Floor Statements

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. Again, for the fourth or fifth time, I am fighting against taxpayer-funded abortions--funding from taxpayers that was never, ever approved by this Congress.

By the way, poll after poll shows that Americans agree with exactly what I am doing. The American people do not support taxpayer-funded abortions. Period.

Democrats have had a few retired Secretaries, in the last few weeks, agree with them; but other retired military leaders and thousands of servicemembers and veterans just happen to agree with me, just like the majority of Americans. In fact, earlier today, a letter representing more than 3,000 servicemembers and veterans was sent in full support of my hold. Those servicemembers and veterans said:

This policy is not just illegal, it shamefully politicizes

the military, circumvents the authority of Congress, and

exceeds the authority of the Department of Defense.

They sent that letter to Leader Schumer and Leader McConnell. I would encourage them to please read it.

Also, earlier today, retired Lt. Gen. William Boykin and retired Lt. Gen. James Carafano penned an op-ed condemning the Pentagon's policies. They said:

The Pentagon's new abortion policy has everything to do

with activist politics and nothing to do with Congress's

obligation to raise and maintain armed forces to provide for

the common defense.

So I object, and I will continue to object.

I will end with one comment from the retired military leaders' op-ed:

America is a global power with global interests and

responsibilities. We can't afford a

military distracted by politics. The quickest way to make

this right is for Secretary Austin to immediately rescind his

radical abortion policy.

Because of this, I object.

Mr. President, I rise to object. I continue hearing about this word ``readiness'' from my colleagues.

We have had a law in place for nearly 40 years. The law provides taxpayer-funded abortion in case of rape, incest, or threat to the life of the mother. Nobody, in 40 years--nobody--on either side of the aisle has complained about this. This was a bipartisan consensus 40 years ago.

The law was not affected by the Dobbs decision. The Dobbs decision did not apply to Federal military installations.

On July 8, 2022, just 2 weeks after the Supreme Court ruling, the Biden administration said they needed to expand abortion to counteract the Dobbs decision. By memo, they said the VA would pay for abortion travel and time off. By memo, they said HHS would pay for late-term abortions. By memo, they covered all Federal workers, and they acted to expand abortion at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is now giving servicemembers and their dependents reimbursements for travel and additional paid time off for elective abortions.

We are not talking about cases of rape, incest, or threat to the health of the mother. Despite what some of my colleagues have said, we are talking about elective abortions. Despite what some of my colleagues have said, that is what this is all about.

Ordinary servicemembers get 30 days off a year--30 days off. Under this policy, servicemembers who get abortions would get 30 days off plus an additional 3 weeks. Servicemembers who get abortions get paid more time off than servicemembers who do not get abortions.

The Pentagon is spending money without the consent of Congress. This money was never authorized. It was never appropriated. Nobody voted for

this. Even my friend from Connecticut didn't vote for this policy. The Democrats' strongest abortion supporters never voted for this. Nobody voted for this, and now Senators are down here defending this.

They are outsourcing the work of the U.S. Senate. Follow the law or change the law in this building.

That is the reason I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that Preston McGee, an intern in my office, be granted floor privileges until May 17, 2023.

Madam President, reserving the right.

Madam President, I want to thank my friends from the House for their support today. But the question today is, What kind of Nation do we want to be? This debate speaks to the moral fabric of our society.

We boast the most powerful military in the history of the world. The purpose of that military is for the strongest among us to protect the weak.

In America, those with the broadest shoulders guard those with the narrowest. Yet the Biden administration wants to mobilize our military against the weakest and the most defenseless--the unborn. I believe that is wrong. It is immoral.

My colleague has described an abortion as just another medical procedure. He mentioned Lasik. He also talked about bunions.

The children of our Nation are not just another routine medical procedure. That is why I am standing here to object.

