Floor Statements

Mr. President, I stand before you today as the son of two police officers. Growing up in our family, service always came first. My mom was actually the first woman to become a police officer in our hometown of West Orange, NJ. Before that, she was working as a secretary and a waitress, often at the same time. Her becoming a cop meant more money for our family. It literally changed our lives.

One day, my mom was seriously injured in the line of duty. When on patrol, she got a call about a burglary at a department store. She rushed to that store to help. The criminal attacked her--attacked her pretty badly. She was injured, and her injuries forced her to retire. It ended her career.

Now, that was a risk that she took for our community as a police officer. These are the same risks we see officers make every single day across our country--in all 50 States, all the Territories, and here in Washington, DC.

Our New Jersey community and her union, they had her back. The very idea of her attacker being let off the hook would have been outrageous. It would have been shocking. And it is almost impossible to imagine because it simply would have never happened.

Yet that is exactly what did happen when the President, Donald Trump, pardoned hundreds of criminals who violently assaulted Capitol Police officers and DC Police officers on January 6. That was his priority on day one of his Presidency. It wasn't to lower the price of gas or groceries or housing; it was to let violent criminals off the hook for storming this building and attacking the police, leaving many of them bleeding and bruised or worse--in some cases much, much worse.

Now, how does this line up with backing the blue? I don't get it. These pardons are an insult to every man and woman, like my parents, who served and served our country in law enforcement.

President Trump is sending a message that violence against cops is OK when it is done for him. That is a message that all of us must reject unequivocally.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I am concerned that soon the U.S. Senate might confirm the most unprepared nominee to lead the Department of Defense that has ever been put forward.

I look at every nominee based on whether they are qualified and committed to do the job. It is how I evaluated nominees from the last President, and it is how I am evaluating nominees from this President. And I approach each person with an open mind. It is our responsibility to make sure the folks we consider are ready to do these jobs for the American people.

But this one, the Secretary of Defense, it is especially important. Outside of the Presidency, it might be the biggest job in the country. It is almost impossible to imagine the scale of it.

You have about 3 million people working for you. You are the civilian leader at the top of a massive operation that includes every single soldier, sailor, guardian, airman, marine, and civilian contractor and employee. These folks are spread out across hundreds of military installations in dozens of countries. So it is basically the toughest management job in the world.

You are also responsible for overseeing a budget that exceeds $850 billion every single year, so it is one of the most complicated budget- management jobs in the world as well.

You are overseeing some of the most complicated weapons systems and defense programs that exist. Some of these are multibillion-dollar projects that happen over the course of years to develop, test, and field.

It is also one of the most demanding policy and program implementation jobs.

Now, not every Secretary of Defense nominee checks the box for each of those qualifications. It is impossible for us to expect that. The job is too big. But what is clear to me at the end of this process is that Mr. Hegseth does not check any of the boxes.

I appreciate his service in the U.S. Army and his service to this country,

especially in combat, but that is not a requirement for this role.

During his career in the Guard and Reserve, Mr. Hegseth did not rise to a command position where he would learn the management, joint forces operations, logistics, and other skills that are relevant to fill this job. In his civilian roles, he has led two veterans organizations, neither of which were larger than about 50 people. And he spent 7 years as a TV host. Normally, this would be the end of the conversation. Normally, it would be clear to every single person in this Chamber that this is not someone ready to do this job.

Now, I understand that the case for his nomination is in part because he is an outsider--I get that--that he can shake things up. I am not opposed to that. The Pentagon needs to be leaner. It needs to move more quickly and be willing to lose things that aren't working and adopt things that will work. Having someone who isn't beholden to the current way of doing things--that is exciting.

My concern is not that Mr. Hegseth is going to succeed in whipping the Pentagon into shape; my concern is that he would fail. Given his lack of experience, it is much more likely that the bureaucracy is going to crush Mr. Hegseth than he is going to crush the bureaucracy. It is not just that Mr. Hegseth is unprepared for this role; the experience he does have is riddled with serious issues that should concern us all.

During his time leading two veterans organizations, he was accused of financial mismanagement.

