being.
So my problem is this: I want a Secretary of Defense who is as good
as the soldiers he leads. Mr. Hegseth, in my view, fails to meet that
standard.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today because it is inevitable that at
some point in the near future, President Trump will have to convene his
national security team in the Situation Room at the White House in
response to a global crisis, whether in Ukraine or in the Taiwan Strait
or in some other hotspot.
The Situation Room is a room that I have had the privilege of working
in as staff on the White House National Security Council. It is a room
where the
[[Page S360]]
most consequential decisions are made, where the safety and security of
our country is decided, and where the lives of people are determined.
But who will be in the room with the President, advising the President
during these difficult and stressful times? As the President sits at
the end of the table, flanking him will be some of the most senior
advisers. One of them, the closest to him, will be the Secretary of
Defense.
Mr. President, I rise today because I know the importance of that
role in that room. I have seen what it means for the President to turn
to the Secretary of Defense for counsel. In fact, I even worked at the
Pentagon, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I have seen the
massive operation that the Secretary needs to lead every day and what
it takes. I have seen the readiness necessary for the Secretary of
Defense to turn to the President and provide the right recommendations
for America's national security.
I have seen Mr. Pete Hegseth make his case. I have seen his answers
in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have seen the
reports. I can say from my experience in the Secretary of Defense's
Office as well as in the Situation Room, that Mr. Hegseth's appointment
is an unnecessary risk in a dangerous global moment.
Now, I get it. President Trump wants to be a disruptor. He wants to
bring in people who are going to shake up the system. He wants people
who represent a change from the status quo. I am sure a number of us
here in the Senate would like to see some changes at the Pentagon--
changes as to how things are done and understanding that the status quo
is not something we can lean on. We certainly have disagreements on how
best to add certainty and stability to the world that seems to be off
the rails in this moment. But there is talking about change and there
is actually having the skills and the capacity to implement change.
The Department of Defense is our largest employer in our government
and one that requires critical leadership.
Let's look at the world that Mr. Hegseth would inherit as Secretary
of Defense, the world that President Trump will ask him about in the
Situation Room.
On Ukraine, it is clear that Mr. Hegseth simply doesn't know his
history. During his nomination hearing, he called Russia's 2014
invasion of Crimea a ``minor incursion.'' He has also downplayed the
threat that Putin's Russia poses to our NATO allies.
On China, Mr. Hegseth demonstrated a lack of depth of knowledge when
asked by Senator Duckworth to name the importance of even one of the
ASEAN countries and the type of agreement we have with them. He could
not name one. These countries--including multiple treaty allies--are on
the frontlines of our competition with China. Multiple ASEAN members
are locked in territorial disputes with China.
This is a critical partner, so much that the Department of Defense 2
months ago released a strategic document called ``U.S. Department of
Defense Vision Statement for a Prosperous and Secure Southeast Asia''
that was centered on ASEAN and even mentioned that ``The United States
has worked closely with ASEAN on defense and security in the Indo-
Pacific region since former Defense Secretary Robert Gates attended the
inaugural ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting . . . in 2010.'' It goes on
to say that the ``U.S. Secretary of Defense has attended and supported
ASEAN at every single one of those gatherings ever since.''
In a moment where these disputes could easily flare up to conflict,
the President needs a Secretary by his side who doesn't draw a blank on
questions about our allies.
And on the Middle East, Mr. Hegseth remarked that ISIS was ``raging
across Iraq'' when President Trump was first sworn into office in 2017
was simply not reflective of the reality on the ground at the time.
Combined, that lack of knowledge and qualifications alone should
disqualify Mr. Hegseth from this role. But there is one more
disqualifying factor, which is his character.
Now, there has been a lot said about this already in terms of
personal challenges and behaviors, so I will leave it at this: Someone
who is being asked to lead millions of uniformed and civilian
personnel, his statements on women and transgender servicemembers are
simply unacceptable.
Claiming that standards have been lowered for women and that allowing
LGBT Americans to serve in the military is somehow part of a Marxist
agenda is beyond offensive; it is absurd. And it is far beneath the
person that is supposed to be setting the standard and serving as a
leader for the men and women who have dedicated themselves to
protecting this country.
I have said before that every President, including President Trump,
has the prerogative to choose the people who sit at that table with him
in the Situation Room. But our job here in the Senate is to make sure
that those people have the competence and the character to serve our
country. This is not a reality TV show. This is real life, and there
are real lives at stake.