For 40 years, we have had a bipartisan agreement--40 years. Americans may have different views about abortion, but the majority of this country believes that taxpayers should not have to fund abortions. Secretary Austin blew up 40 years of tradition, an agreement, by just one memo--one memo. There was no debate in the Senate. There was no vote in the House. And here is why. They didn't have the votes. This administration couldn't change abortion laws here in the Senate or the House, so they wrote a memo.

Our Cabinet Secretaries aren't supposed to be politicians. They are there to uphold and enforce the laws made in this building. Yet Secretary Austin is the most political Secretary of Defense we have ever seen.

I am glad to hear Senator Warren got her prompt reply from Secretary Austin this week. As I recall, she made her request on April 6. She got a response a month later. That is certainly not the kind of treatment I have received from the Pentagon. Maybe it has got something to do with my political party.

Nearly a year ago I joined 12 other Republicans in a letter to Secretary Austin, this past July. We asked the Secretary to substantiate the comment he made about abortions being necessary for military readiness. We are still waiting for a reply.

In November, we sent the Department another letter. This time it was just asking for a short and small briefing--just a briefing. That is all we were asking for. We heard they were going to move forward with an abortion policy that was illegal. Secretary Austin did not reply.

In December, I informed Secretary Austin in writing that I would hold his highest nominees if he went forward with this unlawful abortion policy. Well, in February, Secretary Austin implemented that policy, so I kept my word. The very next day, we put a hold on his nominees.

You know, I didn't get a phone call from Secretary Austin until 1 month after I put the hold into effect--1 month. During the call, he offered me absolutely no compromise. He didn't offer to meet or discuss. Unlike Senator Warren, since then, I have heard nothing from Secretary Austin except what he has said about me--the things that are pretty negative--in Armed Services Committee hearings.

Ten months into this dispute, the Pentagon and I are still waiting for one single fact to support this argument--one single fact.

I read Secretary Austin's letter to Senator Warren. It is long on opinions, short on facts. I also read the boilerplate letter signed by the former Secretaries of Defense that were put out this week. It reads like a Democrat press release. The letter simply repeats the same unsubstantiated claims made by Senator Warren, Senator Bennet, and Senator Schumer. Frankly, I think these letters vindicate my opinion. These letters were part of a coordinated effort by the Democrats to use

the authority and the prestige of the Secretary of Defense to distract from the facts. Frankly, I don't think that will work either.

The Biden administration has done everything possible to turn our military into just one more institution for leftwing social engineering. Well, for all of history, Secretary Austin will be the Defense Secretary who oversaw America's worst military defeat since Vietnam.

The Senator from Colorado has twice now accused me of mischaracterizing what he did just a few months ago. My goal is to end an illegal abuse of taxpayer funds. That is what we are trying to do here today.

Senator Bennet's hold was so he could get a meeting with Secretary Austin. So how did Senator Bennet's threatened hold end? Senator Bennet got what he wanted. Senator Bennet got his meeting with the Secretary of Defense. Again, this is more than I received.

So let's remember what I am asking for. I am asking for the Pentagon to drop a policy that is illegal. I am asking Secretary Austin to do his job and follow the law. I understand that Senator Bennet is a strong supporter of abortion. That is all understood. But if he wants this abortion policy, then let's pass a bill.

But it hasn't been done that way. Democrats know that they can't get that done. They know they don't have the votes. The burden is not on me to pass legislation to stop this illegal policy. That is not my job. The burden is on the administration to stop breaking the law.

I am glad that Senator Warren is concerned about our military readiness. Maybe she will actually vote for this year's Defense bill. She hasn't voted for it since 2017. Senator Warren has a long history of holding military leadership nominations--a long history. In fact, she held the nomination of one of our witnesses at the most recent Armed Services Committee hearing, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall. This was the same witness she asked about my hold, was it a big problem? Senator Warren has held his nomination several times. And guess what. She got what she wanted from the Pentagon, just like Senator Bennet with his hold on military nominations.

