[Congressional Record Volume 171, Number 15 (Friday, January 24, 2025)]
[Senate]
[Pages S363-S368]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Nomination of Peter Hegseth
Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the pending matter of
the Pete Hegseth nomination to be Secretary of Defense.
Before I get into the bulk of my comments, I want to just state my
own record in terms of votes for the Secretary of Defense as a member
of the Armed Services Committee. This administration is the fourth
Presidential administration I have been part of. I was elected with the
second Obama administration, then served in the first Trump
administration, then the Biden administration, and now a second Trump
administration. As to my track record as an Armed Services Committee
member and as a Member of this body, I voted for every Secretary of
Defense nomination before the body.
In focusing on the Trump nominees, President Trump nominated General
Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. I voted for him in committee. I
voted for him on the floor, and he received a 98-to-1 vote with 1
abstention when he was before us in 2017. Secretary Mattis served
during a portion of President Trump's term and then stepped down, and
President Trump nominated Mark Esper, who had been the Secretary of the
Army, to succeed General Mattis.
A Trump administration nominee paid me the honor of asking if I would
introduce him before the Armed Services Committee, and I did. He is a
Virginian. I had worked with Secretary Esper when he was the Army
Secretary on military housing issues. He had been responsive and
professional. So I said: Sure. You are President Trump's nominee, but I
am going to introduce you before the committee.
Secretary Esper was approved in the committee--I think unanimously--
and the vote on the floor for Secretary Esper was 90-8-2.
I bring that up just to say it is not my desire or norm to stand on
the floor and speak in opposition to a nominee for Secretary of Defense
or to speak in opposition to a nominee by President Trump for Secretary
of Defense.
I spoke the other day--probably 2 days ago--here about why I am
opposing Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. What I want to focus
on today is his claim. I know my colleagues have been on the floor all
day long explaining their own reasons for their opposition to Pete
Hegseth, but I want to just really drill down on what Pete Hegseth is
saying about the allegations that folks are making against him.
This was pretty apparent in the committee hearing a week ago Tuesday,
and it has been consistent since. It was most clear in a recitation
that he had back and forth with Senator Kelly of Arizona.
Senator Kelly asked him: I am just going to ask you really simple
questions. Here is an event that someone says you participated in; true
or false?
Again and again and again, what Pete Hegseth said was ``anonymous
smears.'' He didn't say ``false'' because if you say ``false'' to
something that you have done, it could verge on perjury. He didn't say
``true'' because if you say ``true'' to these kinds of allegations, it
could be disqualifying.
So it was a very interesting litany where, again and again and again,
Senator Kelly said: Here is an event; true or false?
``Anonymous smears.''
``Anonymous smears'' was a very, very sophisticated way of not
answering the question. Yet, even as I examined Pete Hegseth about
marital infidelity and about a sexual assault allegation against him
that led him to make a payout to the complainant, about allegations of
spousal abuse, again and again, what he said was ``anonymous smears.''
So what I want to do during my time today, since I have already laid
out sort of my bill of particulars about why I am not supporting his
nomination, I want to focus on this: The claims that have been made
against Pete Hegseth are not anonymous, and they are not smears. They
are not anonymous, and they are not smears.
Let me start with ``not anonymous.''
To begin with, many of the claims are claims that have been admitted
by Pete Hegseth. So let's start with the man himself. He has admitted
serial infidelity in both of his first two marriages. He told me at the
committee hearing that he took an oath of fidelity to his wife, but he
admitted to serial infidelity. That is not an irrelevant factor when we
are analyzing whether someone who takes an oath to become Secretary of
Defense is able to carry out that oath.
Pete Hegseth admitted as recently as yesterday that he made a payout
to somebody who charged him with a sexual assault. There was an
incident in Monterey in September of 2017 that led to a criminal sexual
assault complaint and a criminal investigation. It did not lead to
criminal charges, but it did lead to a civil charge and a settlement
and a payout and a nondisclosure agreement. He has admitted to all of
that. He claims it was a consensual event, and the victim claims it was
a sexual assault, but as to the fact of the interaction and the fact
that it was both cheating on an existing wife and also on the mother of
a newborn child, he has admitted to all of that. It is not an anonymous
claim when Pete Hegseth has admitted to this.
Second, it is not anonymous what Pete Hegseth's mother wrote to him.
Pete Hegseth was in the middle of a very contentious divorce from his
second wife, Samantha, in 2018, and he received a most extraordinary
email from his mother. This is not anonymous, and I want to read the
email. It is an extraordinary bit of tough love from a mom to a son.
Son, I have tried to keep quiet about your character and
behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha
feel today, I cannot stay silent. And as a woman and your
mother I feel I must speak out.
