[Pages S349-S355]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Peter Hegseth

  Mr. President, I rise right now and today for the purpose of joining 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in opposing Mr. Hegseth's 
nomination as Secretary of Defense.
  I appreciate Mr. Hegseth's military service, indeed, when evaluating 
his nomination--his service was what I appreciated most about his 
background--but unfortunately it is clear that Mr. Hegseth does not 
have the skills, experience, record, or character to lead a Department 
that has a budget of more than $800 billion, is the largest employer of 
men and women in our country, and is tasked with safeguarding our 
Nation's security and freedom.
  We take pride as Americans in the fact that our military is the very 
best. The standard of excellence and professionalism set by the men and 
women of our Armed Forces is central to our military's success and to 
our country's success. This high standard of competency and character, 
of both unmatched ability and uncommon virtue is why America's Armed 
Forces command the respect of our friends, the fear of our foes, and 
the abiding faith of freedom-loving people everywhere.
  America boasts the greatest fighting force in the history of the 
world. The heroes who serve in our Armed Forces deserve a leader who is 
worthy of that greatness, and Mr. Hegseth is plainly not up to that 
task.
  Like many of my colleagues, I have concerns regarding Mr. Hegseth's 
character--the documented accusations about his excessive and 
uncontrolled drinking, his sexual harassment, sexual assault, and now 
accusations of being abusive to his ex-wife.
  It is ironic that Mr. Hegseth and some of my colleagues have 
dismissed these concerns as partisan because, sadly, if this weren't a 
partisan confirmation process--for example, if my Republican colleagues 
were considering hiring Mr. Hegseth to join their staffs--we would all 
agree that these accusations would immediately be disqualifying.
  Mr. Hegseth dismisses these multiple accusations from disparate 
people as a ``coordinated smear campaign.'' I don't think that the 
concerns of his former colleagues, friends, and family should be 
quickly dismissed as smears. Many other of the nominees who are being 
considered by this body aren't facing similar accusations even though 
there are people who vehemently oppose their confirmations, which begs 
the question of why Mr. Hegseth continues to face multiple similar 
accusations from different sources.
  But, for a moment, let's do as Mr. Hegseth asks and put aside these 
accusations. Let us say for a moment that those who occupy the highest 
positions in public life shouldn't be above reproach, although indeed 
they should. Let us say that our servicemembers do not deserve a leader 
whose strength of character matches their own, although I believe they 
do. And let us say for a moment that character does not count, although 
indeed it surely always does. Let us, in short, ignore everything that 
Mr. Hegseth demanded that we ignore in his hearing. Even if we did 
that, I would submit that based on experience alone, Mr. Hegseth is 
mainly unqualified for the job as Secretary of Defense.
  The Secretary of Defense is responsible for a budget of more than 
$800 billion and is responsible for 3.4 million employees who serve on 
every continent across the globe.
  To lead the Defense Department is a daunting task that requires 
leadership and managerial skills of the highest order. However, Mr. 
Hegseth's managerial experience begins and ends with his leadership at 
two small nonprofits, and his tenure at both resulted in concerns about 
his financial mismanagement at their helm. If Mr. Hegseth could not and 
did not effectively manage organizations with around 100 employees, 
surely no one can actually believe that he is ready to manage one of 
3.4 million people.
  We live in a dangerous and uncertain world. Iran and its proxies 
continue to menace our forces in the Middle East. Vladimir Putin is on 
the march in Europe. North Korea persists in testing our allies and 
testing its missiles. China--China--looks with a conqueror's gaze 
toward Taiwan.
  To my Republican colleagues, I understand that you wish to support 
President Trump, but Presidents are sometimes wrong. We are talking 
about our Nation's vital security. We are considering the confirmation 
of the person who will be entrusted to marshal our resources as the 
enemy approaches, attacks our cyber defenses, or invades an ally. It 
matters--it matters--that we have the right person in this job. It 
matters that we get this one right.
  Surely, there is someone in this great country of brilliant and brave 
people of all political stripes who is more capable and who has the 
experience and character necessary to forge under pressure the judgment 
that will keep us safe and free.
  This is America. We have the finest fighting force ever assembled. We 
have more strength and power than any fighting force has had in human 
history. In the past, when we have looked for leaders of our Armed 
Forces, we have searched for our country's best and brightest, the most 
gifted minds of America's boardrooms, the brightest stars to come out 
of West Point, the most revered public servants to serve in these 
Halls. We did not need then nor do we need now to turn to the green 
rooms of cable TV networks for the Secretary of Defense.
  Tomorrow marks the 80th anniversary of the Battle of the Bulge--a 
campaign in which my father served. In freezing temperatures, 
outnumbered and often undersupplied, our forces held the line against 
Hitler's onslaught. Our soldiers won because they were brave, they won 
because they were skilled, and they won because they were well led. 
Surely, the Armed Forces of the United States of America--the victors 
of the Ardennes, of Gettysburg, of Midway, and of 1,000 places in 
between and since--surely, they need a leader who they can have full 
faith in. Surely, America's best deserves the best.
  Government's most important task is to keep America safe, secure, and 
free. It is a complex, fast-moving, and evolving challenge. It is a job 
that at times presents its occupant--the Secretary of Defense--no good 
or easy options. It is, in short, a deadly serious job where both 
success and failure have enormous ramifications. It is a job that 
depends on experience and character--the prerequisites for good 
judgment like no other.
  No Senator should vote for someone who they can only hope will learn 
on the job--not for the Secretary of Defense. No Senator should vote 
for a nominee in the hope that he will display more personal discipline 
once he