So I am glad Senator Warren is concerned about military readiness. It excites me that she is excited about the military. Maybe now Senator Warren and Senator Schumer will support funding our military at a level necessary to actually win a war. That is something else that they have resisted doing throughout their long careers in Washington.

If Democrats were actually concerned about readiness, then we would be voting. The U.S. Senate has had more than 30 days off already this year. If we want to pass this, let's vote. But we have had 30 days off. That is not including the weekends. The rhetoric just doesn't match the reality of how this is being handled.

This is more than enough time for us to have confirmed literally all the nominations we have been talking about. We could have already done this, taking them one at a time. This could have been done. Yet that is not what we are doing.

This week, we are having another 3-day workweek. We are getting ready to go on recess 8 days from now. If my Democratic colleagues actually were concerned, then we would be voting on these nominations.

And if Secretary Austin is so worried he can't live without these nominees, he can suspend his memo. That is all he has to do. Drop your memo, and these nominees will proceed by unanimous consent. I am a man of my word. I will stand down. Until then, I am standing up for the Constitution and the unborn, and that is why I object.

Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to print the following article in the Congressional Record.

Mr. President, we will never fully understand--or know--the sacrifices our servicemembers make to keep us safe, both at home and abroad, like Airman First Class Earl Smith of Lincoln, AL. His story of heroism went untold for more than 50 years because of security reasons. His bravery and quick action prevented what could have been the worst nuclear disaster in history.

Raised on a farm in Hatton, AL, Airman Smith and a friend decided on a whim to enlist in the U.S. Air Force after visiting a recruiting office in their local community. Always up for an adventure, Airman Smith decided to enroll in bomb disposal school after enlisting. He recalls his instructor's

warning on the first day that you are only allowed one chance to mess up--because just one mistake could be fatal. Nine months after completing his training, his skills were put to the ultimate test while stationed at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina.

On January 24, 1961, Airman Smith woke up to a midnight call telling him to report to the base as soon as possible. Without any protective gear or fully strapping up his boots, he arrived to the base, where he was then whisked away to the site of a B-52 plane crash 15 miles away. The plane was transporting two nuclear bombs reported to be 250 times more powerful than those used on Japan during World War II. Both bombs had fallen out of the plane during the crash, creating what is now reported as a 100-percent kill zone for surrounding communities.

Upon arriving to the scene, he immediately noticed one of the bombs was activated. Despite a general ordering him not to touch the bomb until receiving permission from atomic support, Airman Smith knew that time was not on their side. Thankfully, he acted quickly to disengage the bomb, saving countless American lives.

Airman Smith now proudly travels across Alabama speaking to local groups about his military service, which has now received national and global recognition. If you travel to Eureka, NC, there is a marker that says, ``Nuclear Mishap--widespread disaster averted.'' This is all thanks to Alabama's extraordinary hero--Earl Smith--who I am proud to recognize as May's ``Veteran of the Month.''

Madam President, today, I want to honor U.S. Army SSG Taylor Mitchell who tragically lost his life last month in a Blackhawk training exercise at the young age of 30.

Family members describe Sergeant Mitchell as an ``all-American man'' with a positive outlook, a love of flying, and a desire to serve--all of which prompted him to enlist in the U.S. Army in 2014. After completing training at Fort Jackson in South Carolina, he was assigned to the 2nd Calvary Regiment in Vilseck, Germany, as a healthcare specialist. Upon meeting requirements to become a flight paramedic, he joined the 1st Combat Aviation Brigade at Fort Riley, KS, as a flight paramedic noncommissioned officer. In November 2020, he transitioned to the 101st Airborne Division of Combat Aviation Brigade, continuing this role until the time of his death.

He is survived by his wife Hayli Jo; his parents Jay and Darlene; brothers Garrett, BJ, and Joseph; grandmother Patricia Scoper; and six nieces and nephews.

Alabama is grateful for Sergeant Mitchell's willingness to serve in our Nation's military, and we mourn the tragedy of a life taken too soon. His love of country and devotion to duty are an inspiration. We will make sure that his legacy is never forgotten.