In 2009, after just about 2 years leading a group called Vets for Freedom, it has been reported that forensic accountants found that the organization had about $1,000 in the bank, more than $400,000 in unpaid bills, and $75,000 in credit card debt. Mr. Hegseth wants to get the Pentagon to finally pass an audit. Yet the much smaller--much smaller-- organization he led could not do the same.

During his time leading Concerned Veterans for America, the organization was forced to reach a financial settlement with a female employee who accused a male colleague of trying to sexually assault her. The woman was reportedly ostracized and faced reprisals in the workplace after that settlement. For a Department that is working to address sexual assault and harassment, what would it say to confirm someone who has already fostered environments where these are an issue?

It has also been reported that he frequently abused alcohol, getting drunk in front of his staff and in public. I want to remind folks of some of these incidents:

Memorial Day 2014; CVA event in Virginia Beach. Hegseth needed to be carried out of the event.

Summer 2014 in Cleveland. Drunk in public with the CVA team.

November 2014; ``Get Out the Vote'' event in North Carolina. Hegseth got drunk with three young female staff members. CVA had instituted a no-alcohol policy at its events in October--this was 1 month later--but Mr. Hegseth and another manager lifted the policy.

In December 2014, at the CVA Christmas party at the Grand Hyatt in this city, Washington, DC, Hegseth was ``noticeably intoxicated and had to be carried up to his room.''

Another time, a CVA staffer stated that Hegseth ``passed out'' in the back of a party bus.

On May 29, 2015, a now-former CVA employee sent a complaint letter to management that Hegseth was chanting ``Kill All Muslims'' at a bar in Cuyahoga Falls, OH, in ``a drunk and violent manner.''

While at FOX News, in October 2017, following his dinner speech at the California Federation of Republican Women's 40th Biennial Convention in Monterey, CA, Hegseth was reportedly engaged in a loud argument by the pool and was ``very intoxicated.''

FOX News employees have reported that after a St. Patrick's Day segment on St. Patrick's Day, after being on TV, Hegseth drank several beers that had been sitting out for hours. These employees also noted that the segment finished before 10 a.m. and they were shocked at Hegseth's behavior.

One current and two former FOX News employees told NBC News that they felt that they had to ``babysit'' Hegseth to mitigate the effects of his drinking. This is a quote: ``We'd have to call him to make sure he didn't oversleep because we knew he'd be out partying the night before.''

Two FOX employees--current or former--said that on more than a dozen occasions during Hegseth's time as a cohost on ``Fox & Friends Weekend,'' which began in 2017, they smelled alcohol on him before he went on air. That was in the morning. Those same two people, plus another, said that during his time there, he appeared on television after they heard him talk about being hungover as he was getting ready or on set.

In the fall of 2024, one FOX employee said they heard him complain about being hungover.

In November 2024, one FOX employee said they smelled alcohol on him as recently as this past November, 3 months ago.

During his confirmation hearing, I gave Mr. Hegseth the opportunity to answer for a number of these incidents. I asked him point blank: Are these true or false?

He had the opportunity to say ``These things did not happen'' or to explain how he is prepared to account for them and how he won't repeat this concerning behavior as Secretary of Defense. He wouldn't answer, with one notable exception. I asked him about reports that in 2014 he was drunk at a strip club with staff in Louisiana. He replied to me: Absolutely not. He specifically denied that incident. He was prepared to say that one--but only that one--didn't happen, but the rest of these incidents, well, he would not deny them. Instead, he called them ``anonymous smears.''

Well, first of all, they are not all anonymous. The committee has had access to sworn affidavits from individuals who witnessed this behavior firsthand.

This confirmation process was rushed. The FBI background check, which the entire committee was never given access to, was clearly inadequate and had to be updated multiple times. And despite repeated efforts, Mr. Hegseth has refused to meet with me and many others on the committee in private to discuss these concerns further.

But beyond all of that, it defies belief that this behavior does not represent a pattern. The incidents listed earlier stretch out across a decade. These are individuals who worked with him across three different organizations, and in each place, these people witnessed him abuse alcohol. It is obvious to anyone willing to see it that this is a pattern.

