[Pages S313-S317]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Peter Hegseth

  Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I come to the floor today to address 
some of my concerns about the qualifications of the President's nominee 
to lead the Department of Defense, Mr. Pete Hegseth.
  Like many of my colleagues on the Armed Services Committee, I left 
Mr. Hegseth's hearing, last week, with a number of unanswered questions 
and some real concerns about his qualifications and abilities to serve 
in the role of Secretary of Defense. Now, every single nominee for 
Secretary of Defense, from both Democrat and Republican 
administrations, has met with me and other members on both sides of the 
aisle on the committee before their confirmation hearings, and I voted 
for every one of those nominees, from both Democrat and Republican 
administrations--Secretaries Panetta, Hagel, Carter, Mattis, Esper, and 
Austin. I didn't always agree with their views or their policies, but I 
thought they all had the qualifications and the temperament to be the 
Secretary of Defense. So I supported their nominations.
  But Mr. Hegseth chose not to meet with me or with any other Senate 
Democrat except the ranking member, Jack Reed, and he broke with 
strong, longstanding tradition to ensure that our work on national 
security remains free from partisanship. And I think that is the 
important point. We are stronger as Senators, as a Congress, and as a 
nation if we are acting together. The committee, unfortunately, was not 
afforded the opportunity to ask a number of rounds of questions. So 
there were a number of questions about his views, particularly 
regarding foreign policy and military policy, that we did not get an 
answer to.
  I have become the ranking member on the Foreign Relations Committee. 
So I am very concerned about the role of the United States in the 
world. I think the American people expect transparency regarding Mr. 
Hegseth's ability to stand by our allies and partners, to uphold 
international agreements, to abide by rules of engagement, and--the 
bottom line--to support the men and women in the military in a way that 
not only keeps us safe but that protects them as well. The almost 3 
million men and women who serve our Nation in uniform deserve a 
Secretary of Defense who will not needlessly throw them in harm's way 
or seek to divide them with partisan politics.
  So I would like to address a few issues now that we were not able to 
get to at the hearing because we were not able to ask more than one 
round of questions. I want to start with the role that our alliances 
and that our allies and partners play in our own national security.
  I believe--and we have seen it many times from the start of this 
Nation--that we are stronger and safer when we lead together with our 
allies, and we are fortunate because we have strong allies and 
partners. We don't see that coming from Vladimir Putin or from Xi in 
China, and we don't see it from the North Koreans or the Iranians. But 
the United States has strong allies who can stand with us.
  The most important security agreement we have had, I think, any time 
in our Nation's history has been with NATO. NATO is a critical, 
indispensable part of our national security. Yet the President's 
nominee for Secretary of Defense wrote in his book ``American Crusade'' 
that NATO is a ``relic'' and that it ``should be scrapped.'' Since his 
nomination, Mr. Hegseth has tried to walk back his opposition to one of 
our key international alliances, to NATO, and in advance policy 
questions from the committee, he calls NATO a ``vital U.S. interest in 
defending Europe and American interests from Russia and Vladimir 
Putin.'' This sudden reversal is welcomed because I think it is very 
important that our Secretary of Defense understands how critical NATO 
is and that it is stronger now than it has been at any time since it 
was formed, probably.
  We now have 32 members of NATO, but Mr. Hegseth's eleventh hour 
conversion to understanding the importance of our allies and partners 
raises questions about what he really believes. We asked in our 
questions for the record about NATO, and we didn't get much of a 
response.
  Now, if I had had the opportunity, I would have also brought up 
Ukraine and Mr. Hegseth's head-spinning contradictions on this matter. 
Just as America's national security interests are not to be trifled 
with, neither should be our commitment to defending democracy and the 
international world order. Any inconsistency in that commitment--let me 
start that again because this is really important. Any inconsistency in 
our commitment to support our allies and partners, to support democracy 
around the world, to support the international world order is going to 
be seen and exploited by our adversaries.
  So, again, I am puzzled as to how I should think about Mr. Hegseth's 
contradictory positions on a variety of national security and foreign 
policy issues.
  For example, he was critical of the Biden administration, as have 
many of us been on both sides of the aisle in this Chamber, for not 
moving fast enough to aid Ukraine, but then he questioned the wisdom of 
sending any U.S. assistance to Ukraine at all.
  In 2022, Mr. Hegseth called Vladimir Putin a ``war criminal'' and 
called for faster U.S. aid to Ukraine. Now he says the idea of Russia's 
launching a nuclear war is ``overinflated'' and plays

