-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, today I rise to speak on general and flag officer confirmations, specifically, the urgent need to confirm the next Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps.

The Senator from Alabama strongly objects to an entirely legal and appropriate travel regulation implemented under a long-established Department of Defense authority which ensures all servicemembers and their families have equal access to medical care.

To show his disagreement with the legal civilian-crafted regulation, the Senator from Alabama has held up the apolitical nominations of 251 senior military officers for over 4 months. My colleague from Alabama has made it clear that he will continue his hold on these military officers unless and until he gets his way. He does so despite precedent and, again, with a less than meritorious legal case--in fact, no legal case at all, I would argue--and the fact that Members of his own party have objected to this blockade, including the Republican leader.

This blockade weakens our national security. Every day it goes on, it has a more significant impact on operations within our military, all branches of the military. While our military will always do whatever is necessary to get the job done, they will always be ready--as they will tell you--and they will give their all.

This hold is unnecessary, unprecedented, and, at a critical time in national security, it is driving the U.S. military to a potential breaking point. It is also an affront to the military and their families, who so many of us just lauded for their sacrifices during the Fourth of July festivities. My colleagues thanked them profusely, but do not recognize that they are professional officers who deserve consideration, not as political chips but as men and women of our services.

Those of my colleagues who support this unprecedented delay are themselves politicizing the military by the very nature of their actions. These promotions have always been confirmed by unanimous consent very soon after being reported to the floor or, on the rare occasion, a single overwhelming vote without cloture. But now, in refusing to confirm these promotions, the uniformed military, previously and appropriately shielded from partisan politics, is being thrust into the midst of politics. This behavior was once reserved only for individual political appointees, civilian political appointees on specific matters of dispute, usually with some reasonable or negotiable outcome. No more. It seems it is ``my way'' or no way at all. And that is a sad demonstration of individual hubris.

The Senator from Alabama often says if we really wanted these generals and admirals, we would just vote, but I would like to explain that. The Senator is not allowing a simple vote; he is demanding cloture first on every nomination. So we asked the Congressional Research Service what it would take to process 251 nominations with cloture. They estimate to file cloture on all the nominations being held, it would take approximately 5 hours. Then 2 days later, the Senate could start voting.

It will take approximately 668 hours to confirm all these military nominations. That is 27 days if the Senate works around the clock, 24 hours a day. If the Senate just did military nominations for 8 hours a day, it would take 84 days. So ``just vote'' is not an answer. This is not a feasible solution to this issue.

Now, let me be clear. We have offered the Senator from Alabama opportunities to voice his opinion on the policy matter which he opposes. For example, before recess, we marked up the Fiscal Year 2024 National Defense Authorization Act. During that markup, we had a separate debate and vote on Senator Ernst's bill, S. 822, entitled Modification to Department of Defense Travel Authorities for Abortion- Related Expenses Act. We then had the debate and vote a second time when the Ernst bill was offered to the chairman's markup of the NDAA. And I expect we will likely be debating this issue on the NDAA when it comes to the floor. This is yet another opportunity to vote on the policy my colleagues find objectionable.

And as long as I have been here, the essence of this body is, when you have a difficult issue, you debate it, you discuss it, and then you take a vote. We have already taken several votes, and still this unprecedented hold goes on. I don't think we can continue to allow 251 men and women who have served and sacrificed--and their families, which makes this impact thousands, not just 251--I don't think we can let them fester any longer, wondering if they are going to get their promotion or not.

But, today, let me speak about one specific person whom, I do not think, we can ignore, and that is the position of the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. By law, the present Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. David Berger, must end his service tomorrow, the 11th of July. His replacement, Gen. Eric Smith, who had a hearing before the Armed Services Committee on June 13 and then was voted out unanimously on June 21, awaits our action.

General Berger does not require further congressional action to retire, but General Smith needs the Senate to act to become the next Commandant. I can guarantee you that General Berger takes no comfort in ending his career with his successor unsettled.

I went this morning to a ``relinquishment of office'' ceremony for General Berger. Now, anyone with any experience with the military knows that the typical ceremony is a change of command, but that could not be accomplished today because the next commander has not been confirmed, the new Commandant. To the military in particular, ceremony matters. The visual of the outgoing leader passing the guidon, or battle colors, to the incoming leader shows the continuous, unbroken leadership of an organization--in this case, the whole of the Marine Corps.

In 2019, General Berger received the battle colors from Gen. Robert Neller. This morning, the colors were not passed from one Commandant to another. They were relinquished--relinquished--a word that is seldom associated with the military. They were relinquished from a retiring Commandant to an Acting Commandant, and that is embarrassing--not for the U.S. Marine Corps, but for the U.S. Senate. To hear a retiring Commandant publicly ask the Senate to do its job is an indication of how misguided this approach has been. We need to act, but because of the Senator from Alabama and those who support him, we are unable to do so.