You are an abuser of women--that is the ugly truth and I
have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats,
sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You
are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it
pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad,
sad truth.
I am not a saint, far from it, so don't throw that in my
face, but your abuse over the years to women (dishonesty,
sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling) needs to be
called out.
Sam is a good mother and a good person (under the
circumstances that you created) and I know deep down you know
that. For you to try to label her as ``unstable'' for your
own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense
of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of
what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.
Meredith was the first wife.
I know you think this is one big competition and that we
have taken her side . . . bunk. . . . We are on the side of
good and that is not you. (Go ahead and call me self-
righteous, I don't care.) Don't you dare run to her and cry
foul that we shared with us. . . . That's what babies do.
It's time for someone--
Someone--
(I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive
behavior and call it out, especially against women.
We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and
lack of character. I don't want to write emails like this and
never thought I would. If it damages our relationship
further, then so be it, but at least I have said my piece.
And yes, we are praying for you (and you don't deserve to
know how we are praying, so skip the snarky reply).
I don't want an answer to this . . . I don't want to debate
with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But .
. . on behalf of all the women (and I know it's many) you
have abused in some way, I say . . . get some help and take
an honest look at yourself . . . Mom.
This is not an anonymous smear. I know a little bit about a mother's
love. I know a little bit about a mother's tough love. This is not an
anonymous smear, but it is an extraordinary, painful, candid rebuke.
Why do I have this letter? This is not a letter that anyone in this
body had. This is a letter that appeared in a newspaper about a month
ago. The only people who would have had this email are family, the
people closest in
[[Page S364]]
the world to Pete Hegseth. No one else would have seen this. No one
else would have had it. No one else could have read it on the floor of
the Senate unless someone very close to Pete Hegseth--a member of his
immediate family--decided years after it was written that a man
nominated to be Secretary of Defense whose character had led his own
mother to write this letter--that this is a fact that should be put
before the public in analyzing the character and qualifications of this
individual--not anonymous.
Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law Danielle Hegseth, who had been
married to his brother Nathaniel, submitted an affidavit that is in the
Senate records, which is available to all of my colleagues, and all
have read this affidavit or made a decision that they didn't want to
read it, but it is available to all of us.
The affidavit that Danielle has written about the treatment that was
referred to by his mother in this letter is completely consistent with
what the mother says. The mother wrote this. It is now public. Danielle
has signed an affidavit about it. It is now public, and it is
completely consistent with what the mother said. Danielle Hegseth is
not anonymous.
There is a whistleblower report that is available to all Senate
Members. I read it 10 days ago. It is for Members only, but it is
available to all hundred of us, and I hope all of my colleagues have
read it. It would be a huge mistake to vote on this nomination not
having read that whistleblower report.
What does the whistleblower report involve? It is anything but
anonymous. It is a report that was generated years ago when Pete
Hegseth was the leader of an organization called Concerned Veterans for
America. It wasn't created for this hearing. It wasn't created because
of a Secretary of Defense nomination. It was created by disgruntled
employees in an organization that Pete Hegseth was leading. It is a
seven-page, single-spaced whistleblower report.
Again, I have to say it is anything but anonymous. In fact, it
mentions, by my count, 36 names of individuals connected with Concerned
Veterans for America and multiple events of improper behavior by Pete
Hegseth as the leader: being at work events impaired by alcohol,
creating a toxic work culture that led to the sexual harassment of
women employees, repeated instances of unprofessional behavior, and
fiscal mismanagement of the organization.
I know that Pete Hegseth calls that ``anonymous smears.'' But when
you read this 6-page document--and, again, I just want to say to any
public watching this: The Senators in this body have all had access to
it. So if you see somebody like Pete Hegseth saying it is an
``anonymous smear''--no, the Members of this body have all had access
to Danielle Hegseth's affidavit, to Pete Hegseth's admissions, to the
mother's letters, and to a whistleblower report with 36 names in it
attesting to a variety of unprofessional behaviors. That document was
provided to Mr. Hegseth and his attorney, and they submitted a
response.
But by my read of the document, they could not get a single
individual whose name is mentioned to challenge or retract any of the
statements that are made in the document. This is anything but
anonymous.
Again, all Members have seen this. All Members have had access to it.
These are not anonymous claims. They are on-the-record claims by people
very close to this man, including in a most unusual way, his own
mother.
Now, I will acknowledge this: There are some who have come forward
who are anonymous. I have to acknowledge that. They are anonymous
because they are afraid.
I have had extensive conversations with a close personal friend of
the second wife who has told me things that are directly supportive of
the public materials contained in the mother's letter and in the
Danielle Hegseth affidavit.