[[Page S350]]

gets the job. There are strong, experienced, and able members of the 
President's party whose views align with his who could be exceptional 
leaders of the Department of Defense. Mr. Hegseth is not one of them. I 
urge my colleagues to reject this nominee.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. President, I come to the floor to join many of my 
colleagues in expressing grave alarm over the choice of Pete Hegseth to 
run the Department of Defense.
  It is not hyperbole to say that we have never seen a candidate--at 
least in modern times--to lead our soldiers and our troops who is as 
dangerously and woefully unqualified as Pete Hegseth.
  I think everybody understands his primary qualification. He was on TV 
during the weekends, when Donald Trump would watch FOX News--period, 
stop--because as we have learned more about Pete Hegseth--his history 
of sexual misconduct, his history of public drunkenness, his history of 
financial mismanagement--it appears as if there must be thousands of 
other people who were easily more qualified.
  But I want to talk today about his qualifications, his views that he 
has made known on television, that he has expressed to the committee 
about how he would do the job.
  I think his history of personal misconduct, in and of itself, is 
disqualifying. It is just an embarrassment to the country, at a moment 
when we want to win more friends and allies. It is just the wrong match 
for a Department that oversees the moral and professional development 
of young men and women to have somebody like that, with that kind of 
history, leading the Agency.
  But it is also important on the views that he has expressed on how he 
would run the Department of Defense, because I fear he will run it into 
the ground.
  First, let me talk about the politicization of the Department of 
Defense. Listen, I don't like the fact that all across government, the 
design seems to be that if you don't agree with President Trump's 
political ideas, that if you don't pledge loyalty to President Trump, 
you don't have any future in the Federal Government. That is not how we 
have ever run the Federal Government.
  Yes, we have always had a class of political appointees. Yes, you 
want the people at the very top of each Department to be broadly 
aligned with your view of the world. But this administration--most 
recently, by reclassifying thousands of employees in the Federal 
Government to make them political, to make them immediately fireable--
is a fundamental rewrite of the way that we traditionally view 
government.
  We want civil servants, people whose oath, whose loyalty, is to the 
American public, is to the Constitution, is to the law, not simply to a 
political party or to a political ideology.
  Kash Patel has made it very clear. He doesn't want anybody in the 
Department of Justice who doesn't line up with his particular political 
view of the world. And Pete Hegseth seems to be of the same mind.
  He seems to be proposing creating a Department of Defense that 
abandons its core values and its traditional review processes in favor 
of a new culture of paranoia and mistrust, amidst unexplained firings 
for even being perceived as having the wrong political leanings.
  Now, this didn't happen inside the Department of Defense, but it is 
the highest profile firing in the national security chain of command. 
On Monday--on Trump's first day in office--he fired the head of the 
Coast Guard, Commandant Linda Fagan, without explanation beyond 
anonymous statements to the press about vague concerns about Fagan's 
approach to programs aimed at improving diversity or opportunity within 
the Coast Guard.
  Many of us have had the opportunity to work with Admiral Fagan. She 
is a straight shooter. She improved morale at the Coast Guard. She has 
vigorously defended our shores. She has helped increase readiness. 
There is nothing political--there was nothing political--about Linda 
Fagan in her career of service to this country to become the first 
woman to lead the Coast Guard.
  Yet she was fired on Monday without explanation, except for these 
anonymously sourced, vague concerns about her focus on trying to bring 
more women into the Coast Guard and more cadets of color. It seems to 
serve a very clear end: to make everybody wonder what that line is.
  Nobody knows the line that Linda Fagan crossed, but now that it is 
blurred, everybody is going to hunker down, buckle down, do nothing at 
all that may arise the suspicions of the White House.
  It seems to me that that is exactly what is going to happen at the 
Department of Defense. He has promised to fire top-end military leaders 
who are engaged in his nebulous war on woke.
  So if you care about making sure that you have got troops from 
different backgrounds and different parts of the country, maybe that is 
a war on woke. If you promote a woman, maybe that is a war on woke. If 
you care about making sure that your troops don't engage in unethical 
conduct, maybe that is a war on woke. If you contract with a local 
business that may not be aligned with Donald Trump, maybe that is part 
of the war on woke.
  We have no idea. And so what will happen inside the Department of 
Defense is just a constant sense of paranoia, a constant looking over 
your shoulder, a grinding to a halt of business as normal because 
nobody knows what is a fireable offense and what isn't.
  How do I stay on the good side of Pete Hegseth? What gets me on the 
bad side?
  Second, I want to talk about his views on women in combat. He wrote 
this in his book:

       Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on 
     our bikes. We need moms. But not in the military, especially 
     in combat units.

