Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, this is Jared Schmitz, Lance Corporal Schmitz, from the State of Missouri, Wentzville, MO. His father made this T-shirt and gave it to me just a couple of weeks ago, when I last had the chance to visit with him. Lance Corporal Schmitz was killed in action at Abbey Gate on August 22 of last year. On the back are the 12 other marines who were lost, along with Lance Corporal Schmitz, on that day. When I saw his father and he gave me the shirt, he told me about all they are doing to honor Jared's memory. He asked me to continue to fight to uphold that memory and to get answers, and I said: That is exactly what I will do. The truth is that this family and the families of the other lost marines and every American citizen have been waiting too long for answers about what happened at Abbey Gate, over a year ago, as the Senator from Hawaii rightly notes. We are waiting for answers as to why the commanders on the ground weren't heeded. We are waiting for answers as to why the White House wasn't ready to do a proper evacuation. We are waiting for answers about how the security situation so deteriorated that 13 servicemembers were killed and hundreds of American civilians were left behind to terrorists there in Afghanistan. We are still waiting for answers. No, I am not willing to pretend that everything is fine at the Pentagon. Everything is not fine at the Pentagon. I am not willing to say that business as usual should go on. No, I am not willing to waive the rules of regular order and expedite nominations without even having a vote on the floor of this Senate, but I understand my colleague's sense of urgency here. I understand that he wants to move these nominations.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object, it has now been 16 months since President Biden's disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan; 16 months since Lance Corporal Schmitz from Missouri and 12 other marines lost their lives at Abbey Gate; 16 months since hundreds of American civilians were left behind to the enemy; 16 months and no one has been fired, no one has offered answers. There has been zero accountability. So for approximately the 200th time, we are here on the floor as I continue to fulfill my pledge to seek accountability for what happened at Abbey Gate, for the lives that were lost, including a life from my own State, Lance Corporal Schmitz, and to press for answers. It is not too much to ask that not just the families of the fallen but that the people of this country not be lied to about what happened at Abbey Gate and that we be given the answers the American people deserve. In that time, in those 16 months, Central Command has done an exhaustive investigation and report. Here it is right here. It is thousands of pages long. I can't seem to convince my friend from Rhode Island to hold a hearing on it, so I have been entering it into the Congressional Record page by page. We are about--I don't know--100 pages in. We have many hundreds more to go. But when we are finished, everyone will be able to read this report in full. There have been other reports since then. The Special IG for Afghanistan recently issued his own report, that office's own report, about the collapse of the Afghan Government. And what these reports have in common is a consistent theme that commanders on the ground repeatedly warned the administration, repeatedly warned the National Security Council, repeatedly warned the State Department as early as the spring of 2021 that the security situation was deteriorating rapidly, that the Taliban was gaining ground rapidly, and that there needed be to be an evacuation. Yet what did the White House do? Well, according to the findings in this report, nothing. Did they plan? No. Did they take action necessary? No. And so on August 26, there was a terrorist explosion at Abbey Gate. We lose those 13 marines. Hundreds of American civilians are left behind in a botched evacuation. And here we are. Yet we are asked to act as if nothing has happened, as if we should just go on, business as usual. Keep the conveyor belt of nominees to this Pentagon running with no votes, no votes on this floor, no debate on this floor; just wave them through; waive regular order; move it right along; nothing to see here. I am not willing to do that. I haven't been willing to do it for over a year. I hope my colleagues see now, a year on, that I was serious in August of 2021 when I said I would not consent to waiving the rules to send more nominees to this Pentagon until something is done to get answers and, frankly, to change the culture because the truth is, we have a cultural problem in the whole military-industrial complex. This is an entity, an organization, that has lied to the American people repeatedly over the years. They lied about Vietnam for a decade. They lied about Iraq. They lied about the true state of the war in Afghanistan. And now we are getting the same lies again, to the point that we can't even hold a hearing in public because the White House won't consent to it. I don't really blame Chairman Reed. He can't get witnesses to come testify in public because this White House doesn't want to say another word about what happened at Abbey Gate. We have a word for that. It is called a coverup, and it is time for it to stop. Listen, much has been said about my blocking nominees. The truth is, I can't block any nominee. All of these nominees can be brought to the floor. They can't even be filibustered. It is just a matter of what the Senate majority leader wants to do. Sadly my side is not in the majority, and we are not going to be for the next 2 years. So if the Senate majority leader sees fit to vote on these nominees, he can at any time. But as to whether or not I will consent to waiving the rules and allowing these nominees to the Pentagon in leadership positions to be confirmed without even a vote--I will not until something changes at the Pentagon, until something is done about what happened at Abbey Gate. I know that my colleague the chairman is acting in good faith. It is a privilege to serve with him on the committee. I know he is in a tough spot here because he has a White House that doesn't want to give an inch and doesn't want to say a word. I would just say that I hope, with real oversight coming soon in the House of Representatives, that the Senate will see fit and see its way to doing its part and holding open hearings on this report, on this tragedy, and making sure it does not happen again. With that, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. I object.