[[Page S314]]

down the severity of the conflict as merely being Putin's `` `give me 
my shit back' war.'' Well, I don't think that our NATO allies--those in 
the Baltics and Poland and Eastern Europe--think about Vladimir Putin's 
nuclear ambitions as overinflated. They know the threat he poses to 
their countries and the world. To be flippant about the threat of 
nuclear war, I think, is beneath the Office of the Secretary of 
Defense, which will have to engage with our partners on a regular 
basis.
  Now, I agree with President Trump that the American people want to 
see a resolution to this yearslong war, and I am sure that is true of 
the Ukrainians as well. But Mr. Hegseth has not, either in his hearing 
or in response to the questions that we submitted to him for the 
record, expanded on what the Department of Defense's role should be 
with respect to Ukraine, even though we have already invested $66 
billion in military assistance.
  Again, I think it is very important that we stand by our ally Ukraine 
because of the message it sends not just to the Russians and Vladimir 
Putin but because of the message it sends to Xi in China, to the 
Iranians, to the North Koreans, and to anyone who is an adversary of 
the United States. If they think we are going to walk away from our 
allies, they are going to do everything they can to divide us.
  On Afghanistan, Mr. Hegseth has also been inconsistent in his views 
of the President's foreign policy. Actually, he has been inconsistent 
in general on the President's foreign policies.
  In the lead-up to the 2016 election, Mr. Hegseth was highly critical 
of then-Candidate Trump's foreign policy stances, particularly on Iraq 
and Afghanistan. Mr. Hegseth called Mr. Trump, who was a candidate at 
the time, ``all bluster, very little substance'' and an ``armchair 
tough guy.'' He criticized then-Candidate Trump in 2015 for advocating 
for the withdrawal of forces from Afghanistan, but then he took the 
criticism back. He sharply criticized the 2021 Afghanistan withdrawal 
as did I, but he has failed to publicly comment on President Trump's 
2020 deal with the Taliban, which is what set the date certain for 
withdrawal in 2021 that then the Biden administration was actually tied 
to.
  Now, I agree. I agree that that withdrawal was not what I wanted to 
see--I didn't support it--but they were terms that President Trump, in 
his first term, set with the Taliban--terms that I thought gave away 
the store to the Taliban because there were no concessions from them on 
what we were to get for the United States. The Government of 
Afghanistan was not at the table when the terms were negotiated, and 
now we are seeing the fallout from that.
  I know that no one is watching for gaps in U.S. national security 
policy more closely than President Xi and the People's Republic of 
China. Mr. Hegseth identifies China as our peer competitor--something 
that I think all of us on the Armed Services Committee and probably 
everyone in this Chamber agrees with. But if Mr. Hegseth is so 
concerned about China, then he should realize that nothing will 
encourage President Xi's aggression more than seeing America abandon 
our allies and partners. Mr. Hegseth sees China's ambitions as a ``fait 
accompli.'' Yet he doesn't seem to recognize that his own 
inconsistencies on all of these foreign policy positions could 
contribute to this.
  A question I would like Mr. Hegseth to attempt to answer is, What 
message would it send to our adversaries if the United States ceases 
its support not just for Ukraine but for the international rules and 
norms that underpin the global order?
  I am also concerned about that with respect to the conduct of 
conflict. In his book ``The War on Warriors,'' Mr. Hegseth argued:

       Our boys should not fight by rules written by dignified men 
     in mahogany rooms 80 years ago. America should fight by its 
     own rules.