  What an insulting thing to say. What a disgusting thing to believe.
  ``Dads push us to take risks. Moms put the training wheels on our 
bikes.'' My mom taught me to take risks. My dad told me to take risks 
too. But is there a single U.S. Senator here who believes that our 
mothers, the women in our lives, aren't risk takers, that they didn't 
push us to be better?
  Pete Hegseth believes--he just believes this--that women hold us 
back, that women hold men back, that women hold their sons back. And it 
just doesn't matter that he has walked back these statements. 
Magically, he had a conversion on the issue of women in the military. 
Magically, he started saying less offensive things about women right 
after he was nominated to be Secretary of Defense.
  Nobody believes this conversion. This is a conversion for political 
reasons only. It does not mask the fact that this is what Pete Hegseth 
believes, that he believes that women are inferior to men--and again, 
not just that they shouldn't engage in combat; he believes that they 
are morally inferior, that they have qualities that men don't have.
  Many women--most women that I know--who have served bravely and 
effectively in combat--some serving with us on Capitol Hill--have taken 
grave offense to Pete Hegseth's unfounded denigration of their service. 
Many have pointed out the real impacts his ideas will have surrounding 
women in combat and what those comments could mean for our more general 
readiness. Why? Because there are 360,000 women serving in the U.S. 
military today in a variety of capacities. They are essential to 
keeping this Nation safe. Now every single one of them knows that the 
man taking over the Department of Defense doesn't think they are worthy 
to serve and that their prospects for advancement upon his elevation to 
the Department of Defense are compromised.
  Their ability to get fair treatment inside the Department of Defense 
has been compromised, and it won't shock anybody if we see many of 
those women leave the service and if we see many fewer women sign up to 
protect this country. That would come at an enormous cost--an enormous 
cost--to the security of this Nation.
  Third, I want to talk about a topic that I hope this body finds a way 
to have a nonpolitical, nonpartisan discussion on, and that is the 
growing problem of extremism in our military.
  Now, I think every large organization has to tackle this issue. 
Anytime you have a big, large organization, you are going to have 
individuals amongst your ranks that are affiliated with extremists and 
dangerous causes, so I don't

[[Page S351]]

