Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it is now March. It has been 7 months since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the Afghanistan crisis into which this President led our country was unprecedented. And who has been held accountable for that disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council have been relieved of duty? No one. Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of Defense. My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction. Accountability for the Afghanistan disaster is all the more urgent given revelations last month from the U.S. Central Command investigation of the Abbey Gate bombing. The investigative report makes clear that the Administration had ample warning prior to mid-August that Kabul could collapse rapidly in the face of the Taliban's offensive. It shows further how the Administration refused to acknowledge those warnings and act in a timely manner to prepare for Kabul's fall. And it shows in astounding detail just how chaotic the final evacuation effort was, with U.S. servicemembers often left without clear guidance, the State Department constantly missing in action, and the Administration itself intent only on evacuating as many people as possible, regardless of whether those individuals were eligible for evacuation or might pose a threat to America's own security. I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that. I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I thank the Senator from Virginia for accommodating me here and allowing me to come to the floor, and I thank him for his remarks. I only got to hear the second half of his remarks, but I thank him for his remarks and am sure that he is in earnest about this nomination. Let me tell you why I am here, and I will be brief. I know we have a vote that is about to kick off. But let me tell you what I am in earnest about. The crisis in Afghanistan--the attack at Abbey Gate this past August that cost 13 American servicemembers, including 1 from my home State, from the State of Missouri, their lives--is a catastrophe unparalleled in our foreign policy in my lifetime. It is my firm conviction and it is also a promise that I made to the family of the fallen marine from my State that we should do--this Senate should perform its oversight functions related to the catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan and in particular the events leading up to that attack at Abbey Gate that resulted in the deaths of those servicemembers and the deaths of hundreds, I am afraid--hundreds--of civilians and many hundreds of other Americans left behind. I have come to this floor before many times now to ask the Senate to hold accountable those who planned and led or failed to lead, in some instances, this operation leading to the attack at Abbey Gate, leading to that catastrophic loss of life, and leading, I am afraid, to the disastrous turn in our foreign policy, the effects of which we continue to feel. So it is my humble but earnest request that the Senate perform its basic oversight functions, and, very briefly, let me mention one. U.S. Central Command ordered a report of the events leading up to the Abbey Gate attack that we learned of in February. February 8, I believe, we learned that that report had been completed. It is several thousand pages long. I have the barest summary of it here. My staff and I have been through all of it, the thousands of pages. They had over 169 interviews that U.S. Central Command conducted, again, to try to understand how we got to this crisis point leading up to and including Abbey Gate. We have not had a single hearing in the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on this report. Now, I applaud Central Command for carrying out the report, for ordering it, for putting it together, but we should be learning what we can and holding accountable those who need to be held accountable. Who has been fired? No one. Who has been relieved of duty? No one. And if you read the report--and I commend it to my colleagues. If you read the report, you will see individual after individual, commanders on the ground warning that we are not prepared, that the administration was not prepared to get civilians to safety in Kabul; warning that the planning was not adequate; warning that there were dangers. So, Mr. President, I ask again that the committee do its basic oversight job, perform its basic function, hold a hearing on this report, hold accountable those who failed in that catastrophic withdrawal from Afghanistan. Until that time, I am going to continue to ask that the Senate observe regular order in leadership positions in the Department of Defense. And for those reasons, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 789, Mallory A. Stewart, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of State.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 472, Rachel Jacobson, of the District of Columbia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Army.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 776, Peter J. Beshar, of New York, to be General Counsel of the Department of the Air Force.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, I want to say at the outset that it is always a privilege to work with Senator Reed on the Armed Services Committee in every capacity we get to work together, and I look forward to that going forward. What we are being asked to do--the Senate is being asked to do today, however, is to fast-track nominees for leadership positions in the Department of Defense to carry out a foreign policy that is manifestly failing. This administration is careening from one crisis to another, endangering the security of the American people, endangering the security of the world. When the Senator mentioned just a moment ago the situation in Ukraine, you don't have to look any further than there to see the crisis--the latest crisis that the Biden administration has led this Nation into. To begin with, the administration failed to deter Vladimir Putin and his Russian invasion before it happened. They failed to actually check Putin when it would have really mattered. How did they do this? Well, for starters, when President Biden came to office, he opened up Russia's pipelines, and then he shut down America's pipelines. He handed our energy independence that the Senator was just mentioning--he handed our energy independence away. He gave it away. And who stepped in to fill the void? The Russians. What is Russia? It is not so much a country as it is a gas station, and Putin is pumping and pumping and pumping. What is financing his war in Ukraine? It