  Well, the rules that he is talking about are the Geneva Conventions, 
which established bare minimum protections against violence, torture, 
and inhumane treatment. They don't just protect those people who are 
fighting on the battlefield. They protect American soldiers.
  During his hearing, Mr. Hegseth doubled down to say ``restrictive 
rules of engagement have made it more difficult to defeat our enemies'' 
and that it would be his priority that ``lawyers aren't getting in the 
way.''
  Well, unfortunately and dangerously, this appears to be one of the 
few issues that Mr. Hegseth is consistent on. He has a documented 
history of supporting individuals who have violated military and 
international law by committing war crimes. These are individuals who 
were turned in not by our enemies but by members of their own units. 
They were convicted of crimes by our own military juries--individuals 
for whom Mr. Hegseth lobbied to get pardons.
  I don't think we can afford to entrust the safety and success of our 
men and women in uniform to a man who would himself disregard the laws 
of armed conflict and leave American credibility and moral authority in 
tatters on the world stage.
  While embracing officers convicted of war crimes, Mr. Hegseth has 
stated it is his intent to review all general officers currently 
serving in the Department of Defense. When asked if he would remove the 
current chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mr. Hegseth responded on 
the record that ``all senior officers will be reviewed.''
  Let's just think about what that means. Subjecting our general 
officers and our military that is not politicized to a political litmus 
test is not only unprecedented; it is dangerous. It will convey to the 
American public that their leadership is political.
  One of the most important roles of the Secretary of Defense is to 
seek out and consider open, honest, and direct military advice from the 
senior officers in charge of our forces. I don't know how Mr. Hegseth 
expects to receive open and honest advice from his commanders when he 
is advocating for a purge of anyone who disagrees with him.
  I am also deeply troubled by the idea that Mr. Hegseth would act as a 
yes-man himself, putting his own personal political interests above the 
well-being of our military men and women.
  At Mr. Hegseth's confirmation hearing, when asked what he would do if 
he received orders from President Trump that he knew to be illegal or 
unconstitutional, Mr. Hegseth wouldn't give a straight answer. All he 
could do was deny that President Trump was capable of giving an illegal 
order. And just for the record, to be clear, in his first term, 
President Trump did give an illegal order that then-Secretary Esper 
refused to follow, and for that, Secretary Esper was fired by the 
President.
  So I am very concerned that Mr. Hegseth lacks the consistency and the 
moral clarity to lead the most combat-credible military in the world, 
and I am very disappointed that this body would put a nominee on the 
floor without the due process of advice and consent that the position 
of the Secretary of Defense deserves. Our men and women in uniform 
deserve better. Therefore, for the first time since I was elected to 
represent the people of New Hampshire in the U.S. Senate, I plan to 
vote against this nominee for Secretary of Defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Hagerty). The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Mr. President, first, I want to commend Senator Shaheen for 
a typically thoughtful and compelling speech concerning the proposed 
nomination of Mr. Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. I will follow by 
rising to express my opposition to Mr. Pete Hegseth's nomination to be 
Secretary of Defense.
  Mr. Hegseth is the ninth Defense Secretary nominee I have considered 
as a member of the Armed Services Committee. I have voted in favor of 
all of his predecessors, including those in the first Trump 
administration. While some former Secretaries and I have disagreed 
politically, there was always an understanding that partisanship has no 
place when it comes to providing for our men and women in uniform.
  Indeed, the weight of this position--Secretary of Defense--is 
enormous. The Secretary is responsible for leading a Department of 3\1/
2\ million servicemembers and civilians; an annual budget of nearly 
$900 billion; and hundreds of thousands of aircraft, ships, submarines, 
combat vehicles, satellites, and our nuclear arsenal. They also play a 
powerful role with allies, partners, and adversaries abroad, having to