think this problem is exclusive to the U.S. military.
  But people who have military experience are about 6 percent, 5 
percent of the overall population. They comprise 15 percent of the 
people who were pardoned by Donald Trump just 3 days ago--a share three 
times greater than that of the general population.
  We have watched as a disproportionate share of individuals who have 
engaged in mass shootings have had a military background. Now, a lot of 
that is connected to post-traumatic stress disorder and our failure to 
get services to those individuals. That is on us, and we should have 
that conversation as well.
  But Pete Hegseth has said that this issue of whether the Oath Keepers 
and the Proud Boys have influence inside the military--and there are 
plenty of reports that there are lots of active channels of 
communication and recruitment between these rightwing groups and the 
military--he says that problem is fake. It is fake.
  Now, I don't know the extent of this problem, but I know it is 
something we should talk about, and I am very, very worried to have a 
Secretary of Defense who doesn't believe it is a problem even worth 
mentioning.
  Lastly, I want to talk about what I maybe think is the most dangerous 
part of Pete Hegseth's views on the military, and that is his history 
of support for war criminals, his low regard for the Code of Military 
Justice, and his disbelief--his nonbelief in the concept of 
international law and the laws of war.
  It is pretty shocking that we are even having a debate here about 
whether the U.S. military should engage in torture or adhere to the 
Geneva Conventions. For those of us that served with John McCain, I 
cannot believe what he would think about the decision of a Republican 
President to appoint a Secretary of Defense who does not believe in the 
Geneva Conventions and the basic laws of war and claims that it is weak 
or unmanly to believe that there should be some common set of rules 
about how we engage in war.
  I do think it is legitimate to have a conversation about the rules of 
engagement. We should always be willing to revisit the rules of 
engagement. It is entirely possible--plausible even--that the rules 
that we apply to our soldiers in very difficult, complicated 
engagements, where they often don't know who is friend or foe, are 
outdated. We should be willing to have that conversation. But that is 
not what Pete Hegseth is interested in. He is interested in 
obliterating the rules of engagement. He doesn't want any constraints 
on our soldiers.
  While it is true that many of the enemies that we fight don't follow 
any rules at all, it is not good for U.S. security more broadly to give 
up on international law, the rules of war, and the rules of engagement 
and just accept a race to the bottom.
  At the hearing, Ranking Member Reed asked Pete Hegseth about three 
instances of clemency granted by President Trump in 2019--grants of 
clemency that the nominee supports.
  One soldier, a lieutenant in the Army, had been serving for 19 years 
in prison and was pardoned after being convicted of two counts of 
second-degree murder for ordering a soldier to fire on unarmed Afghan 
motorcyclists in 2012. Another was pardoned after being charged with 
murder of an Afghan in 2010. Another pardon was for an individual who 
posed and took photos with a corpse during a 2017 deployment to Iraq.
  This problem is minuscule inside our Armed Forces. It really is. Mr. 
President, 99.99 percent of our soldiers, men and women who fight for 
us, are never, ever engaged in these kinds of horrific crimes. The 
reason for that is, A, because we have good, moral people fighting for 
us, and B, because we have a code of conduct, and that deterrent helps 
to make sure that the instances of misconduct are very, very small--are 
infinitesimal. If all of a sudden that code of conduct is obliterated, 
then it becomes harder for our military leadership to make sure that 
when we are in war, we are following those rules of engagement.
  Remember, our power in the world is our tanks and our soldiers, our 
airplanes and our aircraft carriers, but it has always been our moral 
authority. We have never been perfect. We have never had leadership 
that was perfect. But to voluntarily give up on our belief that U.S. 
troops are held to a higher standard than our enemies--that shrinks our 
power in the world that makes enemies run away from us.
  In a world today where there is just a dissent from truth, right--
that is what Putin wants. Putin wants to obliterate objectivism in this 
world, to believe that there is no right or wrong, that everything is 
just an individual's viewpoint. When we retreat from those long-held 
and consensus-developed ideas about, for instance, not torturing our 
enemies during times of war, it provides a lift and assist to people 
like Putin who are trying to make us believe that there is no such 
thing as right or wrong in the world, that it is all just different 
shades of gray.
  So I understand that much of the debate here will be about this 
litany of really ugly personal misconduct, and I think that is reason 
alone to say: You know what, find somebody else.
  It is not as if Pete Hegseth is the only person qualified to run the 
Department of Defense. There are other people who are loyal to Donald 
Trump, who are conservative, maybe even believe in this campaign 
against wokeism, but don't have the history of personal misconduct.
  But I also think that these questions about women in combat, about 
the political campaigns that will be run inside the Department that 
will breed a sense of paranoia, about taking seriously small but 
growing, real threats to us, like extremism in the military, and then 
this bigger question of making sure we have fealty to the laws of war 
and prohibitions against torture--I think all of those really 
concerning views of this nominee, even if the misconduct didn't exist, 
would be enough for us to say: Find somebody else. Find somebody else 
who is just going to do the job instead of trying to bring these 
political agendas, whether it is misogyny or anti-wokeism or anti-
multilateralism, into a job that really should be pretty simple. Lead 
our troops. Protect the Nation. Lift up America's standing in the 
world.
  I know the cake may be baked at this point, but I just want to make 
one more plea to my Republican colleagues to reconsider their decision 
to confirm to lead the Department of Defense somebody who seems just 
hellbent mostly on pursuing a political--not military--agenda that I 
truly believe is certain to weaken our Armed Forces and threaten our 
national security.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Murkowski). The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. WYDEN. Madam President, a number of serious and concerning issues 
were raised in Pete Hegseth's nomination hearing last week; and in the 
Hegseth nomination hearing last week, there were a number of important 
issues. And I would like to speak to one that is central to both 
America's national security and American values: the principle that 
every American has the right to know when their government believes 
that it is allowed to kill them.
  Now I don't believe this ought to be a controversial matter. My 
constituents don't believe it should be a controversial matter. The 
Bill of Rights says: No one shall be deprived of life . . . without due 
process of law.
  Government officials have, in my view, a basic obligation to explain 
any rules that allow them to ever kill an American citizen. And on 
this, the nominee to serve as Defense Secretary has simply flunked the 
test. His refusal to answer basic questions before the Senate Committee 
on Armed Services ought to trouble every single American.
  Now, I want to focus on that fundamental question concerning the 
government's power to kill Americans and why Americans have to keep 
fighting--and Senators--for transparency.
  Over a decade ago, the Obama administration took the position that 
their analysis of the President's legal authority to deliberately kill 
Americans was secret, and they refused to share that. As I said at the 
time, I believe that position was just unacceptable.
  And I told the Obama administration: If an American takes up arms 
against the United States as part of a foreign army or a terrorist 
group, there are, indeed, circumstances where it is legal to use lethal 
force against that American, but the limits and the

[[Page S352]]