is not least our energy policies that are giving away our energy independence, giving away our energy dominance, and green- lighting his energy production. That is what Joe Biden did when he first came to office--green-lighting his production, shutting down our production. But what else? President Biden had the opportunity to provide lethal military aid to Ukraine last spring when the Ukrainians first requested it. He said no. In fact, I believe he said no repeatedly for much of the year last year. That turns out to have been a very poor decision. Now, today, deterrence having failed, the Russians engaged in an illegal invasion of a sovereign nation, threatening the stability of Europe, the security of Europe, and, of course, endangering our own national security, what is the President doing? What is President Biden doing? Is he turning back on American energy production? Is he sanctioning the Russian energy sector? No. Just today, finally, he was dragged kicking and screaming to finally agree that this country will no longer import Russia's blood oil. Remember, he had us importing over 670,000 barrels of Russian oil every single day. Today, he announced finally, belatedly, we won't do that anymore. But what is he doing instead? He is going to every petty dictator on the face of the map and begging them to make up the difference. We learned that the President's team has been in touch with Maduro's regime--the murderous Maduro regime--in Venezuela and is preparing to offer them a special package that will ease the restrictions, ease the sanctions, ease the punishment on that outlaw regime and get them to make up the difference in oil production from Russia. We learned that the President is potentially planning a trip to Saudi Arabia to ask the Saudis to increase their oil production to make up the difference from the Russians. I wonder if the topic of Jamal Khashoggi will come up in those meetings. I certainly hope it will. President Biden once said that he would make Saudi Arabia ``pay the price, and make them in fact the pariah that they are.'' I guess that is no longer the policy of the U.S. Government because here is what we are reduced to under this administration: We are reduced to begging our enemies--our enemies, the dictators of the world--we are reduced to begging them to bail out a foreign policy that is failing, not least because this administration will not allow American workers to turn on American energy. I take it from the President's remarks and from the President's policy that he has no objection in principle to pumping more oil and gas. Apparently he doesn't, so this can't be about climate change. He is fine with more oil production but not in this country, not by American workers. Heaven forbid American workers be put back to work. Heaven forbid American workers actually earn more. Heaven forbid the American people be able to pay less at the pump, as Joe Biden's prices drive gas prices through the roof. No, this is the policy of weakness, fecklessness that this President has given us. Let's not forget where it began. It began with Afghanistan. And that is the reason I am here on the floor today in particular. It has been months now--months--since the fall of Afghanistan. This administration has lost two nations in the space of barely 6 months. The Afghanistan debacle is the worst foreign policy debacle in this country's history since Vietnam--although stay tuned, the way this administration is going--and what has this Congress done about it? Who has been held accountable for it? I have come to this floor over and over and over to ask for accountability. Has someone been fired? No. Has someone been relieved of duty? No. I was here just a few weeks ago after the Washington Post reported on a 2,000-page investigation done by Central Command into the fall of Afghanistan. Since that time, my team and I have been through all 2,000-plus pages. I would just like to point out that we learned about this investigative report not from a hearing conducted by this body but from an investigative report by a newspaper. I am glad somebody has some interest in what happened in Afghanistan. Sadly, it seems not to be this Chamber. Here are some of the things that we learned in this 2,000-page investigative report about Afghanistan: We learned from GEN Scott Miller, who was the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan in early 2021, that he was extremely worried from May 2 onward as he saw key districts fall. In fact, General Miller testified to us that he warned Secretary Austin and General Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, as early as March or April that the Afghan security forces might collapse rapidly once we withdrew forces. Now this report documents it and says, indeed, there is evidence that he was very worried, that he was warning that the collapse of Afghanistan would come quickly, he was warning that it would be imminent. But what did the Biden administration do? Did they order the evacuation of our civilians? Did they plan for the possible fall of the Afghan Government? No. The report goes on to detail that the National Security Council and the State Department showed a total lack of urgency right up until the final hours before the fall of Kabul. We learned that RDML Peter Vasely, who took over for General Miller last spring and commanded U.S. forces in Afghanistan during the final stages of the withdrawal, provided assessments weeks before the fall of Kabul that the trajectory of Afghanistan was in a downward spiral--this is a quote from the report--and was likely not recoverable. The report goes on to say this: Rear Admiral Vasely ``was trying to get the Ambassador to see the security threat for what it really was.'' There were as many as 10 districts falling every day, getting closer and closer to Kabul. ``The embassy needed to position for withdrawal, but the Ambassador didn't get it.'' These are just a few of the details in this 2,000-page report showing that our military commanders warned over and over and over that Kabul was on the verge of collapse, that the security dangers were mounting, that civilians needed to be evacuated, and that we needed to change course, and this administration did nothing. What happened as a result? Thirteen servicemembers are dead, including one from my own State. I will never forget talking to his family, his father, less than 48 hours after this young man, LCpl Jared Schmitz, lost his life, along with 12 others who bravely served this country, giving the uttermost of their devotion. But it didn't have to be that way. Here is my point: This body should be hearing from these