[[Page S315]]

meet, communicate, and coordinate with a whole range of individuals 
from many different ethnic groups and many different religious groups. 
That is part of the role of Secretary of Defense.
  At a bare minimum, former Secretaries of Defense have had the 
experience, wisdom, and character to do that job. Mr. Hegseth, however, 
is simply not qualified to meet the overwhelming demands to be 
Secretary of Defense.
  Last week, the Armed Services Committee held a nomination hearing for 
Mr. Hegseth. During the hearing, my colleagues and I raised a number of 
concerning reports about him. A variety of sources, including his own 
writings, implicate him with disregarding the laws of war, financial 
mismanagement, racist and sexist remarks about men and women in 
uniform, alcohol abuse, sexual assault, sexual harassment, and other 
troubling issues.
  Instead of addressing these reports, many of which are documented and 
on the record, he dodged and deferred. He did not attempt to alleviate 
the fears my colleagues and I have that there is blackmail material and 
a pattern of abuse in his personal history that could be used by 
adversaries to try to influence him, to try to deflect him from his 
sworn obligations and duties to the United States, and, frankly, to 
embarrass him as Secretary of Defense.
  These reports are unlike anything we have seen for a nominee of this 
importance, and if they are confirmed, they would undermine his ability 
to be an effective leader.
  As I have said for months, it is critical that the FBI and the Trump 
transition team carry out an exhaustive background investigation on Mr. 
Hegseth. In that regard, I must say that I am extremely disappointed by 
the investigation process.
  Before Mr. Hegseth's hearing, I was briefed by the transition team on 
the findings of the background check. I was alarmed that investigators 
had neglected to contact critical witnesses and whistleblowers, and I 
urged them to reopen the investigation.
  During my experience on the Armed Services Committee, it is 
unprecedented that the FBI has returned to my office two more times--as 
recently as last night--to provide additional information on a nominee. 
Frankly, I still do not believe the background investigation is 
complete.
  Last week, after the hearing, I was made aware that an individual 
with disturbing information about Mr. Hegseth has been interviewed by 
the FBI in December as part of the background investigation. However, 
their testimony was not adequately included in the briefing provided by 
the Trump transition team. As such, I asked this individual to recount 
to me directly the testimony that she had provided to the FBI. I was 
disturbed by what I received.