Madam President, last week, the House voted for a commonsense proposal that is supported by a majority of Americans. The House voted to protect female athletes. This week, it is time for the Senate to do the same thing.

Before my time here, I spent many years as a coach, educator, and mentor. I have seen how sports can change people's lives. Athletic scholarships open up a lifetime of opportunities for men and women alike. Yet, today, those opportunities for women are being threatened by a radical political agenda that is being forced upon the American people.

When I was growing up, there were a lot less opportunities for female athletes. Fifty-one years ago, Congress passed title IX to ensure that male and female athletes both had access to lessons, life skills, and opportunities for advancement that come from participating in sports. It has been one of the most successful pieces of legislation ever to come out of Congress.

As a coach, I saw its impact firsthand. One of my first jobs out of college was coaching junior girls' basketball--what a thrill. Title IX was just starting to be implemented when I took the job. I was there to see the incredible impact it had on young girls all over this country.

For the first time, young women I coached had equal access to facilities, resources, and competition. I saw those hard-working athletes go on to earn college scholarships, start careers, and become leaders in their own communities.

I still keep in touch with a lot of them. I am deeply proud of them. I wonder if they would have had the same opportunities without title IX. Would they have had the same access or ability for success?

Before title IX, at a lot of schools, there was no such thing as college women's athletics. Very few collegiate championships for women's sports existed, limiting opportunities for female athletes to achieve greatness.

Before 1972, when title IX was enacted, there were only about 30,000 female athletes in college sports and only around 290,000 in high school sports. For comparison, at the same time, 3.7 million males were playing high school sports. However, after title IX's enactment, that changed very quickly.

Because of title IX, female participation at the college level has risen more than 600 percent. Yet now female athletes are again being told to give up their ability to compete--and settle for second place.

Women and girls are suffering at the hands of an ideology. The Biden administration is taking a sledgehammer--a big sledgehammer--to title

Madam President, I am truly disappointed but expected that the Democrats were going to block this legislation to protect young girls and women. Again, it is shameful. It really is.

I see my colleague from Iowa is on the floor, and I want to thank her for joining me in this effort to protect women.

I yield the floor to Senator Ernst.

I thank Senator Ernst for her comments. Now I would like to yield the floor to my colleague from North Carolina, Senator Budd.

Madam President, I thank Senators Ernst and Budd for their comments today. I also want to thank the 25 cosponsors we have signed on to my bill in the Senate. Rest assured, this is not the end. We will continue to fight for this legislation for all the girls and women across this great country.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object. I want to start by reminding everyone why this is happening. It is not about abortion. It is not about the Dobbs decision. This is about a tyrannical executive branch walking all over the U.S. Senate and doing our jobs.

In November, I got word that the Pentagon was thinking about spending taxpayer dollars to facilitate elective abortions. This goes beyond what the law--which was passed here--the law allows. The law only allows the Department of Defense to facilitate and fund abortions in the cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Now, I warned Secretary Austin that if he did this and changed this, I would put a hold on his highest level nominees. Secretary Austin went through with the policy anyway in February of this year. So I am keeping my word. This was Secretary Austin's choice, not mine. He knew the consequences for several months. Nothing in the law allows Secretary Austin to facilitate elective abortions. In fact, the law just says the opposite. So this was Secretary Austin's choice.

Secretary Austin thought abortion is more important than his highest level military nominations. Secretary Austin could end the policy today, and I would lift my hold. Secretary Austin has chosen not to do that.

This is the fourth time the Democrats have come to the floor to try to break this hold. I will come down here as many times as it takes.

The Senator from Massachusetts claims that my hold on the Pentagon nominations is affecting readiness and so have the other Senators who have come to this floor. Senator Schumer said last week on this floor multiple times that it was affecting readiness. Several other Senators have said the same thing. Democrats keep repeating the same talking points and the same opinion, but not one of them has cited any facts-- not one.

