-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. REED. Madam President, I rise today to urge my colleagues to carefully consider their vote for the nomination of Mr. Michael Duffey to be Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment.

This position is unique in the Department of Defense. The Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment has a wide range of duties, including delivering on a timely basis cost-effective capabilities for the Armed Forces; supervising all elements of the defense acquisition enterprise and the defense industrial base; overseeing the modernization of our nuclear forces; and serving as a principal adviser to the Secretary on acquisition, sustainment, and core logistics. It requires a leader of the highest quality of judgment, expertise, and character.

There is no question that President Trump has a right to choose who he wants in critical roles, but the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment should be someone who is capable, without question, to meet the demands of the job and the expectations of those he will lead. They should have the experience and temperament to manage one of the most complex offices in the Department of Defense.

Unfortunately, my view is that Mr. Duffey lacks experience leading any organization remotely as large and complex as the Department of Defense acquisition enterprise.

For better or worse, the industry and the workforce that supports the Pentagon is enormous, complicated, and is a huge factor in our Nation's economy. Mismanaging it could harm taxpayers' investments, the American economy, and workers' lives. Do we want to risk hundreds of billions of dollars in acquisition programs to such a nominee?

I have serious doubts about Mr. Duffey's ability to run this critical function of our government.

Furthermore, in 2019, Mr. Duffey played a key role in the scandal that led to President Trump's first impeachment: withholding military aid from Ukraine to extort information on Mr. Trump's political opponents. While serving as a top official in the Office of Management and Budget, Mr. Duffey directed the Pentagon to withhold $250 million from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative while Mr. Trump simultaneously demanded that President Zelenskyy hand over any information he had about Mr. Biden's family. Mr. Duffey's role in this outrageous event was brought to light during the impeachment proceedings. In my view, abusing the privilege of public office to exact political revenge is disqualifying.

If confirmed, there are legitimate questions about Mr. Duffey's willingness to disregard the statutory directions of Congress.

And, finally, Mr. Duffey coauthored a chapter for the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 that suggested Federal procurement policy should be used to attack so-called woke policies in corporate America. It is not hard to imagine how Mr. Duffey could use his position as the head of the largest acquisition organization in the world to weaponize Federal funding against private corporations that he and President Trump disagree with politically.

We have seen this played out in the context of universities. We have seen this played out in the context of going after funding that NIH provides to many universities, but, particularly, this all-out assault on people that the President perceives as being unfit or unsupportive of him, that directly translates to Mr. Duffey to not just esteemed universities throughout the country but our national defense-- corporations that, in fact, have embraced the idea of bringing us all together, getting the best possible person, moving them up. That would be an incredible disaster and failure for the Nation.

And Mr. Duffey failed to alleviate any of these concerns during his Senate Armed Services Committee testimony.

As I hope my colleagues know, my top priority has always been national security, and partisanship has no place in that mission. And I will always pick up the phone for whomever holds leadership positions in the Department of Defense, and I will seek opportunities to work with them to strengthen and support our military.

Whomever they may be, I hope that they comport themselves with the wisdom, composure, and character--underlining ``character''--that this awesome responsibility demands. Our men and women in uniform and, indeed, the American people deserve nothing less.

And the question I have is this: Is Mr. Duffey the best we have to offer?

I do not believe so, and I urge my colleagues to vote against this nominee.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source