  Earlier this week, the Armed Services Committee received a sworn 
affidavit from Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law that alleges 
specific incidents of Mr. Hegseth's alcohol abuse, threatening and 
abusive behavior toward his second wife, and a repeated pattern of 
offensive public misconduct. The affidavit was signed and sworn under 
penalty of perjury, and it has been made available to all Senators to 
review, and I hope they do. I will share a few examples from her sworn 
testimony, which she gave to FBI investigators.
  Once, while drunk in uniform--which is a violation of military law--
Mr. Hegseth was so inebriated that his brother had to carry him out of 
a Minneapolis strip club. This occurred during a drill weekend with the 
Minnesota National Guard.
  The FBI was also told that Mr. Hegseth's second wife had an escape 
plan that involved texting a ``safe word'' to her friends and family to 
urgently request help without putting herself in more danger. This 
escape plan was executed on at least one occasion. On at least one 
occasion, his second wife hid in her closet out of fear.
  In many detailed examples, the FBI was told that Mr. Hegseth 
regularly became so drunk that he passed out, vomited, and had to be 
carried out of family events and public settings, sometimes shouting 
sexually and racially offensive comments.
  My point is this: We know that Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law 
testified to the FBI about his history of abuse, alcoholism, and 
disgraceful public behavior; however, we know now that her testimony 
was not adequately included in the Trump transition team's background 
briefing to the Senate. This begs the question, what else is missing 
from the FBI report?
  The Senate is not considering a low-level appointee right now; we are 
advising and consenting on a nominee for Secretary of Defense. We 
cannot risk installing a leader who may have a history that is 
exploitable by our adversaries, nor can we risk confirming a Secretary 
of Defense who has shown that he is incapable of being responsible, 
accountable, and law-abiding 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as that job 
requires.
  In addition to Mr. Hegseth's troubling personal conduct, I also have 
grave concerns about actions he would take as Secretary of Defense.
  During his nomination hearing, I asked Mr. Hegseth about disturbing 
efforts underway within the Department of Defense to intimidate 
military personnel and their families and reports that the Trump 
administration may implement a so-called purge board to screen senior 
military officers for ``unfitness'' to lead. This raises the chilling 
possibility that the Trump administration may fire officers who are 
deemed to have the wrong political view. I believe that the Tuesday 
firing of U.S. Coast Guard Commandant ADM Linda Fagan, who by all 
objective accounts was an admirable leader, proves that the purge is 
underway.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Hegseth would not categorically condemn those 
efforts during his hearing and instead talked about ``meritocracy'' and 
``restoring accountability'' within the senior ranks of the military.
  If the Senate confirms Mr. Hegseth this week, who will be fired at 
the Department of Defense next week? I doubt very seriously it will be 
based upon merit or anything else other than a political agenda. That 
would be the beginning of the unraveling of the core element of our 
military. It is not political. It serves neither party nor person. It 
protects and defends the Constitution of the United States. If we lose 
that, we will have lost something that is, I think, the key to our 
success not only as a military force but as a nation.
  Despite Mr. Hegseth's comment, the U.S. military is already one of 
the finest meritocracies in the world. Every member of the military is 
in their position because of their ability. They are chosen by boards 
of other senior officers who evaluate their performance, who look 
closely at what they have done, and render their best professional 
opinion of the capability of that person to move on and assume a 
particular job.
  Every member of the military is in their position because of their 
ability. When there is always a possibility that you need to count on 
the person next to you to save your life, there is no other choice but 
meritocracy and value. There is no other choice that you must or can 
make other than to pick someone whose focus, whose heart, and whose 
spirit is to protect their fellow soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, 
guardians--not to exploit them, to make a judgment about their 
colleagues not based on their political affiliations but on the fact 
that they are a fellow soldier, sailor, or airman.
  I see a dangerous, dangerous point at which we will divert from this 
historic and compelling approach and become a political organization. 
We have seen it happen in other places around the world, where 
militaries are undermined and subjected by political leaders who have a 
particular political point of view and passion, and they become 
essentially not an army but an extension of the political aspirations 
of the great leader. We can't see that here in America.
  Our present servicemembers can and should be confident that with hard 
work and skill and character, they will be successful in their military 
careers. That is the key criteria.

  Indeed, this very meritocracy would prevent a person like Mr. Hegseth 
from rising higher in the ranks of the military. The totality of his 
own writings and conduct would disqualify any servicemember from 
holding any leadership position in the military, much less being 
confirmed as the Secretary of Defense.
  If there was evidence that a serving officer in the military was 
drunk in

[[Page S316]]

uniform, in a strip club, if there was evidence that a senior military 
officer was engaged in sexual relations while married to another woman, 
having just fathered a child from another woman, I can guarantee you 
that officer's career would end swiftly, either by resignation or by 
court martial.
  Moreover, our servicemembers, since the birth of this country 249 
years ago, have taken an oath to the Constitution. Their mission is to 
protect the country and all of its citizens and the ideals this country 
was founded on, which should endure no matter who is President or what 
political party is in power. Mr. Hegseth's idea of meritocracy, 
however, seems to be that servicemembers should pledge fealty to a 
President who will be in power for only 4 years and fit the ideas of a 
party that only half of this Nation supports. There is no faster way to 
undermine the lethality and morale of our Nation's military--and 
support of the Nation's citizens for it--than to inject politics into 
the system. Mr. Hegseth, if confirmed, will not improve our military 
but destabilize it and weaken the institution.
  Further, during his hearing, Mr. Hegseth failed to convince me and 
many of my colleagues that he is capable of running any organization 
remotely as complex as the Department of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has been 
the head of two separate veterans organizations. From 2008 through 
2010, he led the organization Veterans for Freedom, which had an annual 
budget of less than $10 million. Each year he was in charge, outlays 
exceeded revenues, until the organization verged on bankruptcy and had 
to be merged with another group.
  From 2011 until 2016, Mr. Hegseth ran the organization Concerned 
Veterans for America. During each of those 5 years, tax records show 
that the organization spent more than it raised.
  If this is how Mr. Hegseth manages organizations with a comparatively 
small staff and budget, how can anyone have confidence that he will be 
able to effectively manage an organization with hundreds of multi-
million- and multi-billion-dollar contracts that literally drive the 
economy of many parts of this country?
  If confirmed, Mr. Hegseth would be the leader of millions of men and 
women of every race, religion, and political belief. He can only be an 
effective leader of an effective fighting force if he has respect for 
those he leads, and they trust he supports them. Unfortunately, Mr. 
Hegseth has shown disdain and outright hostility for many he would 
lead. His writings and his speeches make clear his opposition to 
diversity issues. He has said:

       Diversity is not our strength. Unity is.

  On a recent podcast, he said:

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

  Mr. Hegseth has also written:

       The other side, the left, is not our friend. We are not 
     esteemed colleagues, nor mere political opponents. We are 
     foes. Either we win or they win. We agree on nothing else.

  That is not the spirit to bring to lead the men and women of our 
military forces.
  When I joined the Army as a young officer in the 1970s, the U.S. 
military was rife with racial tension, women were prohibited from 
serving in most roles, gay servicemembers were banned, and we relied on 
a national draft to fill our ranks. The soldiers I served with were 
proud to do so, but it was certainly not the Nation's most capable 
military by any standard.
  We have made great progress since then. Today, the Department of 
Defense is fully integrated, every race and religion is accepted, women 
serve in all combat roles and leadership positions, sexual orientation 
is irrelevant to service, and the All-Volunteer Force visibly reflects 
the Nation it protects.
  Our military is more diverse than it has ever been, but, more 
importantly, it is more lethal than it has ever been. This is not a 
coincidence. This diversity and nonpartisanship is the bedrock of our 
military power. But Mr. Hegseth seeks to destroy that.
  One other strength of the U.S. military which has made us respected 
around the world is the adherence to the rule of law and clear 
standards on the battlefield to protect civilians and treat prisoners 
with humanity. Once again, this nominee for Secretary of Defense, if 
confirmed, will put that principle in doubt. Mr. Hegseth has championed 
the pardoning of military members who were turned in by their fellow 
soldiers and SEALs as well as military contractors convicted of killing 
14 Iraqi civilians without cause. He has advocated for the 
reinstitution of interrogation methods like waterboarding that have 
been defined as torture and has belittled the advice and counsel of the 
Judge Advocates General while on deployment.

  In his book ``The War on Warriors,'' he wrote:

       Should we follow the Geneva Conventions? If our warriors 
     are forced to follow rules arbitrarily and asked to sacrifice 
     more lives so that international tribunals feel better about 
     themselves, aren't we just better off in winning our wars 
     according to our own rules?!

