[Pages S356-S362]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                      Nomination of Peter Hegseth

  Now, I mentioned that Presidents have the flexibility to appoint many 
political folks to positions in the U.S. Government, but for the top 
ones--for the Secretary of Defense, for example--the Founders of this 
country--those who wrote the Constitution--put a little bit of check 
and balance in that. They said the Senate has the right to advise and 
consent on those very top positions because those are incredibly 
consequential decisions, and we want people of good judgment and good 
character in those positions. So that is what the Senate is engaged in 
right now, is a debate under the advice and consent clause of the U.S. 
Constitution.
  I think we all recognize that we are here at a very perilous moment 
in the world. We have Putin's war of aggression against Ukraine. Our 
allies are watching closely to know whether we are going to stand with 
the people of Ukraine. Other people are watching too. President Xi of 
China has one eye on what is happening in Ukraine and he has another 
eye on Taiwan. We have huge challenges in the Indo-Pacific region. We 
have a very combustible Middle East, with the malign actions Iran 
continues to take. We have a very fragile cease-fire in Gaza, with the 
return of hostages. If you look around the world, it is in a very, very 
sensitive and explosive moment.
  We should keep that in mind as we decide whether we are going to 
provide advice and consent to Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense--
somebody who will be overseeing 3.4 million servicemembers and 
employees; someone who will be second to the President in making 
decisions on the operation of our nuclear forces; someone who will 
oversee what represents over half of the entire discretionary budget of 
the United States of America--$850 billion.
  So in this moment, it is especially important that we look at his 
qualifications because what we don't want is somebody who is untested 
and incompetent and someone of low character running the Defense 
Department in the highest position of that Department. Yet, as we have 
heard from ample testimony, that is exactly what will happen if Pete 
Hegseth is confirmed to be Secretary of Defense.
  As our colleague, Senator Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking member of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee and someone who served in the 82nd 
Airborne, has said, servicemembers with Mr. Hegseth's record would be 
disqualified not just from the highest position of the Defense 
Department but any position in the military.
  This Secretary of Defense would be overseeing all of those men and 
women whom we ask to uphold the highest tradition and values of our 
country, and yet the person who would be in charge, if confirmed, would 
be somebody who would be disqualified from being one of them. That is a 
terrible message to send.
  Let's take a look at the record on management as well as the personal 
conduct of the person President Trump has nominated to be head of the 
Defense Department, Mr. Hegseth.
  He led two veterans organizations and, based on the testimony, in 
both cases engaged in financial mismanagement and wasteful spending. 
When managing a budget of under $10 million, he repeatedly overspent 
until the organization was on the edge of bankruptcy.
  In his next leadership role, he continued to overspend, including on 
social events and excessive drinking. His successor in that position 
was told:

       Among the staff, the disgust for Pete was pretty high. Most 
     veterans do not think he represents them nor their highest 
     standard of excellence.

  He was told that funds had been used to fund Mr. Hegseth's partying 
and drinking, as well as his use of work events to ``hook up with women 
on the road.''
  Mr. Hegseth has a disturbing history of sexual harassment. In 2017, 
he was credibly accused of raping a woman in a California hotel room. 
We learned yesterday that Mr. Hegseth paid the woman $50,000 to prevent 
her from talking about the assault. We also know that he failed to 
disclose that information to the transition team, attempting to keep it 
secret.
  We can understand why he didn't want the American people and the 
Senate to know that.
  So I really wonder how the Senate could possibly confirm Mr. Hegseth 
for an entry-level security clearance, let alone the enormous 
responsibility of leading the Department of Defense and the men and 
women who serve there.
  Let's take a look at another aspect of Mr. Hegseth's record, because 
whoever is Secretary of Defense has to understand that they represent 
the great American military--every single person in it, regardless of 
background, regardless of religion, regardless of race, regardless of 
sexual orientation. That is their job. They all bleed red. They are all 
out there fighting for the United States of America. They have all 
sworn to defend our country.
  And, yet, if you look at his statements, it is very clear that he 
believes military service is for some, but not all, Americans who want 
to serve. His remarks are centered on disparaging women, people in the 
LGBT community, and Muslim Americans.
  Let's look at the women serving in the military. He has said:

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

  Now, I watched some of the hearing. I saw him try to wheedle out of 
statements that he had made very clearly, like this one I just read. 
And, frankly, nobody should be fooled by this eleventh hour conversion 
as he seeks to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. He said what he said, 
and it was actually part of a pattern when it came to women serving in 
the military.
  In his 2024 book called ``The War on Warriors,'' Mr. Hegseth 
criticized both the don't ask, don't tell, as well as its repeal, 
writing that these policies are just part of a social justice agenda.
  I would say to those men and women who are serving in our military 
who have been condemned and criticized by Mr. Hegseth, we all thank you 
for your service. Most of us thank you for your service.
  In his 2020 book, ``American Crusade,'' Mr. Hegseth portrays 
contemporary cultural and political conflicts in the United States. He 
portrays them as part of the Crusades--the Crusades--and frames 
``Islamism'' and Muslim immigration as existential threats to American 
society.
  Again, we have a military comprised of people of all different 
faiths. They have all sworn an oath to defend this country, and we 
should not have a Secretary of Defense that maligns a big group based 
on their faith and engages in that kind of bigotry.
  And yet, in 2015, a former employee reported that Hegseth chanted: 
``Kill all Muslims.'' In a ``drunk and violent manner'' he said that.
  So these are just some examples of the words and conduct of the 
person that we are considering to be Secretary of Defense for all the 
men and women who serve in our Armed Forces and in the Pentagon. And we 
should not want any member of our military to be fearful of the person 
who is leading them. And, yet, if you are falling into one of these 
groups--or even if you are not--you should be very scared about what he 
has said, maligning certain Americans and trying to pit people against 
each other based on faith, based on gender, based on sexual 
orientation.

[[Page S357]]

  I want to turn to one other category of important issues that we 
would think--I hope we would think--should be upheld by the Secretary 
of Defense. Mr. Hegseth has lacked moral clarity and expertise about 
lots of elements of the military and war, including the laws of armed 
conflict. And his comments suggest that he does not believe that the 
U.S. Armed Forces should follow the laws of war.
  One of the very important principles we instill in our professional 
U.S. military is the importance of following the laws of war. And yet 
Mr. Hegseth has lobbied for pardons of military members who were turned 
in, based on testimony of their peers, for illegal behavior and 
convicted by military courts. He defended military contractors 
     convicted of war crimes, including killing 14 unarmed 
     Iraqi citizens without cause, just for fun, just because 
     they thought they could get away with it.
  He has repeatedly mocked the laws of armed conflict and expressed 
unequivocal support for servicemembers who have been convicted of war 
crimes. In his book, so-called ``The War on Warriors,'' he writes:

       Should we follow the Geneva Conventions?
       Aren't we just better off in winning our wars according to 
     our own rules?

  A former colleague of ours and a great American hero, Senator McCain, 
would be turning in his grave to hear these kinds of comments. I want 
to read what Senator McCain said about the importance of the laws of 
war.

       War is retched beyond description, and only a fool or a 
     fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality. The Geneva 
     Conventions and the Red Cross were created in response to the 
     stark recognition of the true horrors of unbounded war. And I 
     thank God for that. I am thankful for those of us whose 
     dignity, health and lives have been protected by the 
     Conventions.

  Senator John McCain in 1999.
  Hegseth, 2025: Let's just get rid of those rules of war--put in place 
because of the hard-earned lessons of, as Senator McCain said, the 
wretchedness of war.
  Mr. Hegseth has also talked about going back to the days of illegal 
waterboarding and ignoring the Geneva Conventions on the rules when it 
comes to torture in interrogation, saying that we should--again, as he 
said--just sort of ignore those rules; do our own thing.
  Here is what Senator McCain said about that when it was debated here 
in the U.S. Senate:

       I know from personal experience that the abuse of prisoners 
     will produce more bad than good intelligence. I know that 
     victims of torture will offer intentionally misleading 
     information if they think their captures will believe it. I 
     know they will say whatever they think their torturers want 
     them to say if they believe it will stop their suffering. 
     Most of all, I know the use of torture compromises that which 
     most distinguishes us from our enemies, our belief that all 
     people, even captured enemies, possess basic human rights, 
     which are protected by international conventions the U.S. not 
     only joined, but for the most part authored.

  Senator McCain.
  Now, I know that President Trump disdains that great American hero, 
Senator McCain. In fact here is what Candidate Trump said back in 2015:

       He's not a war hero. He was a war hero because he was 
     captured. I like people who weren't captured.