I even asked the Pentagon to explain to me how this affects readiness. All I have heard is opinions like we just heard from Senator Warren. The senior Senator has been asking questions from the Pentagon.

On April 6, the senior Senator sent this letter to Mr. Austin. The full letter may be found at https://www.warren.senate.gov/imo/media/ doc/2023.04.06%20Letter%20to%20DoD%20on %20Tuberville%20Holds.pdf.

The letter asks about the effects of my hold on military readiness. I will answer right now. My hold has no effect on readiness, none.

In an Armed Services Committee hearing last week, Senator Reed asked two of the military top combatant commanders what impact would my hold have on readiness. ADM John Aquilino said: ``No impact.'' John Paul LaCamera agreed. There is no impact on readiness or operations.

Experts have known for more than a decade that the military is topheavy. We do not suffer from a lack of generals. Democrats are concerned with promotions of generals but have shown very little to no concern about our historic recruitment crisis--and it is a crisis. Right now, the military is missing more than 20,000 enlisted soldiers from last year's short on recruiting. That is in addition to another 8,000 that President Biden, for some reason, kicked out of the military over vaccine mandates.

So we are missing 28,000 enlisted troops right now, and the Democrats are panicking about 180 generals and admirals.

Last week, a report showed that the Army, Navy, and Air Force--all of them are preparing to miss their recruitment goals this year, and nobody is talking about it. They will miss their goals by thousands and thousands of new servicemembers. Yet I don't hear Democrats say a word about it. They are worried about 180 top-level generals and admirals. We have plenty of generals.

When my dad served in World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 troops. Think about that--1 for every 6,000. Now we have 1 general for every 1,400 enlisted servicemembers. That is more than four times the ratio of generals to troops. That is a lot of money. We won plenty of wars with a lower ratio. Again, bipartisan experts have shown this for more than a decade.

Let me mention a few examples. Here is an article from Ben Freeman of the Project of Government Oversight from 2011. It is entitled: ``The Most Top-Heavy Force in U.S. History,'' found at https://www.pogo.org/ analysis/2011/11/todays-military-most-top-heavy-force-in-us-history.

The author talks about testifying before the Senate on this issue. He also mentioned a nearly 25-percent increase in three-star and four-star generals in the previous decade. Over the same time, the increase in enlisted members was just 2 percent--2 percent. People who actually do the work.

I have a report from Third Way from 2013, which may be found at https://www.thirdway.org/report/star-creep-the-costs-of-a-top-heavy- military.

Here is what this centrist organization said in their report 10 years ago. It is called ``Star Creep: The effects of the top-heavy military.''

The story says:

America's armed forces have far too many generals and

admirals--a situation that wastes money and creates a drag on

military effectiveness. Although the U.S. military is 30%

smaller now than it was at the end of the Cold War, it has

almost 20% percent more three and four-star officers. [Twenty

percent.] The layers of bureaucracy to support them have

grown as well, slowing down decision-making and burdening the

warfighter.

We need to trim the fat, which will make our military both

leaner and more effective.

That was 10 years ago.

Here is another article. This one is from the Washington Times in 2016, which may be found at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/ apr/5/ash-carter-says-us-military-too-top-heavy-aims-cut.

The title of the article: ``Ashton Carter says U.S. military too `top heavy,' aims to cut ranks of generals and admirals.''

Ash Carter was President Obama's Department of Defense Secretary. He felt the military was also topheavy. Both of President Obama's Secretaries of Defense agreed with that. The late Senator John McCain agreed with that statement. Again, this has been common knowledge in military circles for a decade. Yet now my Democratic colleagues have selective memories.

Finally, I will just mention one more article from the Washington Times from this past January. It is called ``Top Heavy: U.S. military bloated by brass as officer-to-enlisted ratio dwarfs Cold War era,'' which may be found at https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/jan/29/ top-heavy-us-military-bloated-brass-officer-enlist.