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, today I honor a superb leader, liaison, and soldier. After 3 years of Active-Duty service with the Army Office of the Chief, Legislative Liaison, MAJ Patrick ``Ryan'' Alban is deservedly moving on and transitioning to the Army Reserve. On this occasion, I believe it is fitting to recognize Major Alban's distinguished service and dedication to fostering the relationship between the U.S. Army and this Chamber. Ryan started his service on the Hill as a legislative liaison in the National Guard Bureau, where he was responsible for the Army National Guard's military construction portfolio until May 2019. He then served as my defense fellow for 12 months where he was instrumental in the drafting of legislation and providing policy advice. Following his time in my office, Major Alban served for over 2 years in the Army Senate Liaison Division, where he was invaluable in informing Senators and staff on Army priorities and policy initiatives. Over the course of the last 2 years, Major Alban also provided support to multiple congressional delegations to locations within the United States and to various countries around the world. He became a trusted adviser and friend to many of us. He distinguished himself by going above and beyond the call of duty to facilitate and successfully execute each and every trip, despite any number of weather, aircraft, and diplomatic complications. Prior to his time on the Hill, Major Alban served our Army and our Nation for more than 10 years. He commissioned as an Active-Duty infantry officer from Officer Candidate School at Fort Benning, GA. He began his career as a weapons platoon leader, air operations officer, and adjutant in the 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) at Fort Drum, NY. While there, he deployed to Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. After returning home, Ryan transitioned to the Missouri National Guard. Soon after, he was mobilized to Ferguson in order to protect persons, property, and civil liberties. He was then selected to command a rifle company and, later, a headquarters company, the former of which he led to the Middle East in support of Operation Spartan Shield. Major Alban is the epitome of a soldier-scholar. He holds a master of laws in national security law from Georgetown University Law Center, a juris doctor from St. Louis University School of Law, a master of professional studies in legislative affairs from George Washington University, and a bachelor of arts in political science from Webster University. On behalf of Congress and the United States of America, we thank MAJ Ryan Alban, his wife, and their son for their continued commitment, sacrifice, and contributions to this great Nation. We join our colleagues in wishing him future successes as he continues to serve our great Army and Nation.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive calendar No. 1188, Chrissie C. Latimore, of South Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the District of South Carolina for the term of four years; No. 1196, Peter D. Leary, of Georgia, to be United States Attorney for the Middle District of Georgia for the term of four years; No. 1197, McLain J. Schneider, of North Dakota, to be United States Attorney for the District of North Dakota for the term of four years; No. 1199, David C. Davis, of Illinois, to be United States Marshal for the Southern District of Illinois for the term of four years; No. 1251, Terry J. Burgin, of North Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the Western District of North Carolina for the term of four years; and No. 1252, Glenn M. McNeill, Jr., of North Carolina, to be United States Marshal for the Eastern District of North Carolina for the term of four years.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, if I could, just a brief word of thanks and commemoration for my friend, the senior Senator from Missouri, Roy Blunt. It has been an incredible privilege to get to serve with Senator Blunt these last 3\1/2\ years. In a sense, I don't know that I would be here in the U.S. Senate were it not for Senator Blunt. I think Senator Blunt was one of--maybe the first person to urge me to consider running for the U.S. Senate, and it has been a true privilege to get to serve alongside him. He and Abby have been so kind to me and Erin on a personal basis. They were with us throughout the campaign. He was through all of the ups and down, as anybody who has been through a campaign knows. Roy was there. They were there with us on the final days on the bus, with Charlie, as I recall, who, between my boys and Charlie--Charlie was the calming influence on my kid. So they were all the life of the party. But from that moment forward, Roy and Abby were such good friends and mentors to us. Roy gave me advice about what it is like to raise a family in politics--something that I was just starting out to do. He gave me advice on things large and small in the Senate: helping me understand how the floor worked, helping me choose my first committee assignments. I remember he made time to sit down and talk through that with me about this time, gosh, 4 years ago now. He has been there every time I have had a question, needed help, needed to understand something. It has been a privilege to get to work together with him on substantive issues that we both care about. I think of veterans in our home State. I think just recently