  Says somebody who never served in the military.
  Colleagues, I urge us to apply the standards that Senator McCain 
would apply. I urge us to listen to our colleague Jack Reed, who served 
in the 82nd Airborne and, with great diligence, serves as the ranking 
members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I would ask our 
colleagues, based on this record of personal misconduct, financial 
mismanagement, Pete Hegseth's disregard for many men and women who 
serve in the military--based on his own statements--and his contempt 
for the rules of war that John McCain so eloquently upheld, when it 
comes to this Senator--I hope other Senators--when it comes to 
providing advice and consent as part of our constitutional duty under 
the Constitution and balance of powers, I will withhold my consent, and 
I urge my colleagues to vote no on the nomination of Pete Hegseth to 
serve as the Secretary of Defense.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oregon.
  Mr. MERKLEY. Mr. President, when I came out of graduate school, I was 
hired by Secretary Weinberger as a Presidential Management Intern--now 
called PMF, or Presidential Management Fellows--five of us who were 
brought in to do a series of rotations to bring, well, an injection of 
policy determination to the conversation in Secretary of Defense's 
Office.
  And it was really quite an enlightening experience. My first 
assignment involved being desk officer for Jordan at the Defense 
Security Systems Agency, because the desk officer who worked for both 
Jordan and Lebanon had to pay a lot more attention to Lebanon because 
we had the horrific bombing of the Marines in the tower.
  And then there was an argument inside the defense establishment about 
how to keep Russia from going forward at a faster pace technologically. 
And the research and development side said: If you classify everything, 
you will slow us down and Russia will catch up.
  And the policy said: Unless we classify everything, the Russians will 
steal so much, they will speed up and catch up.
  And there was this fundamental difference of opinion about how to 
control technology in order to maintain our technological lead over 
Russia.
  And I was asked to set up a steering committee and bring both parties 
to the table to try to work out where they could work together and try 
to resolve their differences.
  And in the course of things, I was drafted to become a programmer to 
do computer studies of survivability related to what strategies with 
our strategic forces would decrease the risk of nuclear war happening? 
What would strengthen deterrence? And then on to a service at NATO, and 
then to an R&D budgeting cycle, where I learned many of the budget 
games the Defense Department employs in order to get a whole lot of 
money that seems to be never accounted for.
  In fact, it has become universally recognized that the Defense 
Department can never pass a budget, can never pass a budget test--that 
is, an audit--because they don't track anything very closely, and there 
are just all kinds of loose ends left.
  And year after year, Democrats and Republicans have said: Audit the 
Secretary of Defense. Audit the Defense Department. We want to know 
where our funds go.
  And here we are, decades and decades later, and we still have that 
same problem.
  You know, it was a valuable several years that led, then, to me 
working for Congress on strategic nuclear issues. And in the decade of 
the 1980s, we saw some real advances in our security. We saw some real 
advances in terms of the stability of the nuclear dynamic with the 
then-Soviet Union.
  And, in fact, the folks who put together the Doomsday Clock, which 
was very close to midnight when I started working on defense issues, 
was turned back some 13 or 15 minutes from midnight by the late 
eighties because of a series of agreements and policies and force 
changes that had been worked out over the eighties.
  The Defense Department is massive. It is massive--an annual budget of 
about $850 billion, 3.4 million people working for it, 2.5 million 
servicemembers, 900,000 civilians. It is massive. It is complicated.
  But what experience does Mr. Hegseth bring? He ran two little 
micrononprofits, and he ran them into the ground. He had documented 
problems with drinking on the job. He had credible and repeated 
accusations of sexual assault. He showed disrespect for female 
servicemembers and diverse servicemembers, including the current--well, 
the former Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Brown.
  What?
  This man who couldn't manage his way out of a paper bag, who 
mismanaged the enterprise he had undertaken--that is the man we are 
going to confirm to run the U.S. military that has massive needs for 
reform?
  Is this man some expert in military strategy? No. Is he some esteemed 
driver of the new technology of war with drones? No. Did he have 
diverse experiences inside the Defense Department that gave him many 
perspectives about the incredible sections of the Defense Department 
that deal with so many different issues? No, no.
  So why are we having this conversation? What has happened to the idea 
of

[[Page S358]]

credible leadership? I can tell you what happened. The President of the 
United States, President Trump, said: Do what I want, or I will primary 
you. And now we have a bunch of folks across the aisle that are not 
doing their job under the Constitution. The Constitution says it is our 
responsibility to advise and consent, to vet nominees and to make sure 
they are qualified before they take these positions.
  I say to my colleagues: Stop shaking and shivering under the aura of 
an authoritarian President and do your job. And your job is to say no, 
because this man is not qualified.
  He did not even tell President-elect Trump about all the accusations 
made against him. If he could not tell President Trump the truth before 
he was serving and before President Trump is President Trump, how will 
he be able to stand up for the truth and say what needs to be said 
after President Trump is in office and he is Secretary of Defense?
  The Department of Defense has failed seven audits in a row. The 
Secretary of Defense must be able to get the department on track to 
pass an audit. It is mandated by Congress. It has been mandated before, 
and they still fail year after year. But both sides say it should 
happen. We should put some teeth into that.
  But I tell you, putting a man who can't manage a tiny nonprofit isn't 
going to get the job done. They ran up enormous debt. And by 2008, the 
financial records show they were unable to pay their creditors--
irresponsible in the max.
  I know running a small nonprofit is hard. I was the director of an 
affiliate of Habitat for Humanity, and I ran the housing division of 
another nonprofit that developed affordable housing, and then I was 
President of the World Affairs Council and had the managerial 
responsibilities. And it was tough making sure we hit payroll each 
month, making sure we raise more money for the aspirations we had for 
those organizations. It was hard work. I worried about it all the time, 
but we always met payroll. We always advanced in our mission.
  Maybe, if we are going to hire somebody from a sole nonprofit to run 
a gigantic organization, we should at least know they can run the small 
organization before they get promoted to running an organization with 
millions of people and the better part of a trillion dollars in its 
budget.
  A Republican strategist who worked with him at that organization 
said:

       I don't know how he's going to run an organization with an 
     $857 billion budget and 3 million individuals.