Mr. Hegseth should be recognized for his service, but he should not
be Secretary of Defense. If that is not enough, we are voting also to
approve someone to be the sixth in line of Presidential succession. Is
Mr. Hegseth ready for either of these distinctions? The answer for me
is no.
For the sake of our country and our national security, I encourage my
colleagues who want to support this President to oppose this nomination
and bring forth another nominee more qualified for the role, more ready
for the role. I encourage my colleagues who want to deliver change to
oppose this nomination and bring forth another nominee with the
experience and credibility to deliver it. I encourage my colleagues who
want to make our country safe, who want to make our world a more stable
place, and who want to leave a legacy of peace and strength, to oppose
this nomination and bring us a nominee ready to deliver for the
American people.
I urge a ``no'' vote on Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Arizona.
Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I am concerned that soon the U.S. Senate
might confirm the most unprepared nominee to lead the Department of
Defense that has ever been put forward.
I look at every nominee based on whether they are qualified and
committed to do the job. It is how I evaluated nominees from the last
President, and it is how I am evaluating nominees from this President.
And I approach each person with an open mind. It is our responsibility
to make sure the folks we consider are ready to do these jobs for the
American people.
But this one, the Secretary of Defense, it is especially important.
Outside of the Presidency, it might be the biggest job in the country.
It is almost impossible to imagine the scale of it.
You have about 3 million people working for you. You are the civilian
leader at the top of a massive operation that includes every single
soldier, sailor, guardian, airman, marine, and civilian contractor and
employee. These folks are spread out across hundreds of military
installations in dozens of countries. So it is basically the toughest
management job in the world.
You are also responsible for overseeing a budget that exceeds $850
billion every single year, so it is one of the most complicated budget-
management jobs in the world as well.
You are overseeing some of the most complicated weapons systems and
defense programs that exist. Some of these are multibillion-dollar
projects that happen over the course of years to develop, test, and
field.
It is also one of the most demanding policy and program
implementation jobs.
Now, not every Secretary of Defense nominee checks the box for each
of those qualifications. It is impossible for us to expect that. The
job is too big. But what is clear to me at the end of this process is
that Mr. Hegseth does not check any of the boxes.
I appreciate his service in the U.S. Army and his service to this
country,
[[Page S361]]
especially in combat, but that is not a requirement for this role.
During his career in the Guard and Reserve, Mr. Hegseth did not rise
to a command position where he would learn the management, joint forces
operations, logistics, and other skills that are relevant to fill this
job. In his civilian roles, he has led two veterans organizations,
neither of which were larger than about 50 people. And he spent 7 years
as a TV host. Normally, this would be the end of the conversation.
Normally, it would be clear to every single person in this Chamber that
this is not someone ready to do this job.
Now, I understand that the case for his nomination is in part because
he is an outsider--I get that--that he can shake things up. I am not
opposed to that. The Pentagon needs to be leaner. It needs to move more
quickly and be willing to lose things that aren't working and adopt
things that will work. Having someone who isn't beholden to the current
way of doing things--that is exciting.
My concern is not that Mr. Hegseth is going to succeed in whipping
the Pentagon into shape; my concern is that he would fail. Given his
lack of experience, it is much more likely that the bureaucracy is
going to crush Mr. Hegseth than he is going to crush the bureaucracy.
It is not just that Mr. Hegseth is unprepared for this role; the
experience he does have is riddled with serious issues that should
concern us all.
During his time leading two veterans organizations, he was accused of
financial mismanagement.
In 2009, after just about 2 years leading a group called Vets for
Freedom, it has been reported that forensic accountants found that the
organization had about $1,000 in the bank, more than $400,000 in unpaid
bills, and $75,000 in credit card debt. Mr. Hegseth wants to get the
Pentagon to finally pass an audit. Yet the much smaller--much smaller--
organization he led could not do the same.
During his time leading Concerned Veterans for America, the
organization was forced to reach a financial settlement with a female
employee who accused a male colleague of trying to sexually assault
her. The woman was reportedly ostracized and faced reprisals in the
workplace after that settlement. For a Department that is working to
address sexual assault and harassment, what would it say to confirm
someone who has already fostered environments where these are an issue?
It has also been reported that he frequently abused alcohol, getting
drunk in front of his staff and in public. I want to remind folks of
some of these incidents:
Memorial Day 2014; CVA event in Virginia Beach. Hegseth needed to be
carried out of the event.
Summer 2014 in Cleveland. Drunk in public with the CVA team.