commanders, from these men and women who have testified in this report, who have given evidence about what happened in Afghanistan. We should be hearing from them in public, under oath--no more private briefings; no more closed-session briefings. We should hear from Secretary Austin. We should hear from General Milley. We should hear from the commanders-- General Miller--under oath. They should come and testify about this report. We should do our job, and until we do, I will not consent to allow the Senate to bypass regular order and fast-track the nominations of yet more leadership positions to continue carrying on a failed policy. I will not do it. There is a crisis in Ukraine. There is a crisis in Afghanistan. Crises multiply across the world at the hands of this administration, and still, this Congress refuses to reverse course and refuses to provide the most basic oversight that it is charged with providing. I don't think it is too much to ask, in the face of this, in the face of these disasters, that we have the curiosity to at least have an open hearing, to at least ask who should be accountable and what should be done. So I want to say again, I appreciate Senator Reed's earnestness on this issue. I appreciate the fact that he doesn't control the floor. My final point, I would note, as I look toward the clock here, last week, if my memory serves, of the 4 days we were in session, we took a total of four votes in the U.S. Senate last week. If these nominees were as important as they say they are, we could have voted last week. We could have voted earlier today. Now, Senator Reed doesn't control the floor, but I might just note to the majority leader that maybe instead of taking a vacation tomorrow, which I gather is the plan, that maybe the Senate ought to be here and working, and maybe we ought to be here and voting, because until there is some accountability for what happened in Afghanistan, for what is happening with this administration's foreign policy, I am going to ask the Senate to observe regular order and do its job and to vote. With that, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I rise today in opposition to this administration's dangerous policy of American weakness and in support of the strong men and women of the United States' energy sector, who are ready to step forward to return this Nation to energy independence, to burnish this Nation's strength, and to show the Russians what the United States is capable of. It will be lost on no one that we are approximately a week into the largest conventional military attack in Europe since 1945. Vladimir Putin's brutal war of choice against the Ukrainians continues as we speak. It grows worse, more devastating, and more brutal by the hour, and it is time that, in the midst of this war, we confronted a basic fact: that Russia isn't so much a country as it is a gas station, and Vladimir Putin's gas station is open for business and pumping away, and this administration--this administration--has made the decision to make this country more dependent on Russian oil, to make the world more dependent on Russian oil, to embolden and empower Vladimir Putin at a time when the world can ill afford it, and it is time to change course. And we can change course. We can change our energy production policy. We can open up our energy sector to make us once again the dominant energy producer in the world, to make us truly energy independent, to make us energy strong, to put Russia in its place, and to put the United States at the head of the energy sector worldwide. But that is not where we stand right now. Today, the United States is importing--in the midst of this conflict, in the midst of Russian aggression, the United States is importing--buying from Russia to the tune of 670,000 barrels of oil every single day. It has nearly doubled just in the past year. Now, I would submit to you that whatever you think about this administration's geostrategic policies--this is, after all, an administration that has managed to lose two sovereign nations in the space of 6 months--whatever you think of that record, this is not sustainable. This is not good for the world. This makes America weaker, not stronger, and this is a time for American strength. What did Joe Biden do when he came to the Office of the President of the United States just over a year ago? Well, among his first actions was to cancel the Keystone Pipeline, to halt a leasing program in Alaska, to issue a halt on all new oil and gas leases, as well as drilling permits on Federal lands and Federal waters. By the way, that accounts for about 25 percent of U.S. energy production. He directed Federal Agencies to get rid of all support for fossil fuels. He imposed new regulations on oil and gas and methane emissions. He hired new SEC regulators to propose new climate regulations, and the list goes on and on. And these policies have had their effect. I will give the President credit where credit is due. His policies to throttle down our energy production have been successful. He has succeeded in making this Nation energy dependent. In 2019, in 2020--for the first time, certainly, in my lifetime--the United States actually exported more energy than it imported. We were energy independent, and, even better, we were becoming the energy supplier for the world. Who is the energy supplier for the world now? It is Vladimir Putin, and that is because, at least in part, of the policies that this administration and President Biden have deliberately sought to pursue. Look, the statistics don't lie. Why is Russia able to pursue this war of aggression in Ukraine? Well, at least in part because of this: They supply 20 percent of Europe's oil--Russia alone, 20 percent of Europe's oil--40 percent of its gas, 20 percent of its coal. Russia supplies to the tune of 55 percent of Germany's natural gas alone--just Germany's, 55 percent. Now, can we wonder why our German partners were slow to want to sanction Russia, to provide lethal aid to Ukraine when they needed it before the invasion occurred? It is because Russia has Europe in a stranglehold. And that should be no excuse. I am not saying that the Europeans deserve an out--not at all. But I am saying that Vladimir Putin has used his power, his energy production, to try and project new power in Europe, and, unfortunately, he is having success. It ought to be our policy to reverse his power projection, to shut down his gas stations--his gas station of a country--by returning this country to energy independence and energy dominance, and we can do it. This is not a pie-in-the-sky pipe dream. We have been there before. We were