  On more than a dozen occasions, Mr. Hegseth's FOX News colleagues 
report smelling alcohol on him before he went on air, including just a 
couple of months ago. Former employees of the nonprofit he ran reported 
him being drunk on the job and having to be carried out of events.
  That is the person we want running the Department of Defense?
  A former employee noted in a letter of complaint that Mr. Hegseth was 
drunkenly chanting ``Kill all Muslims, Kill all Muslims'' at a bar 
while on a work trip.
  You know, we have many faiths serving us in the defense of this 
country because we are a multifaith Nation. Having a person who 
advocates for killing people of a particular religious faith is not 
acceptable to run the Department of Defense.
  He said: Well, I will reform. I have broken the rules on drinking 
before, but I will reform. How many times have you heard that from 
people who are--well, they have an addiction. They try to reform. Maybe 
they make it for a little while. But in the end, they relapse. Shall we 
put that risk upon the security of the United States of America?
  We used to have a more responsible attitude here in the Senate. In 
1989, when President George H. W. Bush nominated John Tower, an FBI 
investigation revealed that he was a drunk and a womanizer and Mr. 
Tower pledged not to drink any alcoholic beverages during his time as 
Secretary of Defense, just as Mr. Hegseth has. And then the Senate 
weighed the risk of putting somebody with an addiction in charge of the 
Department of Defense and rejected his nomination.
  It is an insult to the servicemembers of the United States of America 
to put a man with an addiction in charge of them. It is irresponsible 
to the security of the Nation and all civilians of this Nation.
  The Department of Defense struggles with high levels of sexual 
assault of female servicemembers, so a person who has been involved in 
numerous incidents of misbehavior on the issue of treating women isn't 
the right person to have as the Secretary of Defense.
  In 2023, the year I have numbers for, 29,000 Active-Duty troops 
reported experiencing unwanted sexual contact. Mr. Hegseth has been 
accused of sexual assault. He paid the accuser $50,000 in a settlement. 
It took place in 2017 after a speaking appearance at a Republican 
women's event in Monterey, CA. No charges were filed. But this, in 
combination with multiple other reports of his treatment--accusations 
of mistreatment of women, means he is the wrong person to have at an 
organization in which women provide enormously valuable contributions.
  During his time at the head of a veterans' organization, the 
employees report that Mr. Hegseth ``sexually pursued the organization's 
female staffers.'' It is not like this was one misunderstood event 
somewhere in his way past life.
  Women are 18 percent of our Active-Duty servicemembers, but Mr. 
Hegseth dismisses them.

       We need moms. But not in the military, especially not in 
     combat boots.

  He went on to say:

       I'm straight up just saying we should not have women in 
     combat roles. It hasn't made us more effective. Hasn't made 
     us more lethal. Has made fighting more complicated.

  And he is wrong on every point. Women in combat roles have helped 
fill out ranks. We do have a volunteer Army. We do recruit to get the 
staff we need in the military in order to be able to operate the 
weapons systems and the communication systems and the supply systems 
and the repair systems--all of it. They work in every role--valuable, 
valuable contributors.
  We should not put a person at the head of our Department of Defense 
who somehow thinks half the jobs in the world can only be done by men, 
because it is wrong and because it undermines the effectiveness of the 
military providing security.
  He also doesn't like minorities. Well, minority groups comprise 30 
percent of servicemembers. I don't care what color of skin you have. I 
do care if you work hard as a member of the military to support the 
security of this Nation. And people of every race are a valuable part 
of our military. And a man who thinks the color of your skin controls 
the content of your character and the ability and talents that you 
possess doesn't belong as the head of the military.
  He has said:

       The dumbest phrase on planet Earth is ``our diversity is 
     our strength.''

  You take away the diversity in our service and you will soon see our 
diverse servicemembers are invaluable, and a person who doesn't 
understand that should never be confirmed. That is our job. Our job, 
under the Constitution, is to say: Mr. President, sometime Presidents 
get it wrong. Maybe it is for political reasons; maybe you woke up and 
didn't know all the background of the person. But we have to vet them, 
and we have to help make sure your executive branch is successful.
  That is our job. You are not helping President Trump by voting for a 
man totally unqualified--the most unqualified man who could be found in 
America to head the Department of Defense.
  Mr. Hegseth says:

       I told my platoon they could ignore directives limiting 
     when they can shoot.

  A person who violates the directives in the military doesn't belong 
running the military. There is a strong command structure in the 
military, and it includes how you behave in certain situations that are 
crucial to the security of this Nation. But he did not understand that.
  He has argued that ``U.S. forces should ignore the Geneva Conventions 
and other elements of international law governing the conduct of war.''
  As my colleague from Maryland was just talking about and reciting the 
wisdom of John McCain saying how the Geneva Conventions and rules on 
torture serve us well, because you get misinformation when you torture 
people and you get Americans tortured when

[[Page S359]]

they are captured if we are torturing people. So a man who believes in 
torturing people doesn't understand how to get accurate information and 
is putting our own servicemembers at risk when they are captured.
  Why would any Member of this body so disrespect the servicemembers of 
the United States of America as to put this man in charge?
  I was honored to work for Secretary Weinberger. I believed that the 
world was at great risk of the possibility of nuclear war, and that is 
the issue I focused on in my time there and then my time working for 
Congress. There is nothing I saw during my time in the Pentagon that 
equals this level of failure to protect and defend the United States of 
America. I did not see people put into command who talked about killing 
members who were of a different religion than they were. I did not hear 
people talking about how women should not even be there or how 
diversity was a problem rather than a strength. I saw her as people 
working hard together, people who had served in Vietnam together.

