Josh Hawley

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 534, Clare E. Connors, of Hawaii, to be United States Attorney for the District of Hawaii for the term of four years; No. 535, Zachary A. Cunha, of Rhode Island, to be United States Attorney for the District of Rhode Island for the term of four years; No. 536, Nikolas P. Kerest, of Vermont, to be United States Attorney for the District of Vermont for the term of four years; No. 581, Gregory K. Harris, of Illinois, to be United States Attorney for the Central District of Illinois for the term of four years; and No. 582, Philip R. Sellinger, of New Jersey, to be United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey for the term of four years.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madame President, LTC John Meyer joined my office as our defense fellow this past January. It is hard to overestimate in the months since just how much he has contributed. Time and again, John has drawn on his rich background and his experiences in the Middle East, the Pacific, and with some of the Army's most elite units to inform our work on defense and national security. More than that, he has consistently stepped up, even when he didn't have to, to help those in need--from veterans and servicemembers at home in Missouri to those affected by the bombing in Kabul over the summer. For all of these reasons and more, it has been a real privilege to have John as a part of our team this year. We are going to miss him when he goes all too soon here, but I am confident he will continue to serve our Nation with the utmost distinction wherever his career takes him. I want to take this opportunity, in light of all of that, to request floor privileges for John as a small gesture of my gratitude for his service to my office, to Missouri, and to our Nation. I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Lieutenant Colonel John Meyer be granted floor privileges for the remainder of the Congress.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Madam President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar No. 537, Cole Finegan, of Colorado to be United States Attorney for the District of Colorado for the term of four years; No. 538, Kenneth L. Parker, of Ohio, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of Ohio for the term of four years; No. 553, Cindy K. Chung, of Pennsylvania, to be United State Attorney for the Western District of Pennsylvania for the term of four years; and No. 554, Gary M. Restaino, of Arizona, to be United States Attorney for the District of Arizona 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 nomination of Executive Calendar No. 332, Lee Satterfield, of South Carolina, to be an Assistant Secretary of State (Educational and Cultural Affairs). Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the motion to proceed to Calendar No. 144, H.R. 4350, the National Defense Authorization Act.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I understand that multiple of my colleagues have objections to all of the nominees that the Senator from New Jersey is going to offer this evening. So I will be here to object on their behalf and also on my own behalf with regard to a few of them. Mr. President, I want to address one of those nominees, Julianne Smith, the President's nominee to be United States Ambassador to NATO. This is a nominee to whom I object myself, and I want to explain why, briefly. Before I do that, however, I just have to make one comment on the Senate majority leader's remarks about his own inability to get these nominees confirmed. Now, I agree that many of these nominees are important, and that is, in fact, one of the reasons we should have a vote on them. The Ambassador to NATO, for instance, as I am about to argue, is a very important position. And the positions that she takes, the arguments that she makes are very important, which is why we ought to go on the record and actually have a vote. But the Senate majority leader's comments--as if he has no control over the calendar. He is the majority leader of the United States Senate. He decides when we vote. He decides what we vote on. What are we doing now? The floor is empty. We could be voting. What are we doing later this week? He is gavelling us out of session so that Members across the aisle can go on a field trip to Glasgow, Scotland. We could be voting. It is getting a little rich to hear the Senate majority leader, who is doing almost nothing--have we brought up the defense bill? No action. Multiple major issues--no action from the Senate majority leader. If these nominees are so critical, he ought to be putting them on the floor for votes. He doesn't want to do that because, apparently, he can't control the floor or he just doesn't want to work for very long or he doesn't want to work very hard. I mean, I leave that to him. But it is quite ridiculous for the majority leader to blame Republicans, who cannot prevent votes. Can I just be clear? Republicans do not have the ability to prevent votes on any of these nominees. The filibuster for these nominees doesn't exist. We can vote whenever the majority leader wants. It is his decision when to bring them to the floor. Now I want to comment on one just briefly. On Julianne Smith--one nominee tonight to whom I object--this is the President's nominee, as I said a moment ago, to be the next United States Ambassador to NATO. I think the Senator from New Jersey and I can agree that this is a very important position. I am sure the Senator believes that, and I agree with him 100 percent. And