just energy independent, just a few years ago. We know what to do. It is actually pretty simple. All we have to do is roll back the disastrous policies that this administration imposed just a year ago, roll those back and allow the American worker to get back to work on our pipelines, on our rigs, drilling and pumping natural gas and producing biofuels like the ones that we produce, the kind that we produce in my State. Put American energy back to work. It is actually pretty simple. Sometimes, Ronald Reagan once said, there actually are simple solutions, not easy ones but simple ones. This one is simple, it is direct, and it is time that we took it. And that is why I have introduced legislation, along with Senator Grassley and Senator Hagerty and Senator Tuberville, that would do just this. It would reverse the disastrous energy policies of this administration, the policies that have emboldened and enabled and empowered Vladimir Putin and the Russian military, and return this country to energy strength, return this country to energy dominance. I can't put it any better than this: If you will give--if the President of the United States would give--the American worker a chance--give the folks who man those pipelines, give the folks who work the oil rigs--give them a chance to show what they can do, and I will tell you what they will show you: They will show you that they are the best in the world. They will show you that they are the strongest in the world. They will show you that this country is the strongest in the world, and they will put the Russian energy sector to shame. And, by the way, Joe Biden's policy was to green-light the Russian pipeline, Putin's pipeline, Nord Stream 2. He lifted sanctions on it when he came to office; imposed limits on our own energy production but lifted them on the Russians. Here is a suggestion: Shut down Putin's pipelines. Shut down Putin's energy sector. Open ours up. Do just the opposite of what President Biden did a year ago. Shut down the Russian energy production, open up American energy protection, and show the world what the American people can do. And that is what the bill that I have introduced, along with my cosponsors, who I am proud to have with me--that is what it would do. It is very simple, Mr. President, and I would suggest to you that the time is of the essence. I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be discharged from further consideration of S. 3714 and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration. I further ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I want to thank the Senator from Delaware for his remarks, which I appreciate. It is a privilege to serve with him, as we do, on the Homeland Security Committee, and work with him as we do--as I have--and I look forward to working together, hopefully on this issue, and others in the future. We do disagree on this issue. We have an honest and, I think, principled disagreement. It is one that we ought to talk about. I am glad we are talking about it here today, and I suspect it is one, ultimately, that the American people are going to have to weigh in on because the differences are pretty significant. And that is fine. That is democracy. But I just want to highlight two things where I think we have a principled disagreement. The first is the idea that, if we produce more energy in this country, it won't have any effect on prices, energy prices, or make us energy independent. I would just ask the American people, I mean: Does gas cost more today than it did before Joe Biden became President? Yes, it does. Are you paying more for groceries? Are you paying more, if you are a farmer, for fertilizer? Are you paying more for every input that is associated with energy today than before Joe Biden was President? Unfortunately, yes, you are. Inflation is out of control in this country. Inflation associated with the fuel that Americans use to fill up their trucks and their vans and that they use to heat their homes is out of control, and there is a reason for that. This is the reason for that. We are not producing energy in this country like we were. We were energy independent in 2019 and 2020. It is not as if it can't be done. It has been done. Prices were lower. It is basic supply and demand. But there is also a national security aspect to this. Why would we want to be dependent on a totalitarian state that is invading its neighbors and is seeking to establish energy control of Europe and beyond? Why wouldn't we seek to thwart it? And why would we ask the American people to pay more, day in and day out, to heat their homes, for fuel for their cars? Why would we put them through that? Why would we ask them to do that? I just submit to you that there is a real tradeoff here, and the administration has chosen the wrong side of the tradeoff. Put the American energy sector back to work. One other comment. I know that the Special Presidential Envoy for Climate, former Senator Kerry, has expressed similar concerns about climate change and has said recently that he fears that the crisis in Ukraine will distract from the urgency of climate change. Well, I submit to you that the crisis in Ukraine--the existential threat to that proud and sovereign nation which is now in danger of being extinguished, the threat to stability in Europe that Russia now exerts, and the threat that China will exert to the world--yes, indeed, that may distract from climate change, but that is just reality. It is time we face the most pressing security threats that we have. And putting Americans back to work and lowering their gas prices and their fuel prices, making American families safer and more secure and making our enemies less secure, that is a good policy, and it is one that I hope we can have. So, again, I thank my colleague and my friend, the Senator from Delaware, and I suspect it won't be the last time we talk about this. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 693, John F. Plumb, of New York, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 694, Melissa Griffin Dalton, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of Defense.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object, and will submit a statement for the Record.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, it is now February. It has been nearly 6 months since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate, along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the crisis into which this President has led this country is unprecedented. In my lifetime, it is unprecedented. And who has been held accountable for this disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council have been relieved of duty? No one. Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of State and at the Department of Defense. My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction. Accountability for the Afghanistan disaster is all the more urgent given new revelations from the U.S. Central Command investigation of the Abbey Gate bombing. The investigative report makes clear that the administration had ample warning prior to mid-August that Kabul could collapse rapidly in the face of the Taliban's offensive. It shows further how the administration refused to acknowledge those warnings and act in a timely manner to prepare for Kabul's fall. And it shows in astounding detail just how chaotic the final evacuation effort was, with U.S. servicemembers often left without clear guidance, the State Department constantly missing in action, and the administration itself intent only on evacuating as many people as possible, regardless of whether those individuals were eligible for evacuation or might pose a threat to America's own security. I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that. I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, here we are 6 months since the last foreign policy disaster into which this administration led this country, the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan: 13 servicemembers killed, including 1 from my home State of Missouri; dozens more wounded; hundreds--hundreds--of civilians killed; hundreds more, maybe thousands, of American civilians left behind enemy lines to terrorists, to fend for themselves; still hundreds of Americans stranded there in Afghanistan as we speak. And what accountability has there been in this time? Who has been relieved of duty? Who has been shown the door? What have we learned? The answer is there has been no accountability. No one has been relieved of duty. No one has been shown the door. And now this administration has bumbled to the brink of another foreign policy crisis that they have helped create, having denied Ukraine military aid, lethal aid, when it asked for it last spring; having stuffed dollars in Vladimir Putin's pockets by greenlighting the Nord Stream 2 energy pipeline. And now here they are, on the verge of another foreign policy crisis, and still we have no answers, still we have no accountability. I will say this, though. We did learn a few interesting details this week about what happened in Afghanistan. And by the way, if you think that Vladimir Putin and the other dictators around this world weren't emboldened by this administration's weakness, by their utter failure in Afghanistan, then you have got another thing coming. But what have we learned this week about Afghanistan? What have we learned? Actually, a couple of interesting things, a number of interesting things. We learned that, in fact, the White House and the State Department were warned for months on end--months on end--that their failure to evacuate civilians would result in disaster; that the Afghan Government was on the verge of collapse. They were told over and over. One servicemember who was in Kabul told investigators ``the writing was on the wall. The country and its government were actively collapsing,'' and ``we should not have waited [to start evacuations] until every provincial capital had fallen except for Kabul.'' Yet that is exactly what the administration did. Our top military commander in Kabul tried to get the Ambassador on the ground to see the security threat for what it was but to no avail. As one military official told investigators--we learned this week--``The Embassy needed to position for withdrawal.'' Yet they weren't doing it. Why weren't they doing it? Why weren't civilians evacuated in a timely manner? Why wasn't the White House prepared? Because the White House wasn't taking it seriously. According to Marine Corps Brig. Gen. Farrell Sullivan, as late as August 6, ``the National Security Council was not seriously planning for an evacuation.'' Mind you, by this point, our military presence is gone. We have withdrawn militarily from the country. Here we are in August, and the National Security Council--the White House--was not seriously planning for an evacuation. The State Department hadn't even put a team together that was responsible for informing individuals, including American citizens, that they were eligible for evacuation or started collecting the information they would need to put those Americans on flights to safety. And it wasn't as if the White House and the State Department didn't know better. Our top military commander on the ground in Afghanistan warned as early as March--as early as March, he has testified--that he said the security situation in Afghanistan was dire and collapse could come quickly; when the United States withdrew, collapse could come quickly. He said it in March. By July, our troops were gone. In August, the administration still hadn't started planning. Here is what the top commander in Kabul said. He said: I think we could have been much better prepared to conduct a more orderly [civilian evacuation]-- That is what a NEO is-- if policy makers had paid attention to the indicators of what was happening on the ground, and the time lines associated with the Taliban advance, and the Taliban intent to conduct a military takeover. That is what we learned this week: that the White House was told over and over and over again and did nothing; in fact--worse than that-- rejected the counsel of military commanders on the ground, saying that the situation was urgent, saying that civilians needed to be evacuated, saying that there needed to be other steps taken, new measures taken. And the White House drug their feet, did nothing. So what was the consequence of that? Well, we also learned this week that the consequence was a rapid, chaotic rush for the exits once the White House suddenly and belatedly realized they had bumbled into a crisis--once they realized that they had left American civilians with nowhere to go, once they realized that they had a collapse on their hands that they had not planned for, despite being warned repeatedly. As the CENTCOM found--Central Command found--and we learned this week, ``Commanders at each gate [around the airport] exercised authority to open or close their respective gates, as they deemed appropriate, according to the situation on the ground. . . . However, there was tremendous pressure from the strategic level,'' meaning the Combatant Command, the Joint Staff, and, yes, the White House, ``to continue to process and evacuate civilians to the maximum extent possible, so