  Many of the folks who I served with during those 2 years in my role 
as a civilian being hired to work with Secretary Weinberger had served 
in Vietnam. The war had ended by the time I had reached draft age, and 
I so respected the service that they had given and their dedication to 
the security of this country.
  If you are dedicated to the security of this country, if you respect 
the servicemembers of the United States of America, then do not give 
them a boss who is the wrong fit in every way possible.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. WELCH. Mr. President, we are here discussing the nomination of 
the next potential Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth.
  Of course that job, as we all know, is probably the second most 
difficult job in the country. He presides over the welfare of 3.4 
million people in Active service and Active Reserve all around the 
world. He presides over a budget of $850 billion. The person who has 
that position has to be a preeminent strategic thinker: How do we 
modernize our Navy? How do we recruit in the modern world? How do we 
maintain force preparedness? How do we cement strategic alliances? It 
is a job that you can't just show up and start doing; there has to be 
behind it a lifetime experience that gives you some capacity to be able 
to do all of these things and respond to the emergencies that 
inevitably arise when you get that phone call at 3 in the morning.
  There has been a lot of discussion by my colleagues about the lack of 
experience of Mr. Hegseth. I share that concern. There has been a lot 
of discussion about his views on women in the military, and our 
distinguished Senator Tammy Duckworth is the most preeminent example of 
the capacity of women to serve effectively and bravely.
  Mr. Hegseth has repudiated his well-founded, longstanding view that 
he is against women in the military. Frankly, it sounds to me like a 
nomination-eve consideration.
  Speaking, of course, to the Presiding Officer, I really respect the 
military service he has provided to our country.
  But the big concern I have about Mr. Hegseth, in addition to the 
character issues, the experience issues, and the drinking issues--and 
by the way, I am puzzled as to his assertion that if he gets the job, 
he will stop drinking. Why wait?
  But here is the concern I have: Unlike the Presiding Officer, I did 
not serve in the military. My draft lottery number was high--this was 
during Vietnam--and I wasn't drafted. Many of my college classmates 
were. They served in Vietnam. Some of them came home injured, and some 
did not come home. I think about them every day and how it is that they 
served. Some were badly injured, and some died.
  When I think about the situation most Americans are in, most of us 
didn't serve, but all of us who didn't serve are so indebted to those 
who did.
  My high school classmates were like the young people I see now who 
are volunteering to go into the military.
  So we as Americans have a profound obligation to honor the service of 
those who volunteer to respond to the call of the Commander in Chief, 
who says: You are going to be deployed. They don't know where. They are 
not involved in the discussion of whether. They are not involved in the 
discussion of when. They show up.
  Our democracy so profoundly depends on the idealism of young people 
who are willing to subject themselves to the decisions of the Commander 
in Chief, and I believe that every one of us here who is involved in 
the decisions about authorizing the use of military force has an 
absolutely profound obligation to do that with care because the folks 
who are going to do the work and be in harm's way are going to be there 
because we sent them there.
  It is why I have been so insistent, as have many of us here, that we 
have to have a good VA, that we have to have medical care for our 
soldiers and sailors and airmen and marines.
  But what we need, too, is a Secretary of Defense who honors that 
idealism of these young Americans who decide to enlist. That idealism 
is borne in a sense of common commitment, a sense of wanting to do 
something for the common good, and it is also to live by the code of 
military conduct.
  There is great honor in our services. Those men and women whom I so 
admire know they may have to use lethal force to defend our values, to 
defend our country, to protect their fellow soldiers, but they know 
there are limits, and they use it when they must but never more than 
that.
  By the way, that is asking a lot of our soldiers, to be restrained 
when they are in a combat zone and can be killed themselves.
  So what distresses me so much about Mr. Hegseth is how he used his 
very powerful forum on FOX TV, in my view, to dishonor the soldiers who 
acted with restraint and valor and integrity by taking up the cause of 
some of our soldiers--there are not many of them, but they do exist--
who kill people, who use violence not in furtherance of our defense but 
for their own reasons.
  I am speaking about Mr. Lorance. Clint Lorance was a soldier. He was 
sent, in 2012, as a new commander without combat experience to lead a 
platoon of young soldiers who were deployed to Afghanistan with the 
mission of defeating the local Taliban and winning over the area's 
population--an incredibly hard task. But one day, for reasons Mr. 
Lorance--then Soldier Lorance--knew, he threatened to kill a farmer and 
his son, a 3- or 4-year-old boy. A day later, he ordered his men to 
shoot within inches of unarmed villagers--that was including near 
children.