he and I were able together to lead a resolution honoring Jared Schmitz, who is one of the marines who lost their lives at Abbey Gate just over a year ago. I saw Jared's father just a few weeks ago, and he remains grateful for what Senator Blunt did in our continuing efforts to honor him. Roy and I have worked together for years now to try to get our Nation's laws changed to make sure that the tragedy we saw at Table Rock Lake in our home State involving the failure of duck boats, recreational vehicles, in that State would not happen again. I appreciate Roy's efforts on that. Maybe this is one of the things we will get over the line here in the next couple of weeks. I want to close--I know there are others who want to speak--I want to close with two stories about Senator Blunt that I have always loved and that I think really give you insight into Roy Blunt the man. The first is his background, his heritage, being raised on a dairy farm. He mentioned this. I think about this every time I drive home to Ozark, MO, and I drive by the exit near where Senator Blunt's family farm was. Every time, I usually point out to my boys that this is where Senator Blunt is from. Senator Blunt grew up on a dairy farm. He was the first in his family to go to college, I think. Is that right? Senator, have I got that right? He was the first in his family to go to college, and then--this is one of the stories I love--he taught at the same school where his grandfather had been a custodial worker years before. There is something wonderfully Missourian and wonderfully American about that. One of my other favorite stories is about how Senator Blunt got into politics. I am told--now, he can say whether or not this is apocryphal, but I am told that his first job in politics was when a certain Missourian known as John Ashcroft, who once held the Senate seat I now occupy, ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1972. The story goes that Roy walked into his campaign office and said: I would like to work for you. John Ashcroft said: Well, how much gas do you have in your car? Roy said: Well, I have a full tank. John said: Good. You are hired. And Roy went to work. The thing about Roy Blunt, for anybody who has known him for any length of time and certainly for anybody who has served with him in this body, working on any project of any scale, is that Roy Blunt is a worker. He works day and night. When he says he is going to do something, he does it. When he commits to something, he sees it through. That certainly has been my happy experience with him. He leaves a great legacy of service and commitment and honor in the State of Missouri and here in the U.S. Senate. I want to say again, Roy, thank you for everything. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 1101, E. Martin Estrada, of California, to be United States Attorney for the Central District of California for the term of four years and No. 1102, Gregory J. Haanstad, of Wisconsin, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Wisconsin for the term of four 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. 1137, Travis LeBlanc, of Maryland, to be a Member of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board for a term expiring January 29, 2028. (Reappointment).

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 1134, Natalie K. Wight, of Oregon, to be United States Attorney for the District of Oregon for the term of four years.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 1069, Carlos Felipe Uriarte, of California, to be an Assistant Attorney General; Executive Calendar No. 1070, Carlton W. Reeves, of Mississippi, to be Chair of the United States Sentencing Commission; Executive Calendar No. 1071, Carlton W. Reeves, of Mississippi, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2027; Executive Calendar No. 1072, Laura E. Mate, of Iowa, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2027; Executive Calendar No. 1074, Luis Felipe Restrepo, of Pennsylvania, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2025; and Executive Calendar No. 1076, John Gleeson, of New York, to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission for a term expiring October 31, 2023.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, I rise today to discuss American national security and the decisions that we must make to keep this Nation safe. The Senate will vote today on whether to expand NATO by admitting Sweden and Finland. I intend to vote no, and I encourage my colleagues to do the same, and I want to say a word or two as to why. Finland and Sweden want to expand NATO because it is in their national security interest to do so, and fair enough. The question that should properly be before us, however, is, ``Is it in the United States' interest to do so?'' because that is what American foreign policy is supposed to be about, I thought. It is about American security, protecting American workers, defending American jobs, and securing American prosperity, and I fear that some in this town have lost sight of that. They think American foreign policy is about creating a liberal world order or nation building overseas. With all due respect, they are wrong. Our foreign policy should be about protecting the United States, our freedoms, our people, our way of life, and expanding NATO, I believe, would not do that. Listen, we should tell the truth about the consequences of the decision that we are going to take today. Expanding NATO will require more U.S. forces in Europe--more manpower, more firepower, more resources, more spending--and not just now but over the long haul. But our greatest foreign adversary is not in Europe. Our greatest foreign adversary is in Asia, and when it comes to countering that adversary, we are behind the game. I am talking, of course, about China. The communist government of Beijing has adopted a policy of imperialism. It wants to dominate its neighbors, dictate to free nations. It is trying to expand its power at every opportunity, and that includes power over the