I don't know that he knows Danielle, but what he told me is
completely consistent with Danielle Hegseth's allegations that Pete
Hegseth was abusive to his second wife. But this individual is afraid
to come forward and have his name mentioned because he believes that,
if his name was mentioned, he would be subject to abuse and potentially
violence.
I have spoken to a close friend of Jane Doe, the complainant in the
sexual assault allegation and the sexual assault civil complaint and
settlement, with direct knowledge of this. She has told me a number of
things that confirm the public reporting about the sexual assault
allegation, but she is afraid, for her own physical safety, to come
forward.
And I have spoken to one of the individuals whose name is mentioned,
among the 36 whose names are mentioned, in the whistleblower report,
who participated in putting it together years ago, who was able to give
some texture and context to this report that all Members have had
access to. She expressed a willingness to speak to the FBI about it.
She doesn't want to come forward publicly because she is afraid, but
she expressed a willingness. Mr. President, get this: She expressed a
willingness weeks ago to talk to the FBI about the whistleblower
report, which they had.
And as of 2 hours ago, the FBI has not been in contact with a single
individual whose name is mentioned in this whistleblower report.
Now, we already know that the FBI, in their initial investigation,
did not reach out to either of the wives--wife one and wife two. They
didn't reach out.
I haven't seen the FBI report. I am not allowed to see it. It is only
accessible by our committee chair and ranking. But I asked Senator
Reed: Was there any reference to it? Was there any evidence that either
of the first wives were interviewed?
I mean, you had the letter from the mother. Why wouldn't you go talk
to the wives about the behavior? The FBI didn't talk to the first or
second wife. They had to go back and do an interview, after we brought
that up that they hadn't even done it. They did a cursory interview
about Mr. Hegseth's drinking but didn't ask him about the abuse
allegations.
But as of 2 hours ago, the FBI still has not reached out to a single
person whose name is contained as someone with knowledge about the
whistleblower report and the activities of Mr. Hegseth when he was the
CEO or the lead executive of Concerned Veterans for America.
I am saddened that a friend of wife two, that a friend of Jane Doe,
that somebody who is a whistleblower is so physically afraid to come
forward and say what they know because of fears of violence against
them. That makes me sad. But I will stake my reputation on this: What
they have told me is a direct match and an affirmation of the material
contained in the public accounts from the mother, from Pete Hegseth's
own admissions, from the sexual assault facts that we know, and from
the Danielle Hegseth affidavit.
I have taken some time to go over this to show that the material that
this body is considering is not anonymous, and now I want to turn to
the second. It is not a smear.
The Pete Hegseth allegation seems to be that this is all created at
the last minute to try to derail him from being Secretary of Defense,
and, in that way, it is a smear. It wouldn't be further from the truth.
The sexual assault claim happened years ago. It was not created to
try to stop Pete.
The whistleblower report was written more than a decade ago. It was
not written to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense.
Pete Hegseth has admitted to serial infidelity years ago. Those
allegations were not brought up to stop Pete Hegseth from being
Secretary of Defense.
And, finally, this letter from Pete Hegseth's mother, it was sent
years ago, and it wasn't sent to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary
of Defense. It was sent, as his own mother has recently stated in media
interviews, as a message of love. This painful, painful email was sent
to her son as a message of love.
None of this material was a smear. None of this material was created
once Pete Hegseth was nominated to be Secretary of Defense to try to
stop him. This material has been around for many, many years and was
created contemporaneously with abuse that he was visiting upon others
because people were trying to stop him. They were trying to stop him as
a message of love. They were praying for him. They
[[Page S365]]
were encouraging him to look in the mirror and improve. Yet he says
this is all a smear.
That is not the case. They are not smears. They are clear and
consistent and contemporaneous reports of the behavior, judgment,
impulse control, and character of this nominee for the most important
Cabinet position that any President will forward to the U.S. Senate.
I am going to conclude and just say this: We can do better. As a
nation, we can do better. As a U.S. Senate, we can do better.
Supporters of President Trump can do better. Members of the military
can do better. Veterans can do better. Blue Star families--I am one. My
kid is a Marine reservist. We can do better.
We need to do better. We need to do better by our Active Duty. We
need to do better by our Guard and Reserve. We need to do better by DOD
civilians. We need to do better by military families. We need to do
better by defense contractors. We need to do better by all who care
about the important mission of the American military. And we can do
better.
Mr. President, you and I both know this: There are so many good
public officials who have aligned on the Republican side, who have
supported President Trump, who have their own credentials.
In this body--I could name a bunch, but I am worried I would forget
one and then get in trouble with one of the ones I don't name. But in
this body, there are Senators who have served honorably in the military
and are well qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense.