November 2014; ``Get Out the Vote'' event in North Carolina. Hegseth
got drunk with three young female staff members. CVA had instituted a
no-alcohol policy at its events in October--this was 1 month later--but
Mr. Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy.
In December 2014, at the CVA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in
this city, Washington, DC, Hegseth was ``noticeably intoxicated and had
to be carried up to his room.''
Another time, a CVA staffer stated that Hegseth ``passed out'' in the
back of a party bus.
On May 29, 2015, a now-former CVA employee sent a complaint letter to
management that Hegseth was chanting ``Kill All Muslims'' at a bar in
Cuyahoga Falls, OH, in ``a drunk and violent manner.''
While at FOX News, in October 2017, following his dinner speech at
the California Federation of Republican Women's 40th Biennial
Convention in Monterey, CA, Hegseth was reportedly engaged in a loud
argument by the pool and was ``very intoxicated.''
FOX News employees have reported that after a St. Patrick's Day
segment on St. Patrick's Day, after being on TV, Hegseth drank several
beers that had been sitting out for hours. These employees also noted
that the segment finished before 10 a.m. and they were shocked at
Hegseth's behavior.
One current and two former FOX News employees told NBC News that they
felt that they had to ``babysit'' Hegseth to mitigate the effects of
his drinking. This is a quote: ``We'd have to call him to make sure he
didn't oversleep because we knew he'd be out partying the night
before.''
Two FOX employees--current or former--said that on more than a dozen
occasions during Hegseth's time as a cohost on ``Fox & Friends
Weekend,'' which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he
went on air. That was in the morning. Those same two people, plus
another, said that during his time there, he appeared on television
after they heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready
or on set.
In the fall of 2024, one FOX employee said they heard him complain
about being hungover.
In November 2024, one FOX employee said they smelled alcohol on him
as recently as this past November, 3 months ago.
During his confirmation hearing, I gave Mr. Hegseth the opportunity
to answer for a number of these incidents. I asked him point blank: Are
these true or false?
He had the opportunity to say ``These things did not happen'' or to
explain how he is prepared to account for them and how he won't repeat
this concerning behavior as Secretary of Defense. He wouldn't answer,
with one notable exception. I asked him about reports that in 2014 he
was drunk at a strip club with staff in Louisiana. He replied to me:
Absolutely not. He specifically denied that incident. He was prepared
to say that one--but only that one--didn't happen, but the rest of
these incidents, well, he would not deny them. Instead, he called them
``anonymous smears.''
Well, first of all, they are not all anonymous. The committee has had
access to sworn affidavits from individuals who witnessed this behavior
firsthand.
This confirmation process was rushed. The FBI background check, which
the entire committee was never given access to, was clearly inadequate
and had to be updated multiple times. And despite repeated efforts, Mr.
Hegseth has refused to meet with me and many others on the committee in
private to discuss these concerns further.
But beyond all of that, it defies belief that this behavior does not
represent a pattern. The incidents listed earlier stretch out across a
decade. These are individuals who worked with him across three
different organizations, and in each place, these people witnessed him
abuse alcohol. It is obvious to anyone willing to see it that this is a
pattern.
Let's be clear. These are not smears. If Mr. Hegseth were a private
citizen, these issues with alcohol would only be a concern for those
around him. But when you are nominated to be Secretary of Defense, it
is a concern for all of us, each and every American. This is not a job
where you clock in at the beginning of the day and clock out at the end
of the day. You have to be able to move seamlessly between advising the
President on matters of national security, sitting with foreign leaders
to hammer out agreements, and discussing complex weapons systems with
your staff. And that might just be in the afternoon. Some of these
things might happen on a plane across an ocean on a weeklong trip or
during a phone call that comes late at night, with quick decisions that
affect the lives of our servicemembers.
During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara was briefed at
midnight about the first photographs from U-2 spy planes showing the
likelihood of Soviet ballistic missile sites in Cuba. The same has
likely happened when North Korea has tested ballistic missiles that
could threaten Guam or our allies.
This is a demanding job for anyone. It is a concerning job for
someone with Mr. Hegseth's track record.
So as the Senate moves towards a final confirmation vote on this
nominee, Mr. Hegseth, here is what I want to ask my colleagues: Are you
sure? Are you sure that you trust him with this job? Are you sure there
isn't another individual the President could choose who could pursue
the same goals but is better prepared to do this job? Are you sure it
is worth the risk to our servicemembers, to our national security, and
to your families?
I know I am not.
I yield the floor.
[[Page S362]]
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.