gate closures were done rarely, locally, and temporarily.'' In other words, it was a rush--a mad rush--to the exits once the administration realized that, in fact, the government was collapsing; realized they hadn't done the preparation they needed to do; realized that hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were in grave danger. And we know the result of that. The result is 13 servicemembers were killed, hundreds of civilians were killed, and hundreds of Americans-- maybe more--were left behind to the enemy. Now, I said we learned all this this week. You might wonder, well, where did we learn it? I mean, maybe at least we are making some progress. We are getting some accountability. We learned something. Did we learn it in an oversight hearing before this body? Did we learn it in sworn testimony given in public on the evacuation of Afghanistan? No, no. Oh, no. We learned it from a press report. We learned it because the Washington Post obtained what were previously confidential, unpublished, nonpublic reports from within the military-- from within Central Command in particular--and the Washington Post published them. In what has become an all-too-typical scenario, we learned nothing from any hearings this body is doing because they aren't doing any in public. What we have learned is entirely from leaked reports, secondhand sources--the public having been shut out, having been denied access. You know, we had multiple hearings, actually--or briefings--on Afghanistan and the security situations in Ukraine last week. Did that happen in public? No. Was there testimony taken in public? No. Were there questions asked by Senators in public? No. I am willing to come to this floor as long as it takes and insist on regular order as long as it takes until there is accountability for what this administration has done in Afghanistan and now what it is bumbling towards in Ukraine. We have got to get answers. Why is it that commanders on the ground warn over and over that disaster is imminent and the White House does nothing? Why is it that the White House and the State Department denied a request for a civilian evacuation? Why is it that we are still here all these months later, and the only answers we can get are from leaked reports in the press? Why has not this body done its job to conduct rigorous and serious oversight hearings in public for the American people to see? I will come to this floor and insist on regular order, insist that this body do its job and vote on Defense Department nominees until we get accountability, until there are public hearings, and until we can learn what actually happened in Afghanistan and who is responsible. I will tell you this: I wasn't alive for Vietnam, but I am not willing to participate in the kind of coverup that happened for years in the Vietnam war. I am not willing to kick this oversight responsibility off to some Commission that won't report for years from now most of its findings, probably in a classified annex. And by that point, somebody will say: Oh, well, it is just too late to do anything about it. The American public was lied to for years on the Vietnam war. It has been lied to for years on Afghanistan. It is time to get answers. So, yes, I will be here insisting on those answers, insisting on oversight, and insisting on accountability until we get it. Until that time, it is not too much to ask the Senate to do its job. I believe the majority leader said just the other day that the Senate is here to vote; that is what the Senate is here to do. Well, that is an apt phrase, and for once, I agree very much with the Senate majority leader. For those reasons, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had I been present, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Scott A. Nathan, of Massachusetts, to be Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Andrew Philip Hunter, of Virginia, to be an Assistant Secretary of the Air Force. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Gabriel Camarillo, of Texas, to be Under Secretary of the Army.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the motion to lay before the Senate the House Message to accompany H.R. 5746.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted ``No'' on S. Res. 490, ``a resolution recognizing the essential work of United States Capitol personnel on the anniversary of the insurrectionist attack on the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.'' I am grateful for the service of all Capitol personnel who come to work every day to help operate the workings of Congress and keep Members safe. However, this resolution has been written to score cheap partisan political points. It attacks Republicans for their response to COVID-19, and it contains falsehoods, such as the incorrect assertion that the riot at the Capitol on January 6, 2021 was perpetuated by ``violent insurrectionists.'' Not a single person from that day has been charged with the crime of insurrection. If we are going to honor Capitol Hill workers--and we should--we must do so in a manner that focuses on their service to their nation, not on false narratives that are meant to divide us. I support Capitol personnel but oppose this resolution as written.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 489, Armando O. Bonilla, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a term of fifteen years and No. 490, Carolyn N. Lerner, of Maryland, to be a Judge of the United States Court of Federal Claims for a term of fifteen years.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 608, Adm. Christopher W. Grady, for appointment in the United States Navy to the grade indicated while assigned to a position of importance and responsibility under title 10, U.S.C., sections 154 and 601. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 239, Michele Jeanne Sison, of Maryland, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (International Organization Affairs). Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 320, Rufus Gifford, of Massachusetts, to be Chief of Protocol, and to have the rank of Ambassador. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 323, Marcela Escobari, of Massachusetts, to be an Assistant Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 440, Claire D. Cronin, of Massachusetts, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to Ireland. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 442, Bathsheba Nell Crocker, of the District of Columbia, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Office of the United Nations and Other International Organizations in Geneva, with the rank of Ambassador. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 446, Jack A. Markell, of Delaware, to be Representative of the United States of America to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, with the rank of Ambassador. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 447, Denise Campbell Bauer, of California, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the French Republic, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Principality of Monaco. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 454, Mark Gitenstein, of Washington, to be Representative of the United States of America to the European Union, with the rank and status of Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 519, Julissa Reynoso Pantaleon, of New York, to be Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Kingdom of Spain, and to serve concurrently and without additional compensation as Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the United States of America to the Principality of Andorra. Had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 625, John R. Bass, of New York, a Career Member of the Senior Foreign Service, Class of Career Minister, to be an Under Secretary of State (Management), vice Brian J. Bulatao.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 606, Dawn N. Ison, of Michigan, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan for the term of four years.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I object. Madam President, it is now December. It has been nearly 4 months since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the crisis into which this President has led this country is unprecedented. In my lifetime, it is unprecedented. And who has been held accountable for this disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council have been relieved of duty? No one. Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of State and at the Department of Defense. My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction. I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that. I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object. It is now December. It has been nearly four months since the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives in the attack on Abbey Gate along with hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that my insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the crisis into which this President has led this country is unprecedented. In my lifetime, it is unprecedented. It is unprecedented for an American President to watch 13 servicemembers lose their lives in an evacuation for which he is responsible and then to celebrate that operation as ``an unqualified success'' or ``an extraordinary success.'' I believe those were President Biden's words. Really, an extraordinary success? Thirteen servicemembers dead, hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of Americans left behind to the enemy--that is success? No, that is a failure. That is unacceptable. And who has been held accountable for this disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council has been relieved of duty? No one. Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of State and at the Department of Defense. My colleagues say that we have got to put national security first. I agree with them about that. But I believe that begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction. I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend that Afghanistan didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that. I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, approximately 24 hours after the attack at Abbey Gate in Kabul, I had the privilege to speak with the father of one of the marines who lost his life there, a young marine from the State of Missouri, St. Charles County, named Jared Schmitz. His father, whose name is Mark, told me of the devastation of losing his son. He later spoke in public about his son in this way. He said: I am very honored-- This is Mark talking about his boy Jared. I'm very honored that I could call him my son. His life meant so much more. I'm so incredibly devastated that I won't be able to see the man that he was very quickly growing into becoming. Thirteen servicemembers lost their lives on that day and hundreds of civilians. As a result of the botched evacuation operation, hundreds, if not thousands, of American civilians were left behind to the enemy, where hundreds still remain. Now, I am not going to reveal the contents of my conversation with Mr. Schmitz, except to say something that he asked me, something that he told me. He told me, ``Go fight like hell,'' and that is exactly what I am going to do until there is accountability for the worst foreign policy crisis this country has suffered since the Vietnam war. We hear from our friends on the other side of the aisle that our insistence that we actually vote on nominees is unprecedented. I would humbly suggest that the crisis into which this President has led this country is unprecedented. In my lifetime, it is unprecedented. It is unprecedented for an American President to watch 13 servicemembers lose their lives in an evacuation for which he is responsible and then to celebrate that operation as ``an unqualified success,'' ``an extraordinary success,'' I believe were President Biden's words. Really, an extraordinary success? Thirteen servicemembers dead, hundreds of civilians dead, hundreds of Americans left behind to the enemy--that is success? No, that is a failure. That is unacceptable. And who has been held accountable for this disaster? No one. Who has the President fired? Who has offered their resignation? Which of the planners at the Department of State or the Department of Defense or the National Security Council has been relieved of duty? No one. We have seen this movie before. Back to Vietnam. In Vietnam, we watched as the experts in Washington sent thousands and thousands of Americans to die, concealing the true state of the war, lying to the American people. And what happened to the people who planned that disastrous war over all those years? Nothing. They went on to their board seats. They went on to collect their fat pension checks. They went on to be celebrated. And who was left to pick up the pieces? It was the families of the fallen. It was those who lost their lives. Well, I, for one, am not willing to stand by and participate in that kind of theater again. I am not going to go back to the families of the fallen in my State and say that I didn't do anything while people in this body looked the other way. It is time that there was