In the House, there are Members who are loyal to this President who
have served honorably in the military and are qualified to be Secretary
of Defense.
We have Governors, we have mayors, we have leaders of companies who
have supported this President and are loyal to his agenda and could get
a 90-8-2 vote, like Mark Esper did, or a 98-to-1 vote, like General
Mattis did, and would be loyal to this President and carry out this
President's agenda.
They are there. There are hundreds of them without the personal
baggage of sexual assault claims that have been settled, of allegations
of spousal abuse that have been testified to, of allegations of
drunkenness on the job and fiscal mismanagement that are the subject of
a very extensive report written by non-anonymous coworkers.
So as we near the vote for this most important position, my plea to
my colleagues, as one who has supported every Secretary of Defense who
has ever come before my committee--Democrat or Republican--is don't
rush this and make a mistake.
No one in this room, should this break badly following the
confirmation, could say: Well, I didn't know. I didn't know.
Everyone knows. Everyone has access to this material. Everyone knows
the risk we would be undertaking in confirming Pete Hegseth to be
Secretary of Defense. There will be no place--no shelter, no refuge--of
``Wow, I was unaware of this.''
But, more importantly than that, we all know people right in this
Chamber who are qualified by background, who are qualified by
credential, but, most importantly, who are qualified by character to
undertake this most solemn responsibility.
Let's get this one right. Let's take the time and get this one right.
With that, I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. SCHIFF. Mr. President, the men and women serving at home and
overseas under the flag of the United States of America are counting on
us. To guide the Pentagon through times of war or peace, they need and
deserve a Secretary of Defense who is a person of considerable
experience and can run a mammoth Agency, who has exhibited good
judgment, who is a person of good character, who appreciates the role
of women in the military in and out of combat, and who they can look on
in confidence to guide us through some of the most difficult and
complex national security threats we have ever faced. While I greatly
respect his time in the service, regrettably, that person is not Pete
Hegseth.
This is no minor or ceremonial position. The Secretary of Defense is
responsible for a nearly trillion-dollar budget, one-eighth of all
Federal spending, and the 3 million people who serve under that charge.
In my time in Congress, I have worked with Secretaries of Defense
from both parties who understood their sacred responsibility and upheld
their oaths to support every one of our troops and lead our Nation's
military to the best of their ability. Secretaries Gates and Panetta,
Mattis and Carter, and many others come to mind.
But Mr. Hegseth lacks the experience to be the Secretary of Defense.
Mr. Hegseth has not shown the judgment to be Secretary of Defense. Mr.
Hegseth has not shown the character to be Secretary of Defense. For
this job is a heavy responsibility, and he is not the right person for
the job.
His record speaks for itself: financial mismanagement in the
organizations he led--organizations much, much smaller than the
Pentagon, with budgets that were a fraction of the size and
nevertheless squandered and mismanaged. He has at times demonstrated a
callous disregard for human rights and the laws of armed conflict,
going so far as to recommend that the President disregard the Geneva
Conventions and intervene in cases of servicemembers convicted of war
crimes. He has a history of belittling our brave women in uniform, of
denigrating the service of women in uniform and their abilities. These
failures are not trivial. They are real, they are significant, and they
cannot be ignored.
So let's not mince words: Pete Hegseth is the wrong choice for
Secretary of Defense.
Mr. President, many of my colleagues have spoken on the floor about
Mr. Hegseth's personal shortcomings and lack of experience to carry out
the job to which he has been nominated. I would like to speak also
about what we need from a Secretary of Defense and what a more
appropriate nominee should bring to this position of such immense
responsibility.
The challenges we face today are enormous. They demand real
experience and leadership.
The largest land war in Europe since World War II rages on.
The Middle East is a tinderbox, with a terrorist group still running
Gaza, with hostages still in captivity, with a new Syrian regime of
uncertain direction, a weakened but still dangerous Iran with all of
its proxies, still threatening retaliation.
China looms as a peer global competitor, with a stated object of
expanding its influence and territory and outpacing the United States.
China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea are increasingly aligned with
the shared goal of rolling back U.S. influence and have developed a
robust operational partnership. Iran and North Korea provide Russia
with drones and missiles to prosecute its relentless war of aggression
against Ukraine, all while China provides money and dual-use
technologies to underpin Russia's resurgent wartime economy. Trade
amongst this bloc seeks to frustrate U.S.-led international sanctions.
We don't know what technology and know-how Russia has already or will
provide rogue states like Iran and North Korea for their nuclear,
missile, and other WMD programs.
This growing alignment among authoritarians threatens our country and
our allies. Yet here we are, being asked to hand over the keys to our
national defense to someone so patently unqualified, so palpably
unprepared.