I just want to take a minute and say why I think it is important and why we need to vote--actually vote--on her nomination. A decade ago almost, 2014, after the Russian invasion--incursion into Ukraine, NATO allies finally recognized that they were not spending enough--our NATO allies--on their own defense and on our common defense. So they pledged as a group to commit at least 2 percent of their respective GDPs to their own defense and to meet that target by 2024. So far, large numbers of them are not on track to do so. In fact, Ms. Smith said, in response to my own questions about this, that it is clear that a group of allies will fail to deliver on this pledge by 2024; and, currently, another group are not close to meeting it, although they say they hope to make up the difference. Here is my point: The security situation has not improved since 2014. It has deteriorated. Russia, as we speak, is still menacing Ukraine. And now China is menacing Taiwan. The United States is already facing hard choices, and we are going to face harder choices yet about how we allocate our defense resources, which are scarce; how we allocate our force posture, how we structure our force posture in a world that is growing more dangerous. And the China threat, in particular, is one that is going to make us make difficult choices in what we prioritize in the Asia-Pacific versus what we prioritize in Europe. The bottom line is we need our allies to meet not only their 2- percent commitment, but we need them to do more in Europe for their own defense because we must focus on the deteriorating security situation in the Indo-Pacific and in the Asia-Pacific with regard to China and its imperial ambitions in Taiwan. I asked Ms. Smith for her commitment that she will press our NATO allies not only to meet their 2-percent commitment, but to revise that commitment so that we can have a truly common defense in this era of multiplying challenges and deteriorating security. She has refused, unfortunately, to give me that commitment. I can't block her nomination, but I can ask that we take a vote on it. And so for that reason, in a moment here, when Senator Menendez brings her nomination to the floor, I will object and ask for a vote on her, in particular; and I will, as I said, object to others on behalf of my colleagues. With those comments, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, on behalf of my colleagues and myself, 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. 412, Rahul Gupta, of West Virginia, to be Director of National Drug Control Policy.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, had there been a recorded vote, I would have voted no on the confirmations of Executive Calendar Nos. 392-399, Jessica D. Aber, of Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia for the term of four years; Carla B. Freedman, of New York, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York for the term of four years; William J. Ihlenfeld II, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Northern District of West Virginia for the term of four years; Christopher R. Kavanaugh, of Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Western District of Virginia for the term of four years; Darcie N. McElwee, of Maine, to be United States Attorney for the District of Maine for the term of four years; Breon S. Peace, of New Jersey, to be United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York for the term of four years; William S. Thompson, of West Virginia, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of West Virginia for the term of four years; and Damian Williams, of New York, to be United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York for the term of four years, vice Preet Bharara.

Mr. HAWLEY

Mr. HAWLEY. Reserving the right to object, I appreciate the earnestness on this issue from my friend and colleague the Senator from New Jersey. He mentions that something could happen in the world, that something will happen in the world. Something, I submit to you, has happened in the world, and today we have been learning about it. I am talking about the crisis in Afghanistan, the debacle in Afghanistan. All day, the Senate has been hearing testimony in the Armed Services Committee from Secretary Austin, from General Milley, and from General McKenzie about how it came to be that 13 American servicemembers are dead, 169 civilians killed, and hundreds of Americans left behind enemy lines there as we still speak--the greatest foreign policy crisis that this country has seen since Vietnam. And those aren't my words; those are the words--the comparison of the Democratic members of the committee who repeatedly referenced today Vietnam, the fall of Saigon. That is the level of crisis that we are dealing with. What accountability has there been for this crisis, for this debacle? Because ``crisis'' isn't even quite the right word. That sounds like a natural disaster, as if it accidentally happened. That is not the case. This is a debacle, a failure of leadership in the first order, and what accountability has there been for it? Who has resigned? Who has been fired? Who has been relieved of command? Nobody. What actions have the administration taken? None. What does Secretary Austin say today? He says: Well, we will take a hard look at ourselves, and we will ask some tough questions. Mr. President, that is not nearly good enough. Americans are dead. Americans are stranded behind enemy lines. Our foreign policies are in a state of collapse. Our national security is in a state of collapse. Enemies