  He said: It is funny watching the villagers dance.
  Mr. Lorance's men, who were honorable, brave, willing to be in harm's 
way, and willing to act like warriors but were not ever willing to kill 
indiscriminately, balked at his orders. And you know how hard that is 
to do if you are a soldier when you are given an order even if you know 
it is the wrong order. Then they were told to make false reports about 
taking fire from the village to justify this conduct, but they refused 
to do it.
  The next day, Lorance ordered fire on unarmed Afghans who were over 
100 yards from the platoon. They were killed. They filed a false report 
claiming the bodies couldn't be reached.
  The people I honor are the people under his command who refused to 
take those orders. The people I honor are soldiers whose bravery 
extends not just to putting their own physical well-being in harm's way 
but who maintain that commitment to the ideals of the military code of 
conduct that give us the standing and legitimacy that are so important 
to our well-being.
  So my problem is this: I want a Secretary of Defense who is as good 
as the soldiers he leads. Mr. Hegseth, in my view, fails to meet that 
standard.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.
  Mr. KIM. Mr. President, I rise today because it is inevitable that at 
some point in the near future, President Trump will have to convene his 
national security team in the Situation Room at the White House in 
response to a global crisis, whether in Ukraine or in the Taiwan Strait 
or in some other hotspot.
  The Situation Room is a room that I have had the privilege of working 
in as staff on the White House National Security Council. It is a room 
where the

[[Page S360]]

most consequential decisions are made, where the safety and security of 
our country is decided, and where the lives of people are determined. 
But who will be in the room with the President, advising the President 
during these difficult and stressful times? As the President sits at 
the end of the table, flanking him will be some of the most senior 
advisers. One of them, the closest to him, will be the Secretary of 
Defense.
  Mr. President, I rise today because I know the importance of that 
role in that room. I have seen what it means for the President to turn 
to the Secretary of Defense for counsel. In fact, I even worked at the 
Pentagon, in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. I have seen the 
massive operation that the Secretary needs to lead every day and what 
it takes. I have seen the readiness necessary for the Secretary of 
Defense to turn to the President and provide the right recommendations 
for America's national security.
  I have seen Mr. Pete Hegseth make his case. I have seen his answers 
in front of the Senate Armed Services Committee. I have seen the 
reports. I can say from my experience in the Secretary of Defense's 
Office as well as in the Situation Room, that Mr. Hegseth's appointment 
is an unnecessary risk in a dangerous global moment.
  Now, I get it. President Trump wants to be a disruptor. He wants to 
bring in people who are going to shake up the system. He wants people 
who represent a change from the status quo. I am sure a number of us 
here in the Senate would like to see some changes at the Pentagon--
changes as to how things are done and understanding that the status quo 
is not something we can lean on. We certainly have disagreements on how 
best to add certainty and stability to the world that seems to be off 
the rails in this moment. But there is talking about change and there 
is actually having the skills and the capacity to implement change.
  The Department of Defense is our largest employer in our government 
and one that requires critical leadership.
  Let's look at the world that Mr. Hegseth would inherit as Secretary 
of Defense, the world that President Trump will ask him about in the 
Situation Room.
  On Ukraine, it is clear that Mr. Hegseth simply doesn't know his 
history. During his nomination hearing, he called Russia's 2014 
invasion of Crimea a ``minor incursion.'' He has also downplayed the 
threat that Putin's Russia poses to our NATO allies.
  On China, Mr. Hegseth demonstrated a lack of depth of knowledge when 
asked by Senator Duckworth to name the importance of even one of the 
ASEAN countries and the type of agreement we have with them. He could 
not name one. These countries--including multiple treaty allies--are on 
the frontlines of our competition with China. Multiple ASEAN members 
are locked in territorial disputes with China.
  This is a critical partner, so much that the Department of Defense 2 
months ago released a strategic document called ``U.S. Department of 
Defense Vision Statement for a Prosperous and Secure Southeast Asia'' 
that was centered on ASEAN and even mentioned that ``The United States 
has worked closely with ASEAN on defense and security in the Indo-