General Berger has faithfully served our Nation--voluntarily--for 42 years. He has fought our Nation's wars. He has selflessly served, and he has done so exactly how we expect our military leaders to serve. For the past 4 years, he has led the Marine Corps through a difficult transition on the way marines fight so that they are ready for the challenge of the Indo-Pacific. But, tomorrow, he leaves the Marines without a confirmed leader because of the inability of this body to do its job.

General Berger's successor, Gen. Eric Smith, is cut from the same cloth. General Smith was born in Kansas City, MO, and raised in Plano, TX. He earned his commission in 1987 through the Naval Reserve Officers Training Corps at Texas A&M University. Like every other servicemember, he has served our Nation wherever it has sent him. He has served in peace, and he has served in multiple wars.

So for those who say this current hold only impacts the generals and the admirals, tell that to the marines General Smith commanded included in Weapons Company, 2nd Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment during Operation Assured Response in Monrovia, Liberia. Tell that to the marines of the 1st Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment who General Smith led during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Tell that to the marines of Regimental Combat Team 8 he led during Operation Enduring Freedom.

In General Smith we have a Purple Heart recipient. This man has literally shed his blood for his country. And with 36 years of service, he has achieved the rank of four stars. He stands ready to continue his service to our Nation and the marines he will lead for 4 more years. He simply awaits our action.

Our action and inaction matter. More than just our generals and admirals are watching. Some argue that this delay impacts only the nominees. They are wrong. These holds ripple through the ranks, and-- trust me--young officers and noncommissioned officers are watching. How we treat their leaders will influence the decisions of future generations about whether the military is worth the sacrifice asked of them and their families.

Right now, a number of military officers who were planning to retire are on an indefinite hold because they have no one confirmed to take their jobs. Others want to go to new commands but cannot for the same reason. Their families cannot move to their new homes. Their children cannot get ready for a new school. Their spouses cannot take new jobs.

This is not a game. These are real lives that have been upended. Due to the pure obstinacy of the Senator from Alabama, the Senate is, in effect, holding thousands of loyal members of the U.S. military and their families in limbo. I believe we owe them more than that.

We are 1 day away from an Acting Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps. According to the Marine Corps History Division, there have been four Acting Commandants in the history of the Marine Corps, which was established in 1775, for those who are counting. The last Acting Commandant served over a century ago, in 1910, and three of the four Acting Commandants are the result of the previous Commandant dying in the position of Commandant.

Could General Smith, the current Assistant Commandant, serve as the Acting Commandant? Yes, of course, he can. But we must ask ourselves why we would allow it. Why would the Senate allow that to happen with not only our near-peer competitors watching but the eyes of all who serve watching? We have the ability and the responsibility to act. We should do so.

``Semper Fidelis''--always faithful--is the Marine Corps motto. Let this Congress show a modicum of that faith today and confirm Gen. Eric Smith as the next Commandant.

With that, Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of the following nomination: Executive Calendar No. 249, Gen. Eric M. Smith to be Commandant of the Marine Corps; that the Senate vote on the nomination without intervening action or debate; that, if confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table and the President be immediately notified of the Senate's action.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, reclaiming my time, first of all, the Senator from Alabama made a compelling case about the demands upon this Senate. They range from cyber security issues to a host of other important issues that we have to deal with. Yet he insists we have a vote.

Now, he has very subtly made a distinction between four or five senior officers, and forgotten the 245 other officers who play very critical roles in the military. And if one respects the Marine Corps and one respects the proposed Commandant, the first thing I believe you should do is allow a vote very quickly so that there is no period of time that he is an Acting Commandant.

And an Acting Commandant is different than a Commandant. Their policies cannot be firmly established because they are just ``acting.'' He is capable, but he is just ``acting.'' If we want leadership that is confirmed, that has not only the trappings of authority but every bit of influence generated by such authority, then we have to vote. That is why the Congress is required to confirm military officers.

We are in a situation where just pure obstinacy is inhibiting our servicemembers. And I am amazed that someone would stand up and say: The quality I look for is a military officer who is not political, but what I do is make these officers political pawns in a game I am playing with national leadership. It is civilian leadership who proclaim these policies, which are legal and consistent with the history of the Armed Forces.

This is a very unsatisfactory answer. We will continue to come back and urge that our colleagues. I particularly hope my colleagues on the other side, many of whom do appreciate the fact that these officers must be confirmed for the good of our Nation and the safety of the world, come around.

I have just one example that comes to mind. The President of the Naval War College, Admiral Chatfield--a remarkable woman--changed command a few weeks ago. She is nominated to be a three-star admiral and be our representative in Brussels at NATO. This, at a time when NATO and the United States are engaged in supporting the Ukrainian people in trying to survive, save their people, and, indeed, probably save their country. But Admiral Chatfield cannot go to Brussels. She remains in Newport waiting--helping out a bit, I am sure, with her replacement, but just waiting. And meanwhile, the general officer in Brussels has other plans, obviously, because he knew, or hoped, that Admiral Chatfield would be arriving soon.

That is the kind of disorder, disorganization, and, I would say, disrespect that is being generated by these holds.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source