boundaries of the President's authority to kill Americans must be 
available to the public so that voters can decide whether that 
authority has sufficient safeguards.
  Now, the Obama administration initially disagreed with me. They were 
clearly reluctant to acknowledge specific limits on the President's 
power. To be candid, we had a pretty big public argument about that 
over a number of weeks. Many other Senators got involved. In fact, 
Senator Paul, our colleague from Kentucky, brought the debate to a head 
with a 13-hour standing filibuster. I remember coming to the Senate 
floor to join Senator Paul, and there were a number of Republican 
colleagues who were there as well.
  I think one of the reasons it became such a significant debate in a 
viral moment is that it was literally exactly what our Founding Fathers 
envisioned: Members of the Senate coming together to check the power of 
the Presidency.
  In response to this filibuster that Senator Paul and others were part 
of, the Obama administration came around to doing the right thing. 
Attorney General Holder sent Senator Paul a letter stating clearly that 
if an American is standing on U.S. soil, not engaged in combat, then 
the President of the United States does not have the authority to use 
military force against them.
  Now, obviously, there are a host of other important questions about 
the limits of the President's war powers, but I thought that letter 
from Attorney General Holder was an important concession, and I am 
proud that Democrats and Republicans worked together on a bipartisan 
basis for it.
  I was very troubled last week by the answers that Pete Hegseth gave 
in his nomination hearing before the Armed Services Committee. For 
example, our colleague Senator Hirono asked the nominee directly if he 
would carry out an order to shoot American citizens. Mr. Hegseth could 
have given the same answer that Attorney General Holder gave us a 
decade ago, but this nominee just refused to answer the question.
  Madam President, it is even more troubling when our colleague Senator 
Slotkin asked an even easier question. Senator Slotkin asked: Is there 
such a thing as an illegal order? The answer to that question should 
very obviously be ``yes.'' If a President orders the Secretary of 
Defense to violate the law or the Constitution, that order is illegal. 
And it is, in my view, stunning that the nominee refused to answer this 
very straightforward question. Even our youngest soldiers in basic 
training know that it is their duty to refuse illegal orders. We should 
at least expect that much from our Secretary of Defense.
  So I say to my colleagues, in closing, that it comes down to this: I 
thought we agreed--Democrats and Republicans, people of a variety of 
different political philosophies--believe that what I have discussed 
are fundamentally important principles to America. We have fought hard 
in America to uphold them, and we did it together. For the life of me, 
I don't understand why we are voting today to confirm a nominee who 
can't tell us pointblank that he will oppose illegal orders and that he 
will uphold the Constitution of the United States.
  For that reason, Madam President--I haven't spoken on the matter 
until just now--I intend to vote no on Mr. Hegseth's nomination and, 
frankly, I wish more of my colleagues across the aisle, for the reasons 
that have been outlined here, were joining me in voting no.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, it is nice to see you in the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is nice being in the Chair.
  Mr. WHITEHOUSE. Madam President, I am here to add some thoughts 
regarding the vote we are going to have on Pete Hegseth for Secretary 
of Defense.
  Of course, as a Rhode Island junior Senator, I am very cognizant of 
the important role that my senior Senator Jack Reed has had on the 
committee of jurisdiction, the Senate Armed Services Committee. I want 
to give him credit for the way he has conducted himself.
  What I can bring to this conversation is a little bit about 
background investigations. I sit on the Judiciary Committee. The 
Judiciary Committee does more background investigation work than any 
other because we have so many people coming through--the judges, the 
U.S. attorneys, every marshal--all of it. So we are very busy on BIs.
  I took a deep dive into the Brett Kavanaugh background investigation 
and put out a report on the flaws and gaps and misdirections that 
transpired around that background investigation--specifically, that 
supplemental background investigation, a point I will clarify in a 
moment.
  Let's start with what we do know about the FBI background 
investigation into Mr. Hegseth. We know that only one Democrat has even 
seen it, and that is the ranking member on the committee, Senator Reed. 
And we do know that he has publicly said that that background 
investigation was--to use his word--``inadequate.'' So Republicans are 
going forward on the basis of an FBI investigation that a very 
respected Member of this body has publicly said was inadequate.
  What else do we know about it? Well, it has been reported in the 
press that the chairman has said that it took three briefings by the 
FBI to get through the background investigation. I don't know why that 
happened, but we do know that new material emerged in the press about 
various kinds of misconduct by this individual after the initial 
background investigation took place.
  So the likeliest scenario to explain why there were three background 
investigations in the light of the recurring release of further 
information about his repeated misconduct is that there were 
supplemental background investigations after the original full field 
FBI background investigation was completed.
  Let's presume that to be true. Again, we can't know this because this 
is all tied up in so much unnecessary secrecy, in my view. Let's 
presume that that is the case.
  What does that mean? Well, what we discovered during the Kavanaugh 
background investigation is that the regular FBI full field background 
investigation takes place under a set of longstanding rules and 
protocols and procedures. They have forms that they follow. It has been 
routinized to a fairly significant degree. It is different than a 
proper FBI investigation. A proper FBI investigation in the criminal 
law enforcement front has a whole different set of controls and 
protocols and supervisory roles over that. When you get into the full 
field background investigation, you are operating under a different set 
of rules, but you are still operating under rules.
  And you can ask the question to the FBI: Was this background 
investigation conducted fully within the rules and the protocols for 
background investigations--until you get to a supplemental background 
investigation.
  Now, one of the objections that I had to the way we were treated as 
we tried to get to the bottom of the Kavanaugh background investigation 
was that the then-head of the FBI kept repeatedly saying publicly--we 
were repeatedly told that the supplemental background investigation was 
done consistent with all of the FBI standard protocols and procedures. 
What was misleading about that, as we later discovered, is that for a 
supplemental background investigation, there are no operating 
procedures and protocols. Wray said that they comported with all of 
their procedures. Didn't disclose that, in fact, there are no 
procedures to comport with.
  What is the FBI doing in a supplemental background investigation? 
They are doing only and exactly what the White House has instructed 
them to do--period, no more, no less, no procedure, no protocol--which 
raises a huge question about the adequacy of this background 
investigation to the extent that, in its later stages, it was a 
supplemental background investigation.
  We know that, when the Kavanaugh investigation was going on, 
Republican Senators were told that there was no corroboration--
corroboration being kind of an important legal term here--no 
corroboration of the charges that had been brought by Dr. Blasey Ford 
of his attack on her those many years ago--no corroboration.
  What we found out, later on, is that the instructions from the White 
House