I think it is telling that Mr. Hegseth's opening statement to the
Senate Armed Services Committee failed to even mention the war in
Ukraine. Just imagine, perhaps the most important national security
issue that the previous Congress debated--whether to provide aid to our
partners in Ukraine to turn back the Russian attack and defend their
homeland--doesn't merit a sentence in his opening testimony. This is a
conflict that President Trump now owns, and we must rely on him and his
administration--including, if he were confirmed, Mr. Hegseth--to
support our democratic partner.
[[Page S366]]
When the Senator from Maine asked Mr. Hegseth about the omission of
the war in Ukraine from his prepared remarks, here was his response:
Senator, that is a Presidential-level policy decision.
This from the person who is supposed to be the President's senior
adviser on defense matters and a key official needed to rally NATO and
other nations to Ukraine's defense.
We have a moral and a legal obligation and imperative to aid Ukraine
in its existential fight against Russia and to protect our NATO allies
should Russia's ambitions be left unconstrained. The last Congress made
clear its support with bipartisan, overwhelming votes to reaffirm our
support for Ukraine in this fight, and we will do so again as
necessary.
It is not just a matter of Ukrainian security. If Russia is allowed
to succeed in its objectives in Ukraine, whether on the battlefield or
through a forced but favorable negotiated settlement, it will not stop
there. Russia is already engaged in influence operations, cyber
operations, and attacks against critical infrastructure up and down its
border with NATO.
Allowing Russia to tear off parts of Ukraine will embolden Putin,
allow him to better arm his war machine, and will send a message that
NATO is fragmented and weak.
It will not be just Russia that receives this message; Xi Jinping is
watching intently what is happening with Ukraine and whether America
will continue to defend its allies and its values.
That is why Taiwan supports U.S. aid to Ukraine, even if it means
sending weapons there that might otherwise be shipped to Asia--because
Taiwan wants to know that if and when they face their own day of
reckoning, that the United States will honor its commitments to come to
its defense.
Our allies must be able to count on us, on the President, on the
Secretary of Defense. They must. A nominee who ignores our obligations
or our national interests in helping Ukraine roll back Russia's war
machine is not a person capable of defending our interests across the
globe. They just aren't.
The responsibilities go well beyond our foreign commitments. The
Secretary of Defense has an enormous task to continue to rebuild the
strength and readiness of our forces. For nearly two decades, wars in
the Middle East and a long list of contingencies have pushed military
readiness to the breaking point. The Army, Air Force, and Navy continue
to face major recruitment challenges just to maintain their current
size, let alone what may be necessary to--God forbid--fight a major war
in the coming years against technologies we can only imagine now. We
need a Secretary of Defense who can lead and inspire our troops, from
the most senior officers to the youngest enlisted men and women.
Mr. Hegseth has belittled women in the military. He has attacked
people who live their lives differently than he would prefer. He has
stood with those who violate the law rather than those who keep the
peace. And he has no experience running a large enterprise. His
experience running small enterprises was a terrible failure.
We need a Secretary of Defense with the management experience to
rebuild and reshape our national security for the challenges of the
present and the future. As our assistance to partners in the wars in
Ukraine and in the Middle East have shown, we need to bring about
urgent reforms if we are to produce the platforms, weapons, and
ammunition necessary to supply our partners with the tools they need to
fight and win.
So long as our enemies test the dearness of our beliefs with fire and
steel, we must ensure that our military remains the best equipped, best
prepared fighting force in the world. This requires investment in our
manufacturing sector and the defense acquisition process. Anything less
is not an ``arsenal of democracy'' or ``Freedom's Forge''; it is a
failure of our duty to defend ourselves and our allies, which is to say
nothing of the need to develop new technologies and new operational
concepts, tapping into the best innovative minds across the country.
Let's face it, the United States is on the brink of losing its
overwhelming technological edge. Bringing it back will require
reshaping the Pentagon to include new participants ready to disrupt
some of our hidebound, bureaucratic, and expensive processes--new
innovators and technologies, including many from my home State of
California.
Partners that embrace new technology are more nimble to meet today's
challenges. There is simply nothing in Mr. Hegseth's background or his
performance to demonstrate that he has the necessary understanding or
ability to make these changes.
GEN Matthew Ridgway was one of the greatest military minds of the
20th century. His service spanned decades and continents--and after the
end of his service as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers, he was
recruited to join the ``Wise Men,'' a group of retired diplomats,
politicians, and generals who assembled from time to time to give their
advice to President Lyndon B. Johnson.