Let's be clear. These are not smears. If Mr. Hegseth were a private citizen, these issues with alcohol would only be a concern for those around him. But when you are nominated to be Secretary of Defense, it is a concern for all of us, each and every American. This is not a job where you clock in at the beginning of the day and clock out at the end of the day. You have to be able to move seamlessly between advising the President on matters of national security, sitting with foreign leaders to hammer out agreements, and discussing complex weapons systems with your staff. And that might just be in the afternoon. Some of these things might happen on a plane across an ocean on a weeklong trip or during a phone call that comes late at night, with quick decisions that affect the lives of our servicemembers.

During the Cuban Missile Crisis, Robert McNamara was briefed at midnight about the first photographs from U-2 spy planes showing the likelihood of Soviet ballistic missile sites in Cuba. The same has likely happened when North Korea has tested ballistic missiles that could threaten Guam or our allies.

This is a demanding job for anyone. It is a concerning job for someone with Mr. Hegseth's track record.

So as the Senate moves towards a final confirmation vote on this nominee, Mr. Hegseth, here is what I want to ask my colleagues: Are you sure? Are you sure that you trust him with this job? Are you sure there isn't another individual the President could choose who could pursue the same goals but is better prepared to do this job? Are you sure it is worth the risk to our servicemembers, to our national security, and to your families?

I know I am not.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, this bipartisan bill, H.R. 1607, the pumped hydro storage bill, is about delivering affordable and reliable energy to our growing State by expanding hydropower storage.

The way it does that is pretty simple. It clarifies the Bureau of Reclamation's jurisdiction with respect to the future development of pumped storage along the Salt River in Arizona, and it expands an existing withdrawal south of the river from 1 to 2 miles, allowing the Salt River Project to explore developing sites identified in a 2014 Bureau of Reclamation study. This could ultimately bring upwards of 2,000 megawatts of energy storage capacity to the State of Arizona, providing clean energy and improving grid reliability as the demand for energy grows in the coming years.

Representatives Schweikert and Stanton introduced this bill in the House, and it passed the Chamber last year by a vote of 384 to 1. I appreciate the work of my colleagues on the Energy and National Resources Committee to ensure that our bill received a hearing and a markup.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, on behalf of the majority leader, I ask the Chair to execute the order of November 20 with respect to the Murphy nomination.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my following interns and fellows for today: Alberto Arevalo, Clara Munguia, Autumn Thatcher, Keiko Tani, Lars Eckerstrom, Mia Adams, and Elliana Rainey.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my following interns and fellows for today: McKinley Paltzik, Marlo Hicks, Athena Shao, Drake Fineberg, Brooke Davis, Victoria Favela, George Porteous, Channing Kehoe, Prescott Smidt, Megan Wagner, Connor McLaughlin, and Kiri Wagstaff.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to legislative session and be in a period of morning business, with Senators permitted to speak therein for up to 10 minutes each.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of H.R. 4581, which was received from the House.

I 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. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on the Judiciary be discharged from further consideration and the Senate now proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 713.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the en bloc consideration of the following Senate resolutions: S. Res. 727 and S. Res. 728.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolutions be agreed to, the preambles be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, all en bloc.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Wednesday, June 12; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and morning business be closed; that following the conclusion of morning business, the Senate proceed to executive session to resume consideration of the Rosner nomination postcloture; further, that the cloture time be considered expired at 11:30 a.m. and, following the cloture vote on the See nomination, the Senate recess until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus meetings; and further, that if cloture has been invoked on the See nomination, all time be considered expired at 2:15 p.m.

Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask that it stand adjourned under the previous order.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that privileges of the floor be granted to my intern on my staff for today, Humberto Nicholas Ibarra.

Mr. President, today, during Brain Tumor Awareness Month, I rise to recognize Catherine Ivy, the president and founder of the Ben & Catherine Ivy Foundation in Scottsdale, AZ. Mrs. Ivy started the foundation in 2005 with her late husband Ben after he was diagnosed with glioblastoma. Since then, the Ben & Catherine Ivy Foundation has been committed to finding a cure for brain cancer through funding for patient-focused research.