[[Page S353]]

to the FBI for that supplemental background investigation related to 
her charges were: Don't look for, don't find, and don't report to us 
any corroborating information.
  We also found out that they never interviewed either Dr. Blasey Ford 
about her allegations or Brett Kavanaugh about his conduct.
  So there is every reason to believe about this background 
investigation, as to the supplemental background investigation part of 
it, that it was woefully incomplete; that it was restricted by the 
White House to very, very narrow bounds; that we do not know what those 
narrow bounds are; and that, very likely, neither Hegseth nor the 
individuals making the charges were even interviewed by the FBI. And we 
can suspect that because that is precisely what happened in the 
Kavanaugh background investigation.
  So there is a major, major weakness in what is publicly described as 
an inadequate background investigation, to the extent that those latter 
two segments of it that caused the three briefings to have to take 
place were supplemental background investigations precisely and exactly 
controlled by the Trump White House.
  Another point that relates to all of this is that, when these 
witnesses came forward, the standard counterattack against them was 
that they were anonymous. Over and over again, Hegseth said in the 
committee: ``Anonymous smears''--``anonymous smears.''
  These accusers were not anonymous. Not only were they not anonymous, 
they were willing and presented themselves as willing to be able to 
come over here and personally brief, in their offices, any Republican 
Senator. It is not anonymous when you are willing to show up in a 
Senator's office and give a personal briefing.
  What they weren't willing to do was to put their names out there 
publicly. Now, why would they want to steer away from that? Ask 
Christine Blasey Ford what her life was turned into by far-right and 
MAGA attacks on her after she came forward with her charges against 
Brett Kavanaugh.
  Ask the poll workers who were Rudy Giuliani's victims what their 
lives turned into after he called them out--conduct against them that 
gave rise to the massive, multimillion-dollar verdict that Rudy 
Giuliani is still struggling to pay. Evidently, some billionaire paid 
it off for him. We will see.
  But it is perfectly logical for a person to be willing to come 
forward, like many witnesses are, to identify themselves and to speak 
privately--the way people often do in a grand jury--to a prosecutor 
without yet putting your name out there. And, actually, some are not 
anonymous, but we should reject the notion that these witnesses were 
anonymous. They were not anonymous. They are real people with real 
faces who are willing to come in and tell their real stories, and 
Republican Senators simply refuse to hear them. That is a different 
thing than anonymity. They couldn't get through the doors of the 
offices.
  So either our Republican colleagues already know who these people 
are--so they are not anonymous--or they are perfectly able to find out 
by getting their names and inviting them in and hearing them out. It 
seems like a pretty simple ask.
  Now, in some cases, for instance, Mr. Hegseth's sister-in-law--ex-
sister-in-law, I guess you would say--has actually put her name on her 
affidavit, describing his abusive and drunken misconduct. So she is not 
anonymous by any stretch of the imagination. And because the far-right 
counterattack team likes to attack people who are willing to come 
forward, they actually outed one of the other witnesses in a story. I 
won't mention her name because I do not want to make things even worse 
for her, but they did out her in a rightwing publication.
  So you have at least two names that are out there that are clearly 
not anonymous and, indeed, are public. What happens with them? What 
happens with them is that they are accused of having evil motive; that 
they had a motive to lie about Pete Hegseth, and that is what is 
driving what they have been saying.
  Well, guess who is really good at interviewing witnesses and looking 
at the surrounding circumstances and evaluating a motive--the FBI. The 
FBI is. So, if the FBI in this supplemental background investigation 
was instructed not to evaluate motive--just to let that be a political 
hand grenade to throw with no foundation--then we have an extra layer 
of problems with this background investigation.
  So there is every reason to believe that the background investigation 
was inadequate and specifically directed by the White House away from 
relevant evidence, the way the Kavanaugh investigation was directed 
away from corroborating evidence. Here, it would have been directed 
away from evidence of motive, and you have got a real problem on your 
hands.
  I urge my Republican colleagues--this is kind of the last call. If 
this guy gets in and starts to behave the way reasonable people can 
expect him to behave, you are going to own that. And when you say, 
``Oh, the background investigation should have brought that up,'' not 
if you didn't ask about the background investigation, not if you didn't 
get a real one, not if you didn't bring the actual witnesses in to hear 
from them themselves.
  We have had another little event recently, which are the pardons of 
the violent January 6 rioters.
  Before those pardons took place, our Republican colleagues said over 
and over again that that will never happen; that this is a weird 
Democrat pipe dream. ``The very notion of pardoning these violent 
rioters who hurt police officers--who attacked and harmed police 
officers--is absurd,'' said one colleague. The Vice President said it 
wasn't going to happen; that it would be wrong.
  And after all of that talk and all of that reassurance, what 
happened? Donald Trump went right out and did it.
  So, if you think there are guardrails around this individual, it has 
already been proven that they are not there. The thing you thought was 
absurd, the thing you thought would never happen, the thing you said 
was wrong was done, and if that is not a lesson as we go forward into 
these other defective nominees, I can't help you; I can't make you vote 
any other way.
  But it ought to be clear that, with future misconduct by this guy, 
whether he is being drunk on duty or erratic or abusive or 
inappropriate with female staff and officers or even abusing the power 
of our military to accomplish political purposes for President Trump, 
there is really no sign of guardrails to prevent that, and an 
inadequate FBI report is something that should be cleared up before 
Republicans are forced to vote on this.
  It is in your power to look into these things and get it done. It is 
not in our power in the minority. We are doing the best we can. So I 
urge you to consider those dangers as we move forward toward this vote.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam President, we are about to have a monumental vote 
out here on the floor of the U.S. Senate on who will become the next 
Secretary of Defense for the United States of America.
  The defense budget in the United States is $900 billion. The person 
who is given that responsibility has to be exceptionally well qualified 
in order to deal with all of the responsibilities that are tied to 
those military and personnel decisions which have to be made because 
there are 3.5 million servicemembers, and there are hundreds of 
thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, combat vehicles, satellites, 
and the nuclear arsenal. And a variety of sources, including his own 
writings, implicate him with disregarding the laws of war, of financial 
mismanagement, of racist and sexist remarks about Americans in uniform, 
of sexual assault, of sexual harassment, and other very troubling 
issues.
  These are perilous times, and the position of Secretary of Defense 
demands a leader of unparalleled experience, wisdom, and, above all 
else, character. The Secretary of Defense carries an immense 
responsibility not only to the American people but to the 
servicemembers whom they lead.
  If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth will have a responsibility to serve our 
servicemembers in a manner that is fair and nonpartisan and 
responsible. Yet Mr. Hegseth has demonstrated that he is incapable of 
doing so.
  He has said:

       I am straight up just saying we should not have women in 
     combat roles.


[[Page S354]]


  He is opposed to transgender people serving in the military, despite 
their willingness to serve and sacrifice for our country right now.
  He called reproductive justice ``absolutely and utterly meaningless'' 
in the military. He opposed Pentagon policies to help servicemembers 
get reproductive care, including IVF to start a family. These are 
American servicemembers.
  I find Hegseth's record extremely alarming. He is nominated to lead 
an Agency charged with defending American freedom abroad. Yet he does 
not stand for freedom and dignity and respect for the servicemembers of 
the United States of America in the military. Indeed, Mr. Hegseth's own 
writings and alleged conduct should disqualify him from holding any 
leadership position in the military, much less from being confirmed as 
the Secretary of Defense for our Nation.
  Donald Trump dared to impugn the legacy of the late, honorable 
Congressman John Lewis by saying, ``John Lewis was all talk and no 
action,'' but then Trump nominates a Secretary of Defense, Pete 
Hegseth, who perpetuates the lie, the racism that Black military 
officers are only promoted because of their race. Tell that to Colin 
Powell; tell that to Lloyd Austin, that they were only promoted because 
of their color. This is not just a failure of leadership; it is a moral 
crisis that strikes at the heart of who we are as a people.
  It is not enough to just oppose Trump's vision. There are hundreds of 
thousands of women in the military right now, and 19 percent of our 
military is African American. These are Hegseth's own words about this 
very high percentage of the members of our military right now.
  So the criticism of Hegseth is bipartisan. Senators from both sides 
of the aisle are opposed to this nomination. If you didn't know 
anything else about him--if we didn't have any more hearings, if we 
didn't have any more documents, if we didn't have any other people 
coming forward--we already have enough evidence and eye-watering detail 
sufficient to cast a ``no'' vote on the floor of the U.S. Senate on 
this nomination. That is because the position of Secretary of Defense 
is a serious job. We need someone who will bring their A game, 24/7, 
365 days a year; and Pete Hegseth is not that person. His lack of 
experience aside, he has not shown the necessary morality, sense, or 
judgment to be Secretary of Defense.