He knew then--as we know today--what makes effective leadership in
both war and peace on the front lines and on the homefront. He said:
There is far more to professional fitness than knowledge
and skill in the techniques and tools of war. These the
officer must have, but the final test of his ability is not
in what he knows but in what he is. There is no substitute
for those innate qualities which we generally refer to as
character.
My fellow Senators, put aside the nominee's lack of knowledge and
lack of experience to prepare him for a role of this magnitude. We must
also consider this nominee's absence of character becoming of a
Secretary of Defense. You heard it in his confirmation hearings. You
have heard it described by my colleagues today. You have seen it on
television, read about it in the materials that we have been provided
that demonstrates Mr. Hegseth's unfitness for this office. Character
matters--it does. It still does.
And no amount of tough talk on TV or bromides about a warrior spirit
can make up for a distinct lack of character.
GEN Omar Bradley, the first ever chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and the longest serving active duty servicemember in the history
of the United States Armed Forces, wrote to the Infantry School
Quarterly in April of 1953. He said:
Leadership in a democratic Army means fairness, not
harshness; understanding, not weakness; justice, not license;
humaneness, not intolerance; generosity, not selfishness;
pride, not egotism.
Think about those qualities. Think about whether the nominee we
consider today resembles even just one of them. Certainly not
generosity. Certainly not humanity. Certainly not understanding.
Certainly not.
I understand that politics can be complicated, but there is nothing
complicated about this. Our servicemembers are watching. Their families
who fear that their loved ones may be sent to battle are watching. Our
adversaries are watching. There is an inscription down the hall that
says it plainly, what we should consider in this moment:
Our government, conceived in freedom and purchased with
blood can be preserved only by constant vigilance.
Constant vigilance. The vote before us today is about Mr. Hegseth,
but it is also about all of us. What do we stand for? Are we being
vigilant in the defense of our country?
This candidate is not qualified. This candidate is not experienced.
This candidate lacks judgment. This candidate lacks the character we
need to lead this Department at a time of great national peril.
He is simply the wrong one for the job. I urge a ``no'' vote.
I yield the floor.
I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Ernst). The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Marshall). Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am going to support Pete Hegseth to be
Secretary of Defense. In the process of doing that, I am going to refer
generally to some of the things that I spoke about--problems at the
Department of Defense--when Mr. Hegseth was in my office for these
personal interviews that all nominees tend to do before their
consideration on the floor of the Senate.
[[Page S367]]
One of those subjects was my oversight work of the Department of
Defense. I have been conducting rigorous oversight of the Defense
Department, along with other Federal Departments, since I became a
Member of Congress. My oversight work of the Department of Defense has
led me to sound the alarm time and again about the lack of internal
controls, price gouging, and the mismanagement of the taxpayer dollars.
If confirmed, Pete Hegseth, President Trump's Secretary of Defense
nominee, will be the 16th Secretary of Defense to lead the Department
during my tenure in this Chamber.
When I met with Mr. Hegseth, I told him what I tell all Cabinet
nominees whom I meet with: When asked if you will respond to letters
from Members of Congress, instead of saying ``yes,'' you ought to say
``maybe'' so you won't be made a liar later when you don't answer those
letters, because, as we all know here in the Senate, there is not a
nominee who comes before any committee in the U.S. Senate who doesn't
firmly promise to answer all of our letters or come and testify or take
our phone calls. So everyone says yes when seeking confirmation, and
most don't respond when they get into office.
Mr. Hegseth said yes to the answer to that question in committee. He
kind of laughed when I said in my office ``You ought to say `maybe,'''
but he said ``I get the message.''
Mr. Hegseth and I also discussed the need for the Department of
Defense to pass an independent audit and upgrade outdated financial
management systems to make the independent audit being certified a real
possibility.
You know, the Department of Defense is the only Agency of the Federal
Government that can't get a certified audit, and they have been
mandated to have one for more than a decade, maybe even two decades.
They have tried to produce it.
The smallest of the military groups--the U.S. Marines--they tried to
work with that one first of all to see if they could get a certified
audit. They went through that rigamarole, and somehow they did get
certified. I asked for the Government Accountability Office to check on
the legitimacy of that certification, and the Government Accountability
Office said that it was not a legitimate certification. After a couple
of speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate about 8, 10 years ago, we
finally got them to admit that it was a hoax that they were saying they
were getting a certified audit.
So this has been a big problem for a long period of time, and I hope
Mr. Hegseth can get to the bottom of it and get a clean audit because
the lack of a clean audit opinion at the Department of Defense presents
huge potential for waste, fraud, and abuse in defense spending. When I
get to the end of my remarks, I am going to give you a couple of
examples.
Mr. Hegseth acknowledged this weakness within the Department of
Defense and assured me that he will get the Department on a proper
financial footing.