Mrs. Ivy is a resident of Paradise Valley, AZ, and has been a dedicated member of her community. She has served on the Mayo Clinic Arizona Leadership Council, the board of directors of the Translational Genomics Research Institute--TGen--and the Advisory Board of the Barrow Neurological Institute--all among the most acclaimed research institutions in our State. The Ben & Catherine Ivy Foundataion has donated over $150 million to support brain tumor research and facilitate the creation of the Ivy Brain Tumor Center in Phoenix, AZ. Because of Mrs. Ivy, cancer patients across our State and the country are gaining a real chance to beat this terrible disease.

The Ben & Catherine Ivy Foundataion is a testament to how impactful cancer research can be and why it is so important that we continue to fund it. In this body, I think that is something we can agree on, especially considering the same cancer that took Ben Ivy also took Senator John McCain. It is in the same fighting spirit of Senator McCain that Mrs. Ivy works to support bold projects that may feel like a long shot but also hold great scientific promise. There can only be reward if you take the risk.

We won't beat cancer without a faithful commitment to scientific advancement. In Phoenix, this commitment is growing strong. I want to thank Mrs. Ivy for that. Her contributions to brain cancer research will yield successful, life-prolonging treatments for patients for years to come. Our State and its residents owe Mrs. Ivy a debt of gratitude.

Madam President, as my colleague from Connecticut said, it has been nearly 100 days since my Republican colleagues walked away from a bipartisan border security agreement. That is nearly 100 days that my State of Arizona and other border States have had to live with the consequences of that failure.

We could have been on our way to hiring more than 1,000 additional Border Patrol agents and paying them better. We could have new technology to detect fentanyl and more personnel to seize those drugs, keeping them from getting into our communities and killing people. We could have new authorities to prevent the border from being overwhelmed--authorities that the President committed to using. That includes an updated asylum system with more officers to quickly screen claims. All of these things are things that my Republican colleagues have wanted for years. Arizona, today, has none of it, and I think the Presiding Officer knows why.

The Federal Government has failed Arizona on the border for decades. Sadly, it is almost expected at this point. But no past failure is as baffling and as cynical as this one because for once we all agreed that the business-as-usual approach wasn't working; that our immigration process and infrastructure can't handle the new realities at the border--because for once there was a real plan, worked on and agreed to by Republicans and Democrats, ready to be signed into law by the President.

We had an opportunity to defy the low expectations that the American people have for Congress and actually do something in a bipartisan way to start fixing the border, but that is not what happened. Senate Republicans walked away. Well, actually, they ran away from this agreement because too many politicians would just prefer to keep talking about a problem than actually solve it.

This failure isn't theoretical in my State. Over the past 3 months, the Tucson Sector has remained the busiest for illegal crossings in the country. Our communities and nonprofits have been stretched to the breaking point to prevent mass releases of migrants onto the streets. Border Patrol and local law enforcement--they are strained. So are ports of entry, where long wait times impact families and businesses.

Did I mention that we could have had 1,000 more Border Patrol agents--1,000?

It is a difficult situation that would be more manageable if the Senate had done its job 3 months ago. That is not just me saying this. That is what you will hear from anyone who lives or works on the border, including the Border Patrol union. It is what I assume my colleagues are hearing from mayors and law enforcement when they do their factfinding missions, tours, and field hearings on the border.

So why don't we just listen to the folks who are most affected by the crisis at the border and actually do something about it. Let's pass this bipartisan border agreement. The only thing that has changed from 3 months ago is that we have wasted more time. The problem still exists. The solutions are the same ones we negotiated together.

If you aren't convinced by every piece of it, let's debate it. If you think it needs something added or taken away, let's vote on amendments. We just need some--some--of our Republican colleagues to join us, and we can open up the debate on this legislation. Think about it. We can be the Senate that finally breaks through the gridlock and does something meaningful on the border.

Madam President, let's defy those low expectations the American people have for us. That is what they deserve from us.

I yield the floor.