United States. Beijing wants power over our trade, over our jobs, over our economy. They want us to come to them and beg for market access. They, ultimately, want to reign supreme as the world hegemon, the world's sole superpower. And, listen, Chinese leaders have said it themselves. This is no mystery. Beijing wants a world in which the United States--and all other nations, for that matter--are forced to bow before China's might. It is their stated ambition. This would be a world in which the Chinese Government and its proxies would touch every aspect of our lives, from Chinese goods dominating our markets, to Chinese propaganda flooding our airwaves, to Chinese money and influence corrupting American politics. This would be a world in which China would be free to expand its use of slave labor and to double down on its global campaigns of repression. That is the world that Beijing wants, and the truth is we are not now in a position to stop them. Let me say that again: The truth is we are not now in a position to stop them. That is a hard truth, but it is the truth, nonetheless, and the American people deserve to hear it. Our military forces in Asia are not postured as they should be. The commander of our forces in the Indo-Pacific has testified to this on multiple occasions. We do not have the weapons and equipment we need in the region. We don't have enough advanced munitions. Sealift and airlift are far short of where they need to be. Attack submarines are some of the most important assets we have in Asia and Europe, but they are already in short supply and the fleet is sinking. On top of all of that, we do not yet have a coherent strategy for stopping China's dominance in the Pacific, beginning with the possible invasion of Taiwan, and we are not committing the attention and resources we need to develop and implement that strategy. Why aren't we prepared to do what we need to do in Asia? Well, because we have been distracted for too long--for decades--by nation- building activities in the Middle East and by legacy commitments in Europe. So now, the choice is this: We can do more in Europe, devote more resources, more manpower, more firepower there, or--or--we can do what we need to do in Asia to deter China. We cannot do both. We cannot do both. The Chief of Naval Operations recently testified that the joint force is simply not sized to handle two simultaneous conflicts. That is the reality. Both the 2018 and the 2022 national defense strategies--which were developed, I might point out, by different administrations of different political parties--reached the same conclusion. We have to choose. It is not enough to simply say that China is the pacing threat or to say that the risk to Taiwan is real. We must do something about it. We have to prioritize. We have to focus, and that means we have to do less in Europe in order to prioritize America's most pressing national security interest, which is in Asia, with regard to China. Now, this isn't to say that the United States should abandon NATO, but it is to say that our European allies really must do more. They must take primary responsibility for the conventional defense of Europe and rely on U.S. forces for our nuclear deterrent and select conventional assets. And this is not just so that America can focus on China, although that is of overriding importance to us. No, this is also about NATO's future. European allies have to step up now or risk leaving NATO exposed if the United States and our forces are pulled from Europe into a conflict in the Pacific. Every European ally must make necessary investments now for today's threat environment or risk the worst, but NATO isn't doing that. Our European allies are far from where they should be. You know, NATO states agreed years ago, back in 2006, to spend at least 2 percent of GDP on defense, but many NATO members still haven't met that pledge. Meanwhile, the NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe testified a few weeks ago that our allies need to spend more than 2 percent just to meet existing--existing--ground force requirements, which brings us back to Sweden and Finland. Both countries are longtime NATO defense partners and strong opponents of Russian imperialism. Both occupy important geography. They are also advanced economies with capable militaries, and I respect all of that. But Finland and Sweden's admission would also bring distinct challenges. Sweden still isn't spending 2 percent of GDP on defense, and it doesn't plan to until at least 2028. Finland has announced a one-time defense spending boost, but it is not clear whether it will sustain those higher investments, which, again, are the minimum investments needed for NATO. Now, some say we shouldn't worry about any of this. Some say Finland and Sweden can defend themselves and won't require anything through the United States or our NATO allies. But if that were true, why join NATO? The truth is, both countries want NATO's help defending themselves. That is why they are applying for membership--and fair enough. But because so many current NATO allies have spent years underfunding their militaries, it will be the United States that will be asked to send forces to help defend Sweden and Finland in a time of crisis. Even absent a crisis, NATO expansion will mean more U.S. forces and U.S. firepower in Europe for the long term. Now, if we want to make NATO stronger, the right course is to increase the amount that member states spend on their own defense--say to 2\1/2\ percent--and press our European allies to take primary responsibility for Europe's conventional defense. But this administration--it is going in exactly the opposite direction. They had the chance to push for greater European military spending and investment at the recent Madrid summit. They didn't do it. Instead, the Biden administration has committed the United States to massive spending in Ukraine, far outpacing our European allies, even as they surged tens of thousands of troops into that region, apparently for good. Now, some