accountability. So is this a protest that I am launching by asking the Senate to actually vote on these nominees? You bet it is. You bet it is because we don't need more leadership of the same kind in the State Department. We don't need more leadership of the same kind in the Department of Defense. We need a different kind of leadership. We need a different direction for this country. Until there is accountability, I am going to ask that the Senate do the simple task of its job, which is to actually vote on these nominees. The least we could do is observe regular order and vote on these leadership positions at the Department of State and at the Department of Defense. My colleague from Maryland says--and I think he is right--that we have got to put national security first. I agree with him about that. That begins at the top, with the President of the United States and the leadership of the Department of Defense and the Department of State. But I, for one, am not going to stand by and look the other way while this administration systematically endangers our national security, imperils the American people, and watches the sacrifice of our soldiers go by without any accountability, without any change in direction. I am not willing to look the other way and just pretend it didn't happen, which seems to be the posture that many in this body have adopted. I am not willing to do that. Frankly, I can't do that because I promised the parents of the fallen that I wouldn't do that. So I am going to discharge my responsibility. And as long as it takes, I will continue to draw attention to what happened at Abbey Gate and to demand accountability for it. If I am still here on the floor doing this in 2023, so be it; 2024, so be it, until somebody is held accountable. I don't care who the President is. I don't care what administration it is. I want to see accountability for what has happened in Afghanistan, what happened to those servicemembers, and what happened to those hundreds of civilians who are even now left behind enemy lines to the enemy. I would just note one other thing about the situation we are in, vis- a-vis these nominees. While I can ask that there be a vote on the floor of the Senate, I certainly can't prevent that vote. So you might ask yourself: Why in the world, if these nominations are so important--and, by the way, I agree that these are leadership positions. That is, in fact, why I am asking for a vote. These are leadership positions to the Department of State, in this case, the Department of Defense in other cases. But why in the world we haven't voted? I can't prevent a vote. None of my colleagues can prevent a vote. The answer is, ask Senator Schumer. My friends control the floor. Senator Schumer is the majority leader of the U.S. Senate, and what has he had the Senate doing? Well, not much. Last week, over a 3-day period--3 days--how many votes did the U.S. Senate take? One. For 2 full days, we were in session. How many votes did the U.S. Senate take on any subject? Zero. If these were such pressing priorities, why isn't the Senate majority leader putting them on the floor for a vote? I have no earthly idea other than, apparently, he just can't get his act together to do it. Here we are. It is 2:15 in the afternoon on a Thursday. Are we voting? No. How many votes have we taken today? One. Will we be voting tomorrow? I doubt it. Will we be voting next week? Who knows. Apparently it is not that much of a priority. So Senator Schumer has a lot to answer for in many regards, not the least of which is his defense of the indefensible Afghanistan debacle and the loss of life there. But he also should take a look in the mirror. And I humbly suggest that my colleagues across the aisle might want to question him as to why these nominations that they insist are so important aren't being put on the floor to be voted on. I would be happy to vote on them anytime, but I am not going to consent to waving them through and waiving regular order until there is some accountability for the disaster that this administration has pushed upon this country and upon the people of my State. Now, I have one other--before I object--and I am going to object, Mr. President. Before I do, I want to pick up one piece of bookkeeping item, bookkeeping issue with my colleague, the Senator from Maryland. Let me just say this while I am on that subject. The Senator from Maryland is across the aisle. I want to be clear about this with my colleague, the Senator from Maryland, whom I have worked with many times before. I don't doubt for a moment his sincerity or his earnestness on this issue. And I know that he thinks that these nominations are pressing and that they are important, and I agree with him. And I am sure that he is frustrated by the fact that we disagree on the right way to get accountability in Afghanistan. I acknowledge that. It is an honest disagreement. So I don't want my remarks in any way to suggest in any fashion that I question the integrity or the uprightness or the sincerity of my colleague from Maryland, and I just wanted to say to him that two of the nominations that he read out I don't have any objection to: Adam Scheinman and Jack Markell. So if the Senator were willing to reoffer those separately, I think he certainly would encounter no objection from me. But with all of that, Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise to make a very simple point, which is that Medicare is too important to be held hostage to political games, and that is what is going on here now. We need to have a clean bill to fully fund and protect Medicare for the millions of Americans who rely on it, including over 1 million just in the State of Missouri. And that is why I am supporting Senator Kennedy's bill to fully protect and secure Medicare, and I will support every amendment and bill and clean amendment and bill to fully protect and secure Medicare, including, I think, Senator Graham's that he's going to be offering shortly, which I am also privileged to cosponsor. And I would just say this: I call on the Members of both parties-- both parties--to stop using Medicare as a pawn in a political game. Let's fund Medicare. Let's do it on its own. Let's not hold it hostage to other agendas. Let's not hold it hostage to other programs. Let's not hold it hostage to others' individual ambitions, whatever they may be. But let's take the opportunity now with this bill to fully protect Medicare for our seniors all across this country. That should be something that we can all get behind, and for those reasons I am proud to support Senator Kennedy's legislation. And now I yield to Senator Hoeven.