around the world are watching what is happening in Afghanistan, are seeing an opportunity as the United States shows weakness and disarray and chaos. There must be accountability. Let me say something more about what we learned today because we did learn quite a lot, and all of it is frightening. We learned that the President of the United States lied. He lied when he said to the American people in an interview on television just a few weeks ago that he was never told by any of his military advisers--never told that a drawdown on this timetable, his timetable, would result in catastrophe. He was asked by George Stephanopoulos: Your top military advisers warned against withdrawing on this [timetable]. They wanted you to keep about 2,500 troops. President Biden: No, they didn't. Stephanopoulos: They didn't tell you that they wanted troops to stay? President Biden: No. Stephanopoulos: So no one told--your military advisers did not tell you, ``No, we should just keep 2,500 troops.'' President Biden: No. No one said that to me that I can recall. Today, we heard from General Milley, General McKenzie, and Secretary Austin, who--each of them said that they advised the President--it was their considered military judgment that the President's plans were mistaken. They advised against it. They advised him against it. Yet he said: No, no one ever told me. I am not responsible. No one ever told me. We also learned this: We learned that the President lied when he said that he had no idea that the Taliban would take over the country in such a short time period. From the same interview, George Stephanopoulos said to President Biden: Back in July, you said a Taliban takeover was highly unlikely. Was the intelligence wrong, or did you downplay it? Biden said: No. I think that there was no consensus. If you go back and look, they said it is not going to happen. Stephanopoulos: [But] you didn't put a timeline on it when you said it was highly unlikely. You just flat out [said], ``It's highly unlikely the Taliban would take over.'' President Biden said: Yeah. We learned today, in fact, that his commander on the ground, General Miller, warned as early as March, March of this year, that the military situation in Afghanistan was deteriorating rapidly; that the Taliban was on the offensive; that the drawdown of American troops would likely result in the collapse of the Afghan Government and the Afghan security forces sooner rather than later. It was going to come fast is what General Miller said. Yet the President says no one ever told him that. He never knew about it. In fact, his own commanders on the ground warned him about it. What was the consequence of this? Well, the President is either forgetting or ignoring or just outright lying about what he was advised by his own commanders. His administration was failing to plan for the collapse of the Afghan security forces. We learned that today too. Secretary Austin said: We just didn't plan for a scenario of an Afghan security forces collapse. We didn't plan for it. Why didn't they plan for it? Why isn't somebody being held accountable for it? The Special Inspector General for Afghanistan has been warning for years that the Afghan security forces were not ready, that they were not well equipped, that they were not well trained, and that they would not likely stand on their own. We know that the commander on the ground shared the same assessment. Yet the administration did not plan for--by their own admission did not plan for the collapse of the Afghan security forces or the collapse of the Afghan Government, which also meant that they did not order the evacuation of American civilians in time. They dilly-dallied. They waited. They dithered. They did not order the evacuation in time. They waited until the middle of August to undertake an evacuation of civilians in earnest, after American troops had withdrawn from the country. No wonder there was chaos in Kabul. No wonder there was a total disaster. That is the administration's fault. They waited because they hadn't planned. They waited because apparently they were fighting among themselves--the State Department, Defense Department, the White House--all fighting because President Biden wasn't leading. It was a total debacle, total chaos. My friend the Senator from New Jersey quite reasonably wants to know, what is the connection? Why I am objecting to these nominees? Why do I want a vote? Here is the connection: It is about accountability. No one has been held accountable. I note the Senator wants to hear from Secretary Austin in his committee. He should hear from the Secretary in his committee because what we learned today contradicts quite a lot of the testimony that the Secretary of State gave to the Senator from New Jersey and his committee earlier--quite a lot of contradictions. He is quite right to want to hear from Secretary Austin. We need to do more than hear from him; we need to have accountability for what has happened. Until we get that accountability, until someone is held responsible, until there is some turn, some change, some shift in policy--and I have called for the resignations of General Milley, Secretary Austin, Secretary Blinken, and the national security advisers, all of whom planned and executed this operation. Until there is accountability, I think the least the Senate can do is actually vote, take at least a vote on this floor for nominees to leadership position at the State Department and the Department of Defense. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.

Mr. HAWLEY. Mr. President, I object.