  Take the issue of nuclear weapons. Is this the person we want 
advising the President on whether or not he should launch a nuclear 
weapon against another country and possibly begin the end of life on 
Earth as we know it?
  Secretary of Defense is a very important position. It puts him right 
at the heart of these nuclear decisions.
  This nomination is a joke. Are you kidding me? Pete Hegseth will be 
there helping to decide whether or not we launch nuclear weapons?
  Let's be clear. President Trump, as Commander in Chief, has the sole 
authority to order the launch of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. This is 
crazy, on its face, that one person can determine whether or not we 
start a nuclear war, with no consultation with anyone else. That is 
just absolutely absurd on its face, because no one person, particularly 
not President Trump, should have that unilateral power to start nuclear 
war.
  I have just reintroduced my legislation with Congressman Ted Lieu in 
the House of Representatives to make it the policy of the United States 
that no President can use nuclear weapons first without the express 
approval of Congress if we have not been attacked with nuclear weapons. 
You have got to come to Congress. But that is not the law right now. It 
is just the President.
  Under the Constitution, Congress gets to declare war, not the 
President. But for now, President Trump has that power exclusively. At 
any time, for any reason, he can call over the military attache with 
the nuclear football and call the war room at the Pentagon and give the 
order to launch. Trump does not have to consult with anyone--not 
Congress, not the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not the Secretary of Defense.
  But if President Trump did want to get a second opinion before 
starting a nuclear war which could end humanity, calling the Secretary 
of Defense would usually be a pretty good option in order to make that 
decision. Do we have any reason to believe that Pete Hegseth has any 
clue about nuclear weapons or nuclear policy or nuclear strategy? No, 
we do not.
  In fact, Mr. Hegseth's only qualification for this job that I can see 
is whether he will do whatever the President asks him to do.
  Pete Hegseth is a yes-man. If President Trump calls Pete Hegseth at 2 
a.m. in the morning and says, Pete, I am about to start a nuclear war, 
even though we haven't been attacked with nuclear weapons, what will 
Pete Hegseth say? He will say, yes, sir.
  So from this perspective, Mr. Hegseth is the worst possible choice to 
lead the Department of Defense.
  We need someone who can challenge the President's thinking, slow him 
down, curb his worst impulses, and give him sober, reasoned advice. And 
with Hegseth, that is not going to happen.
  There are other monumental decisions on nuclear policy that President 
Trump will need reasoned advice on that he is not likely to get from 
Pete Hegseth. During the campaign, Trump had just one clear proposal 
related to nuclear policy: to build an Iron Dome missile defense system 
to ensure that ``no enemy can strike our homeland.''
  Now, this is a throwback to former President Ronald Reagan's 1983 
proposal called the Strategic Defense Initiative--also called Star 
Wars--to build a system of space- and ground-based interceptors to make 
nuclear weapons ``impotent and obsolete.'' It made for great slogans. 
But after 40 years and some $400 billion, the technology is still not 
up to the challenge.
  If you try to scale up Iron Dome and cover a country the size of the 
United States against hundreds of Russian or Chinese long-range 
missiles, it just won't work.
  Trump could provoke a new arms race, even without his Iron Dome on 
steroids. Trump's allies have called for the United States to build 
more nuclear weapons than Moscow and Beijing combined.
  This idea is popular among conservatives at the Heritage Foundation 
and Project 2025. But let's be clear. Expanding the U.S. nuclear 
arsenal is a terrible idea.
  We need treaties that end the nuclear arms race. We don't need a 
nuclear arms race with AI making these weapons even more deadly, even 
more accurate. We need treaties. We need negotiations. We need to come 
together on the planet. That is what we should be talking about.
  Building more than we need is a waste of money, but it also makes the 
world more dangerous, not less dangerous, because it provokes a 
response from the other side.
  Second, guess what Moscow and Beijing will do if Washington suddenly 
builds more bombs. They will do the same.
  Third, a U.S. buildup would doom any chances of saving the U.S.-
Russian arms reduction process.
  The last remaining treaty, New START, expires 1 year from now. And 
unless we replace that treaty, there will no longer be any legal limits 
on the United States or Russian warheads for the first time in 50 
years.
  Do you hear what I said? No limits. We are in a new world now. For 50 
years, we have had limits on nuclear weapons. They will all be gone in 
a year.
  Trump's allies are also calling for the United States to resume the 
testing of nuclear weapons for the first time since 1992. We ended 
nuclear testing three decades ago and then signed the Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty in 1996 banning all nuclear tests. We have conducted 
more nuclear tests--over 1,000--than all other nations combined. We 
have no need to test. But if we do, other nations will too, like Russia 
and China. Beijing has only conducted 45 nuclear tests. We have 
conducted a thousand.
  Imagine how much China could learn if Trump gives it an excuse to 
resume testing, which China is not doing.
  The only state in the world today that is still conducting nuclear 
tests is North Korea. We should be pressuring Pyongyang to stop, not 
reopening this Pandora's box.
  So, under Trump, we could see billions of dollars spent on long-range 
missile defenses that don't work, the end of arms control and the start 
of a

[[Page S355]]

new nuclear arms race with Russia and China, and new nuclear testing. 
All of this would make the world a more dangerous place and increase 
the risk of nuclear conflict.
  If Trump asks Hegseth if he should do these dangerous things, the 
answer will be yes and yes and yes. That is where we are going to be.
  Now, there is some possible good news, too. Trump, not surprisingly, 
gets along well with Russian President Putin. They might end the war in 
Ukraine. If they do, that could open up a path to negotiate a treaty, 
to follow a New START.
  And as President Trump said just this week: We want to see if we can 
denuclearize. And I think it's very possible. And I can tell you that 
President Putin, if he wants to do it, we should take him up on it.
  We should see. We should move in that direction.
  As for Mr. Hegseth, the last thing President Trump needs is a yes-man 
for Secretary of Defense.
  I will just add one final issue. As a national security threat, 
climate change, which the Pentagon and which the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
have said over and over and over again is a threat multiplier to our 
military and our ability to protect the world--it is a threat 
multiplier. Having a President who is a climate denier, coupled with 
the Secretary of Defense who is a climate denier, just ignores the 
reality of the world as it is unfolding in this climate era.
  The whole defense budget is $900 billion. Hurricanes Milton and 
Helene in October and November, combined with the fires in Los Angeles 
right now, $500 billion of damage in three storms. That is half the 
entire defense budget for our country.
  We can't have a Secretary of Defense who doesn't believe that climate 
change is a threat multiplier to our military and to the security of 
the planet. We need someone there who can speak truth to power to the 
President of the United States.
  So I can't more strongly recommend a ``no'' vote on the floor of the 
Senate on this nomination. He is unqualified. His confirmation could be 
very dangerous to our Nation. We need military personnel who respects 
the Secretary of Defense. We will have none of that with Pete Hegseth.
  So I very, very strongly recommend to this body that we vote no and 
tell the President to come back with someone who is worthy of this most 
important of all positions in his Cabinet.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. McCORMICK). The clerk will call the roll.
  The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. 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 Maryland.