  How can our military personnel trust each other and the partners and 
allies we need in this dangerous world trust the United States if such 
rules and conventions are tossed aside? What a bounty this would give 
our adversaries.
  And how would we have the moral authority to criticize the North 
Vietnamese, for example, who tortured pilots like our colleague John 
McCain if our Secretary of Defense is saying waterboarding is perfectly 
fine?
  We wouldn't. In fact, I think our pilots would be very much concerned 
if they felt there are no rules of the game and that, if they went down 
behind enemy lines, they would be just brutalized, tortured, et cetera, 
and we don't even have a moral objection to it.
  Finally, my top priority as a U.S. Senator has always been national 
security, and my colleagues, I hope, know this. I don't seek partisan 
wins or the political spotlight. I want to do right by our men and 
women in uniform, and I refuse to compromise or cut corners on national 
security issues.
  The greatest privilege I have had in my life is to lead soldiers, to 
understand and respect them, to do my best by example and leadership so 
that they would have confidence that their best interest was my sole 
interest. That is not what I heard from Mr. Hegseth, and that is not 
what he would bring to the Department of Defense.
  Process is important for a nomination of this sort. Other than me, 
Mr. Hegseth refused to meet with any of my Democratic colleagues on the 
committee--an unprecedented act, a signal that he is not trying to be a 
nonpartisan Secretary. He is, in fact, going to be very partisan--
again, injecting politics into the Department of Defense, which is, in 
my view, fatal.
  The committee was denied a second round of questioning of Mr. 
Hegseth, although we needed it at that time. And I should point out, 
historically, when Secretary Hagel was here, we had three rounds of 
questioning; when Secretary Carter was here, we had two rounds of 
questioning. So the precedent was strongly in favor of an additional 
round. So we have essentially been denied the kind of access that would 
have revealed more of Mr. Hegseth's qualities, conduct, and thoughts. 
And that is not appropriate.
  And as I said previously, the FBI background check was inadequate--
again, the first time I have ever had a background check supplemented 
by two additional addendums of background check. That is not the way I 
have experienced this.
  So I would hope my colleagues are a bit alarmed and are asking 
themselves: Does this individual have the character and the competence 
and the composure to be Secretary of Defense? I, frankly, am not 
convinced and am stunned, in many respects, at the lack of scrutiny 
which too many of my colleagues are using to consider this nomination.
  The lives of thousands and thousands of men and women in uniform, the 
security of our Nation--and, indeed, the world--is at stake. I hope we 
will all take time to reflect on whether we are ready to confirm Mr. 
Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense.
  I will personally urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.
  With that, Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, in a few moments, the Senate will vote on 
the confirmation of our next CIA Director, and then immediately 
following there will be a vote on cloture on the nomination of Mr. 
Peter Brian Hegseth, President Donald Trump's nominee for Secretary of 
Defense. I am going to

[[Page S317]]