Here are a few numbers from the article. In World War I, we had one officer for every 15 enlisted. In World War II, it was one of every ten. Today the ratio is 1 to 4.

Today we have more admirals than we have ships. Let me repeat that: We have more admirals in our military than we have ships.

Yet the Democratic side of the aisle is in panic that we don't have enough admirals; it just doesn't make sense. In the first century of this Nation, we only had a handful of three-star generals ever. George Washington and Ulysses S. Grant were the first two three-star generals in our history. Today we have more than 160 three-star generals. Overall, there are more than 650 generals today. ``Star creep'' is putting this very mildly.

This hysteria on the other side of the aisle has absolutely no basis in fact. They have complained about my holds for weeks, but they still haven't shown me one single fact.

So I am looking forward to Secretary Austin's response to Senator Warren. I can't wait to read it. In the meantime, I am not going to budge. I will come down here as many times as it takes day and night to vote. I am not afraid to vote. We are working a 3-day week this week. We just took a 2-week recess earlier this month. And if Democrats are so worried about the military readiness, then why are we taking days off? Let's vote. We can vote these. I mean, it is not like I am holding them and they can't be confirmed.

We can vote on every one of these people. Just call them up on the floor. We can vote on them. Everybody needs to vote. I am not afraid to work. I will stay here as long as it takes. And let me remind my colleagues that we just voted--and confirmed--last week a military nominee, the way we are supposed to do it, instead of a hundred at a time.

Clearly, we are capable of voting on military nominees and promotions. We

could also be voting on legislation that expands the DOD's abortion policy. We can bring it right here and vote. That is our job--instead of the Secretary of Defense playing Congress and doing bills on his own. That is not how this place is supposed to work. In fact, that is how this should be done in a democracy.

So, finally, let me remind my Democratic colleagues again: I gave the Pentagon fair warning. I told them if they imposed this policy on our country, then I would hold these nominees. They chose to go forward with this policy anyway. They forced my hand. This was the Biden administration's choice. All I am doing is keeping my word, and that is why I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, I want to make something very, very clear here. None of these positions the Senator from Massachusetts has mentioned will go unfilled. Each role has its commander in place until the relief is confirmed. That is how the military works.

Mr. President, one thing very important to me and to our country is our military. There is only one thing more important, and that is our Constitution that they protect. For that reason, I object.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 35, S.J. Res. 10.

Mr. President, I am proud to have come from a military family. Our veterans are some of the best people in this country. Because of that, I am grateful to serve on the Veterans' Affairs Committee. Giving back to our veterans has been a passion my whole life. Our men and women in uniform deserve the best medical care available. I am grateful for every healthcare provider that works for and with our veterans.

The mission of the VA is taken from Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address. Lincoln pledged our country to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle.'' That is what the VA is supposed to be about. But today, under the Biden administration, we see the VA increasingly--increasingly--getting distracted from that very important mission. The Biden administration increasingly has the VA involved in politics.

Last year, the VA announced they would begin providing taxpayer- funded abortions--last year. This is something the VA has never, ever done. Let me repeat that. The VA has never done abortions. In fact, the VA has been prohibited by this body from performing abortions at its facilities for more than 30 years.

The 102nd Congress--1991 to 1992--made taxpayer-funded abortions at VA facilities illegal. Let me repeat that. Thirty years ago, this body made taxpayer-funded abortions illegal. It is a law. They did this with the bipartisan Veterans Healthcare Act of 1992. The last I heard, that is a Federal law, passed by this body, which, for some reason, we don't want to do anymore. We want the executive branch to be able to do it on their own, and that is wrong. We need to do our job.

This, today, is not about abortions. It is about taxpayers paying for abortions that they don't have to pay for because of a law that was presented and passed in this Chamber in 1992. The bill was introduced in the House and the Senate by whom? None other than the Democrats. The Senate passed it unanimously. This includes a Senator by the name of Joe Biden.