He also committed to ensuring the protections of whistleblowers who
speak out against instances of fraud, waste, and abuse that have been
unrestrained within the Department. We spoke about that issue because,
for every nominee who comes to my office wanting confirmation, I say to
them: You know, whether you have a Department of a few hundred or a few
thousand or a few 10,000s--and there are some Departments around here
that have a few hundred thousand people--big or little, you can't know
what is going on in that Department as far as listening to
whistleblowers.
I consider whistleblowers to be very dedicated to their jobs and very
patriotic people. They just want the government to do what the
government is supposed to do under the law or to spend the money the
way it is supposed to be spent. So they see something wrong; they come
forward. You know, maybe sometimes they accomplish a lot by coming
forward, but sometimes they are so frustrated that they come to us
Members of the Senate--in my particular case, Chuck Grassley. Of the 35
investigations I have going on somewhere in the executive branch of
government, 90 percent of them are instituted by information
whistleblowers give me.
So I tell these nominees: You don't know what is going on. You ought
to listen to whistleblowers.
It isn't just the case of a nominee listening to a whistleblower; it
is a case of the nominee having a culture within their Department that
will encourage middle management to listen to whistleblowers. That is
particularly a problem in the Defense Department.
We find too many whistleblowers ruining themselves professionally.
They are treated like a skunk at a picnic in their Departments. I could
tell you a lot of stories where they have been misused just because
they came forward with information that the government wasn't following
the laws.
I know you can tell from what I just said that I have been a longtime
advocate for whistleblowers and continue to work to ensure that they
are protected when they rightfully speak out about the wrongdoings
within our government.
As you can tell from my conversation with you, my colleagues, I
expect Mr. Hegseth to stay true to his word that he is going to listen
to whistleblowers and get the financial management system of the
Department of Defense turned around.
Finally, we should thank anybody who serves in the military but
particularly Mr. Hegseth for his service to our country in the
military. All of the brave men and women who have served our Nation in
uniform deserve our gratitude and respect.
Now, I told you that I would give you a couple of examples. One of
them is financial mismanagement or not following the law.
One is Janet Mello. About 6 months ago, she pleaded guilty in a Texas
court--can you believe this?--for stealing $106 million over a period
of 5 years as a Defense Department employee.
The problem there is that I am trying to get information from the
Defense Department on one of my investigations. How could an employee
of the Department of Defense over a period of 5 years get away with
$106 million? I read someplace it was $112 million, but whether it was
$106 million or $112 million, what difference does it make? It makes a
difference if $1 is stolen from the taxpayers. Anyway, if she had
stolen $5 million, she would probably still be a free person.
But what is wrong with the financial management system of the Defense
Department that they can't keep track of $106 million being stolen? So
I am trying to get an answer to that, and finally, today, I got a
response on my investigation. Maybe I got it because I talked to Pete
Hegseth about it.
Another one is what we call in Washington the JEDI, a program that
the Defense Department wanted to establish called the Joint Enterprise
Defense Infrastructure. There were people in the Defense Department who
had a conflict of interest because they had a relationship with Amazon.
Amazon wanted that contract. They didn't recuse themselves.
This whole Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure and these
contracts, there was so much competition among a couple wanting that
besides Amazon, that it was given a brandnew start on negotiations, and
I don't even know where they are on those negotiations at this point.
But those are two examples of things that have been really wrong with
the way the Department of Defense has been run, not just under Biden
but under a lot of Presidents, both Republican and Democrat, over a
long period of time. And that is why I am going to suggest that the
inspector general at the Department of Defense ought to be fired.
Hopefully, Mr. Hegseth can straighten that out.
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. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to
carefully consider their vote on the nomination of Mr. Pete Hegseth for
Secretary of Defense.
The Senate is now in the process of voting on many members of
President Trump's new Cabinet, who will determine policies that will
affect the lives of every American. However, I would argue that the
position of the Secretary of Defense is unique. It requires
[[Page S368]]
the highest quality of leadership, the ability to make on-the-spot
life-or-death decisions, excellent diplomatic skills, and character
beyond reproach.
There is no question that President Trump has the right to select his
Cabinet, but his Defense Secretary should be someone who is capable,
without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations
of those he will lead. They should have the knowledge and experience to
manage one of the most complex organizations in the world, and they
should be willing to admit what they do not know and assemble a team
who will help them carry on.
In his hearing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, last week,
and in his writings and comments, Mr. Hegseth has not proven that he is
qualified to be Secretary of Defense. He has been questioned about
allegations of significant personal misconduct, including alcohol
abuse, infidelity, sexual harassment and abuse, and toxic work
environments. He refused to really address or take ownership of these
allegations. As a result, he leaves himself open to having his personal
history subject to exploitation by adversaries, which is the last thing
we need for the leader of the most powerful military in the world.