say expanding NATO will allow the United States to do less in Europe. I wish that were true, but how can it be when NATO is overdependent on American support right now? How would increasing NATO's security needs somehow magically enable the United States to do less? The fact is, NATO expansion will generate new requirements. Sweden has already asked the United States to increase its naval presence in the Baltic area, for example. Now, make no mistake, expanding NATO means expanded obligations for the United States in Europe. That is the nature of a security commitment. Some say we need to expand NATO in Europe to deter China in Asia. But China isn't going to be deterred by the number of our commitments in Europe; China is going to be deterred by our power to deny their imperial ambitions in Asia. That is it. That is the whole ball game. We cannot strengthen our deterrent posture in the Pacific if we are sending more forces and resources to Europe to defend new allies. That is the bottom line. Finally, some say we can't beat China by retreating from the rest of the world, but I am not arguing for retreat, and I am not arguing for isolation. What I am arguing for is an end to the globalist foreign policy that has led our Nation from one disaster to another for decades now. What I am arguing for is the return to a classic nationalist approach to American foreign policy, the one that made this country great; a foreign policy that is grounded in our Nation's interests and in the reality of the world as it is, not as we wish it was or not as we once hoped it would be. In years past, NATO was a bulwark against an imperial Soviet Union. Today, the world's greatest imperial threat is in Asia, and the hour to address that threat is growing very late. We owe the American people this truth. We owe them a clear accounting of facts. We owe them the courage to make tough choices. Today, I submit that means voting against expanding NATO and focusing where we must, to do what we must, to deter an imperial China. This isn't an easy vote, to be sure, but it is the right one for our security, for our prosperity, for our people, for our Nation. I yield the floor.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 1057, Enix Smith III, of Louisiana, to be United States Marshall for the Eastern District of Louisiana.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President.

Mr. HAWLEY. I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President.

Mr. HAWLEY. I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President.

Mr. HAWLEY. Sure.

Mr. HAWLEY. I thank the chairman. It is always a privilege to be on the floor with the Senator from Rhode Island and to serve him on the committee, so thank you for that. I would just say this: It has been nearly a year now since the events, the catastrophe, in Kabul that claimed the lives of 13 servicemembers, including from my home State of Missouri. This was a catastrophe of this administration's making, and it has been now nearly 2 weeks, maybe 3, since I began to enter into the Record, page by painstaking page, this report undertaken by U.S. Central Command about that disaster at Abbey Gate in Kabul, about those deaths, not to mention the hundreds of American civilians who were left behind. I am entering this report into the Record so the American people can see it because I cannot convince my friend from Rhode Island to hold a public hearing on this report, and I cannot convince the White House to stop their coverup of the events at Abbey Gate and the role they played in it. This is not for lack of trying. For months on end, I have come to this floor and asked for a public hearing on this report. I have asked my colleagues. I have written to the chairman. I have spoken to members of the committee, who, by the way, say they have no objection. And just last week, the White House reached out to me and said: What is it that you want? I said, I want accountability for what happened in Afghanistan and Abbey Gate, and, specifically, I want a public hearing on this report, to which the White House said it is up to the chairman. So I hope that we can make some progress on actually getting accountability for what happened, for the servicemembers whose lives were lost, and we can end this continual Vietnamesque, yearlong effort to push this crisis out into the shadows, to ignore it as if it never happened, and to deny the American people the accountability that servicemembers deserve. 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. 1058, Adair Ford Boroughs, of South Carolina, to be United States Attorney for the District of South Carolina for the term of four years.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, following my submission in a previous session of the U.S. Senate, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the next part of an investigation directed by the U.S. Central Command concerning the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan in August 2021.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, following my submission yesterday, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the next part of an investigation directed by the U.S. Central Command concerning the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan in August 2021.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, following my submission yesterday, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the next part of an investigation directed by the U.S. Central Command concerning the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan in August 2021.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, following my submission yesterday, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record the next part of an investigation directed by the U.S. Central Command concerning the Abbey Gate bombing in Afghanistan in August 2021.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmation of Executive Calendar No. 987, Stephen Henley Locher, of Iowa, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Iowa.