Pacific region since former Defense Secretary Robert Gates attended the 
inaugural ASEAN Defense Ministers' Meeting . . . in 2010.'' It goes on 
to say that the ``U.S. Secretary of Defense has attended and supported 
ASEAN at every single one of those gatherings ever since.''
  In a moment where these disputes could easily flare up to conflict, 
the President needs a Secretary by his side who doesn't draw a blank on 
questions about our allies.
  And on the Middle East, Mr. Hegseth remarked that ISIS was ``raging 
across Iraq'' when President Trump was first sworn into office in 2017 
was simply not reflective of the reality on the ground at the time.
  Combined, that lack of knowledge and qualifications alone should 
disqualify Mr. Hegseth from this role. But there is one more 
disqualifying factor, which is his character.
  Now, there has been a lot said about this already in terms of 
personal challenges and behaviors, so I will leave it at this: Someone 
who is being asked to lead millions of uniformed and civilian 
personnel, his statements on women and transgender servicemembers are 
simply unacceptable.
  Claiming that standards have been lowered for women and that allowing 
LGBT Americans to serve in the military is somehow part of a Marxist 
agenda is beyond offensive; it is absurd. And it is far beneath the 
person that is supposed to be setting the standard and serving as a 
leader for the men and women who have dedicated themselves to 
protecting this country.
  I have said before that every President, including President Trump, 
has the prerogative to choose the people who sit at that table with him 
in the Situation Room. But our job here in the Senate is to make sure 
that those people have the competence and the character to serve our 
country. This is not a reality TV show. This is real life, and there 
are real lives at stake.
  Mr. Hegseth should be recognized for his service, but he should not 
be Secretary of Defense. If that is not enough, we are voting also to 
approve someone to be the sixth in line of Presidential succession. Is 
Mr. Hegseth ready for either of these distinctions? The answer for me 
is no.
  For the sake of our country and our national security, I encourage my 
colleagues who want to support this President to oppose this nomination 
and bring forth another nominee more qualified for the role, more ready 
for the role. I encourage my colleagues who want to deliver change to 
oppose this nomination and bring forth another nominee with the 
experience and credibility to deliver it. I encourage my colleagues who 
want to make our country safe, who want to make our world a more stable 
place, and who want to leave a legacy of peace and strength, to oppose 
this nomination and bring us a nominee ready to deliver for the 
American people.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on Pete Hegseth for Secretary of Defense.
  I yield the floor.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. KELLY. Mr. President, I am concerned that soon the U.S. Senate 
might confirm the most unprepared nominee to lead the Department of 
Defense that has ever been put forward.
  I look at every nominee based on whether they are qualified and 
committed to do the job. It is how I evaluated nominees from the last 
President, and it is how I am evaluating nominees from this President. 
And I approach each person with an open mind. It is our responsibility 
to make sure the folks we consider are ready to do these jobs for the 
American people.
  But this one, the Secretary of Defense, it is especially important. 
Outside of the Presidency, it might be the biggest job in the country. 
It is almost impossible to imagine the scale of it.
  You have about 3 million people working for you. You are the civilian 
leader at the top of a massive operation that includes every single 
soldier, sailor, guardian, airman, marine, and civilian contractor and 
employee. These folks are spread out across hundreds of military 
installations in dozens of countries. So it is basically the toughest 
management job in the world.
  You are also responsible for overseeing a budget that exceeds $850 
billion every single year, so it is one of the most complicated budget-
management jobs in the world as well.
  You are overseeing some of the most complicated weapons systems and 
defense programs that exist. Some of these are multibillion-dollar 
projects that happen over the course of years to develop, test, and 
field.
  It is also one of the most demanding policy and program 
implementation jobs.
  Now, not every Secretary of Defense nominee checks the box for each 
of those qualifications. It is impossible for us to expect that. The 
job is too big. But what is clear to me at the end of this process is 
that Mr. Hegseth does not check any of the boxes.
  I appreciate his service in the U.S. Army and his service to this 
country,