If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be giving orders to men and women of
every race, religion, and sexual orientation. His orders may result in
these men and women risking and perhaps losing their lives. These men
and women must trust that the Secretary of Defense giving those orders
respects and supports them.
Instead, Mr. Hegseth has disparaged military personnel with racist
and sexist comments, he has derided diversity in the ranks, and he has
openly opposed women in combat roles. How can we expect our military to
overcome recruiting challenges, maintain retention, and remain the most
ready and lethal fighting force in the world if they do not have
respect for their leader? Who would want to follow the orders of
someone who belittles them?
For better or worse, the industry and workforce that supports the
Pentagon is enormous, complicated, and is a huge factor in our Nation's
economy, as well as national security. Mismanaging it can cost fortunes
in our taxpayers' investments, the American economy, and workers'
lives.
It has been widely documented that the extent of Mr. Hegseth's
management experience was running two small veterans organizations,
both of which he drove to the verge of bankruptcy and had to be
relieved from his leadership roles. He has refused to acknowledge this,
and it does not seem that he has learned from the experience. Do we
want to risk an organization with a $900 billion annual budget to such
a nominee?
Another keystone of the U.S. military is that it is entirely
professional, unlike many other nations' armies. The U.S. military is
held in such high esteem around the world because we follow the rule of
law and the Geneva Conventions. Our military is not like those of
Russia, Iran, or North Korea, whose soldiers terrorize and kill
civilians, pillage cities, and torture captives. When the U.S. military
arrives, our enemies should be afraid, but civilians should be relieved
because we hold our servicemembers to the highest standards.
But in his writings, Mr. Hegseth has shown nothing but disdain for
the rule of law and the men and women who attempt to keep our military
personnel disciplined. He wants the United States to ``fight by our own
rules.'' But do we want the U.S. military to fight like the Russian
military that is destroying Ukraine--or the Chinese or Houthis, who
show no regard for international law? Do we want to vote for a nominee
who will tear down 250 years of honorable service by the men and women
of our U.S. forces? I hope not.
As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has always been
national security, and I have tried to avoid partisanship. I don't
think it has a place in that mission. I will always pick up the phone
and call whoever holds the position of Secretary of Defense and seek
out opportunities to work with them to strengthen and support our
military.
Whoever they may be, I hope they comport themselves with the wisdom,
composure, and character that this awesome responsibility demands. Our
military men and women--indeed, the American people--deserve nothing
less from their Secretary of Defense.
The question I have is this: Is Pete Hegseth truly the best we have
to offer?
I do not believe so, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this
nominee.
With that, Mr. President, 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. WICKER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I agree with my friend from Rhode Island,
the distinguished ranking member on the committee, that this is
something Senators need to think very carefully about. And I would
remind my friend and my fellow Senators and my fellow Americans that
the voters of the United States spoke very strongly and very firmly and
overwhelmingly on the first Tuesday of November for change, and over 75
million Americans voted for change not only domestically, which we are
seeing being fulfilled even in the first week of this term, but also on
the international scene.
The United States needs to return to a position of strength, and
through that strength and through that military might, we can assure
peace for a generation. So I think one of the things that over 75
million Americans spoke for on election day was peace through strength.
The President has made his choice, and he is putting his team
together to strengthen our military and to get us ready, and the person
he has chosen to lead the Defense Department is Pete Hegseth.
The more I have seen of this young man over the time that we have had
a chance to visit and over the time that he has been questioned and
actually put through a number of trials, the more impressed I am with
his character and with his ability to withstand the slings and arrows
that we see in politics and in government today.
Pete Hegseth is ready to put forward the program of President Donald
Trump, and he has satisfied me that he will be a change agent in the
Department of Defense and that he is the person we need. He is the
President's choice, and we owe it to this Commander in Chief to put him
in this position unless he is not qualified for the office.
Mr. Hegseth is a retired major from the Army National Guard. He has
had multiple combat tours of duty. And then he has come back and he has
had some struggles. He has had some PTSD. And there are thousands and
thousands of his comrades who have experienced the same thing,
experienced problems after they came back. But he has overcome those.
And those thousands of young officers and people who have been in
combat for the United States are watching the U.S. Senate tonight, even
so, and they are watching to see whether we have listened to the dreams
and to the plans and to the hopes of this young man as the next
Secretary of Defense.
I agree with my friend: We should look carefully. But once we look
carefully, I think we will decide that this President, who has had this
mandate, is entitled to this remarkable young man as his Secretary of
Defense. I am going to vote for him early and enthusiastically, and I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
I yield the floor.