vote yes for cloture, and I expect that a majority of our Senators will 
do so.
  Three months ago, 77 million Americans voted for change in the United 
States, and they sent President Trump back to the White House. It was a 
decisive victory and a clear mandate to focus this Nation on prosperity 
and peace. That work begins at the Pentagon, where we must return to a 
policy of peace through strength.
  We are facing the most complex and dangerous global security 
environment since World War II. The next few years will shape the 
direction for the remainder of the 21st century. It could be led by the 
United States, a future which would lead to freedom and prosperity for 
all Americans and the absence of armed conflict, or it could be led by 
despots.
  The Chinese Communist Party is working against us. Its dictator, Xi 
Jinping, uses military force and economic coercion to try to reshape 
the world order with the help of his junior partner Kim Jong-Un of 
North Korea. At the same time, the despot Vladimir Putin remains intent 
on territorial expansion. Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and 
their like continue to attack Israel and the United States, and ISIS 
remains set on killing Americans every day--every day.
  Unfortunately, the Biden administration wasted precious time and 
significant resources pursuing divisive social policies at DOD. For 
instance, we just spent months organizing with the administration over 
whether the Defense Department should pay for hormone therapies or 
puberty blockers for minors out of taxpayer dollars. Seventy-one 
percent of Americans oppose that policy, including more than half of 
Democrats, so I am glad we are going to abandon that type of policy. I 
could go on, but let me now turn to focusing on the future.
  Together, Congress and the President have a lot to do, and we don't 
have much time to do it. We have a broken shipbuilding industrial base 
to fix. We have defense manufacturing jobs to build up and munitions 
lines to expand. We have an ossified budgeting system to update, and we 
have got an audit to finish for the first time in decades. And we have 
a resourcing problem that needs attention.
  On his way out the door, Secretary Austin now tells us we need to 
spend a lot more on national security. Well, thank you, Secretary 
Austin; it is an admission 4 years too late. We are simply falling 
behind our adversaries in too many ways.
  So President Trump seeks to reverse this trend and bring much needed 
change to the Pentagon, and he has chosen a man to lead the Pentagon. 
His choice to spearhead these efforts is Pete Hegseth, a retired major 
and combat veteran in the Army National Guard.
  Admittedly, this nomination is unconventional. The nominee himself is 
unconventional, just like that New York developer who rode down the 
escalator in 2015 to announce his candidacy for President. That may be 
what makes Mr. Hegseth a good choice. He is not beholden to the status 
quo, and he is open to new ideas.
  He is intent on lethality and readiness, and shouldn't we all be? His 
experience in the line of fire and his servicemember advocacy make at 
least one thing clear: Pete Hegseth will put the men and women of our 
military first.
  Congress has often seen defense secretaries delay and evade 
Congressional oversight. I think Pete Hegseth will be willing and eager 
to partner with us in that regard.
  Last week, the Senate Armed Services Committee convened to consider 
Mr. Hegseth's nomination. In testimony lasting nearly 4 hours, he 
addressed three key audiences: our committee, the U.S. Senate as a 
whole, and the American people.
  I think the American people liked what they saw; I know I did. He 
showed each of us why President Trump chose him to be the next 
Secretary of Defense.
  First of all, he articulated a clear vision of the Pentagon, and it 
is clear to anyone who listened that he is going to bring energy and 
fresh ideas to shake up the Department's stagnant bureaucracy.
  He will restore a warfighting ethos and relentlessly focus on the 
military's core mission: to defer conflict and, if necessary, to win a 
war.
  Mr. Hegseth is committed to bringing a swift end to the corrosive 
social policies that serve to divide our servicemembers rather than 
unite them. And as I have pointed out earlier, the American people are 
behind him in this regard overwhelmingly.
  He correctly stated that we need to change the way the Pentagon does 
business. He will restore a culture of accountability by cutting 
redtape, incentivizing innovation, and rebuilding the defense 
industrial base.
  He affirmed his intent to tackle the hardest systemic problems that 
plague the Pentagon, challenges that previous secretaries have proven 
unable to fix. And I mentioned that audit. I sincerely believe we will 
get an audit done under his oversight.
  And, importantly, he agreed that maintaining the inadequate Biden-era 
defense budget levels would be dangerous to our national security. And 
we hear, as I said, the outgoing secretary admitting that very thing.
  In his testimony before our committee, Mr. Hegseth said this:

       My only special interest is--the warfighter. Deterring 
     wars, and if called upon, winning wars, by ensuring our 
     warriors never enter a fair fight. We let them win and then 
     bring them home.

  Well put, Major Hegseth. I am confident Mr. Hegseth, supported by a 
team of experienced top officials, will do exactly that. Pete and his 
family have endured numerous smears and false news stories. Less 
reported is the outpouring of support this nominee has received.
  Pete Hegseth has devoted his career to fighting for his fellow 
soldiers, and his fellow soldiers--men and women--are now speaking out 
on his behalf. In the past few months, a host of flag officers signed 
an open letter enthusiastically commending Mr. Hegseth. I thank these 
generals and admirals for doing so.
  The Armed Services Committee has received letters from female 
soldiers who support Pete. We received messages from those who served 
alongside him on the battlefield, including a moving statement from a 
Medal of Honor recipient who backs Pete Hegseth to the hilt.
  These men and women uniformly vouch for Pete Hegseth's leadership, 
tenacity, and passion for supporting the warfighter. On the day of his 
hearing, 100 Navy Seals marched from the Vietnam Veterans Memorial to 
the Senate office buildings. They marched together that distance, and 
rows of Mr. Hegseth's fellow soldiers sat behind him in solidarity for 
the entire 4-hour-long hearing. These patriotic Americans were willing 
to step forward and declare their support for Mr. Hegseth publicly--in 
stark contrast, I might add, to the anonymous attacks we have heard 
about.
  In this critical moment for our national security, I believe we have 
the right man for the job.
  I urge my colleagues to continue in their support of Mr. Hegseth's 
nomination to be our next Secretary of Defense.
  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. 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.