[[Page S361]]

especially in combat, but that is not a requirement for this role.
  During his career in the Guard and Reserve, Mr. Hegseth did not rise 
to a command position where he would learn the management, joint forces 
operations, logistics, and other skills that are relevant to fill this 
job. In his civilian roles, he has led two veterans organizations, 
neither of which were larger than about 50 people. And he spent 7 years 
as a TV host. Normally, this would be the end of the conversation. 
Normally, it would be clear to every single person in this Chamber that 
this is not someone ready to do this job.
  Now, I understand that the case for his nomination is in part because 
he is an outsider--I get that--that he can shake things up. I am not 
opposed to that. The Pentagon needs to be leaner. It needs to move more 
quickly and be willing to lose things that aren't working and adopt 
things that will work. Having someone who isn't beholden to the current 
way of doing things--that is exciting.
  My concern is not that Mr. Hegseth is going to succeed in whipping 
the Pentagon into shape; my concern is that he would fail. Given his 
lack of experience, it is much more likely that the bureaucracy is 
going to crush Mr. Hegseth than he is going to crush the bureaucracy. 
It is not just that Mr. Hegseth is unprepared for this role; the 
experience he does have is riddled with serious issues that should 
concern us all.
  During his time leading two veterans organizations, he was accused of 
financial mismanagement.
  In 2009, after just about 2 years leading a group called Vets for 
Freedom, it has been reported that forensic accountants found that the 
organization had about $1,000 in the bank, more than $400,000 in unpaid 
bills, and $75,000 in credit card debt. Mr. Hegseth wants to get the 
Pentagon to finally pass an audit. Yet the much smaller--much smaller--
organization he led could not do the same.
  During his time leading Concerned Veterans for America, the 
organization was forced to reach a financial settlement with a female 
employee who accused a male colleague of trying to sexually assault 
her. The woman was reportedly ostracized and faced reprisals in the 
workplace after that settlement. For a Department that is working to 
address sexual assault and harassment, what would it say to confirm 
someone who has already fostered environments where these are an issue?
  It has also been reported that he frequently abused alcohol, getting 
drunk in front of his staff and in public. I want to remind folks of 
some of these incidents:
  Memorial Day 2014; CVA event in Virginia Beach. Hegseth needed to be 
carried out of the event.
  Summer 2014 in Cleveland. Drunk in public with the CVA team.
  November 2014; ``Get Out the Vote'' event in North Carolina. Hegseth 
got drunk with three young female staff members. CVA had instituted a 
no-alcohol policy at its events in October--this was 1 month later--but 
Mr. Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy.
  In December 2014, at the CVA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in 
this city, Washington, DC, Hegseth was ``noticeably intoxicated and had 
to be carried up to his room.''
  Another time, a CVA staffer stated that Hegseth ``passed out'' in the 
back of a party bus.
  On May 29, 2015, a now-former CVA employee sent a complaint letter to 
management that Hegseth was chanting ``Kill All Muslims'' at a bar in 
Cuyahoga Falls, OH, in ``a drunk and violent manner.''
  While at FOX News, in October 2017, following his dinner speech at 
the California Federation of Republican Women's 40th Biennial 
Convention in Monterey, CA, Hegseth was reportedly engaged in a loud 
argument by the pool and was ``very intoxicated.''
  FOX News employees have reported that after a St. Patrick's Day 
segment on St. Patrick's Day, after being on TV, Hegseth drank several 
beers that had been sitting out for hours. These employees also noted 
that the segment finished before 10 a.m. and they were shocked at 
Hegseth's behavior.
  One current and two former FOX News employees told NBC News that they 
felt that they had to ``babysit'' Hegseth to mitigate the effects of 
his drinking. This is a quote: ``We'd have to call him to make sure he 
didn't oversleep because we knew he'd be out partying the night 
before.''
  Two FOX employees--current or former--said that on more than a dozen 
occasions during Hegseth's time as a cohost on ``Fox & Friends 
Weekend,'' which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he 
went on air. That was in the morning. Those same two people, plus 
another, said that during his time there, he appeared on television 
after they heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready 
or on set.
  In the fall of 2024, one FOX employee said they heard him complain 
about being hungover.
  In November 2024, one FOX employee said they smelled alcohol on him 
as recently as this past November, 3 months ago.
  During his confirmation hearing, I gave Mr. Hegseth the opportunity 
to answer for a number of these incidents. I asked him point blank: Are 
these true or false?
  He had the opportunity to say ``These things did not happen'' or to 
explain how he is prepared to account for them and how he won't repeat 
this concerning behavior as Secretary of Defense. He wouldn't answer, 
with one notable exception. I asked him about reports that in 2014 he 
was drunk at a strip club with staff in Louisiana. He replied to me: 
Absolutely not. He specifically denied that incident. He was prepared 
to say that one--but only that one--didn't happen, but the rest of 
these incidents, well, he would not deny them. Instead, he called them 
``anonymous smears.''
  Well, first of all, they are not all anonymous. The committee has had 
access to sworn affidavits from individuals who witnessed this behavior 
firsthand.
  This confirmation process was rushed. The FBI background check, which 
the entire committee was never given access to, was clearly inadequate 
and had to be updated multiple times. And despite repeated efforts, Mr. 
Hegseth has refused to meet with me and many others on the committee in 
private to discuss these concerns further.
  But beyond all of that, it defies belief that this behavior does not 
represent a pattern. The incidents listed earlier stretch out across a 
decade. These are individuals who worked with him across three 
different organizations, and in each place, these people witnessed him 
abuse alcohol. It is obvious to anyone willing to see it that this is a 
pattern.
  Let's be clear. These are not smears. If Mr. Hegseth were a private 
citizen, these issues with alcohol would only be a concern for those 
around him. But when you are nominated to be Secretary of Defense, it 
is a concern for all of us, each and every American. This is not a job 
where you clock in at the beginning of the day and clock out at the end 
of the day. You have to be able to move seamlessly between advising the 
President on matters of national security, sitting with foreign leaders 
to hammer out agreements, and discussing complex weapons systems with 
your staff. And that might just be in the afternoon. Some of these 
things might happen on a plane across an ocean on a weeklong trip or 
during a phone call that comes late at night, with quick decisions that 
affect the lives of our servicemembers.
  During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara was briefed at 
midnight about the first photographs from U-2 spy planes showing the 
likelihood of Soviet ballistic missile sites in Cuba. The same has 
likely happened when North Korea has tested ballistic missiles that 
could threaten Guam or our allies.
  This is a demanding job for anyone. It is a concerning job for 
someone with Mr. Hegseth's track record.
  So as the Senate moves towards a final confirmation vote on this 
nominee, Mr. Hegseth, here is what I want to ask my colleagues: Are you 
sure? Are you sure that you trust him with this job? Are you sure there 
isn't another individual the President could choose who could pursue 
the same goals but is better prepared to do this job? Are you sure it 
is worth the risk to our servicemembers, to our national security, and 
to your families?
  I know I am not.
  I yield the floor.

[[Page S362]]

  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SCHATZ. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.