Now President Biden is breaking the law that he voted for. How do you do that? This is a direct violation of Federal law. The Biden administration even wants taxpayers on the hook for abortions for veterans' dependents. That has never happened. So we are changing the law at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and not in here, where we are supposed to do our job. It has got nothing to do with the VA's mission.

The VA won't even tell Congress if they are placing restrictions on abortions. When are they doing it--at 5 months? 3 months? 2 months? after the baby is born? We can't get any information out of them. They just write the laws themselves. The VA has refused to cooperate with Congress throughout this whole process. And that is what this is all about. For all we know, a taxpayer-funded abortion can be at any time, at their choosing.

This new policy also includes very limited moral protections for VA medical staff. This, too, is unheard of in our laws and our traditions. We have had moral protections on the books for decades. It was James Madison who said that a man has a right to his property, and ``Conscience is the most sacred property of all.'' This was the attitude of our Founders. Frankly, the Founders would be shocked by what is happening in this Chamber today.

Frankly, the Biden administration is violating the consciences of the taxpayers as we speak by putting pressure on the taxpayers to have to defend and go after this. Taxpayers shouldn't be forced to pay for abortions, especially not when this was done without anybody's taking a vote in this building, especially when Congress voted to make it illegal 30 years ago. It is illegal and it is wrong.

In just a few moments, the Senate has a chance to do something about it. We are going to vote on a bipartisan basis to overturn this rule. If Democrats want taxpayer-funded abortions within the VA healthcare system, let's vote on it. That is what we are elected to do, not lean on a President and the White House to say this is what we are going to do. That ain't the way we do it in this building. If we are going to do it that way, let's lock the door and go home and save the taxpayers a lot of money.

Again, this is not about abortion; this is about doing it the wrong way. Let's pass the bill. Let's change the law. Let's don't break the law in here.

I would like to thank the dozens of Senators supporting my resolution. I would also like to thank Senator Manchin and Senator Marshall for standing with me earlier today at a press conference to explain the facts to the taxpayers and the citizens of this country.

It is very simple: Any Senator who votes against this resolution is voting for taxpayer-funded abortion with no guardrails or protection for any medical staff or nurses.

Voting no on this resolution means voting to give away even more power from Congress to the executive branch, and that is really all we need around here.

Right now, the VA is spending money we have never voted to spend. Anyone who believes in the appropriations process, let's oppose this rule and support this resolution.

Voting no would mean letting the administration spend money without the consent of the people in this room, and that is what we are elected to do. Voting no means a big stamp of approval for a blatantly illegal regulation. Voting against the resolution also means turning the VA into a taxpayer-funded abortion clinic.

The VA should be focused on their mission. Lord knows, we have got 20 veterans a day dying of suicide. Why don't we focus on helping the veterans who have been fighting in wars, these last 20-year wars that we have been funding. Let's keep politics out of the VA. These people have had enough politics in their lives. Let's stay focused on their mission to ``care for him who shall have borne the battle,'' as spoken by President Abraham Lincoln.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, today, I want to honor Alabama's own Officer Garrett Crumby who made the ultimate sacrifice last month while responding to a shooting call in Madison County. A graduate of Hillcrest High School in Tuscaloosa, he began his law enforcement career as a patrol and field training officer at the Tuscaloosa Police Department in November of 2013 before transitioning to the Huntsville Police Department in August 2020.

Nicknamed ``Batman'' by his family for his heroic nature, Officer Crumby is remembered as someone whose service to others extended beyond his job. Officer Crumby's sister stated he ``believed that being a police officer meant that anyone in their darkest moments had someone to call, regardless of any race, age, creed, gender, tax bracket or political affiliation. He would answer that call.''

He demonstrated this deep conviction by often showing up for additional assignment calls that were not required of him and volunteering at local events in the community. There was never an ``off-duty'' moment for him; he actively looked for ways that he could help those around him. His fellow officers recalled one instance when he gave someone a ride who was pushing a wheelchair loaded with groceries down a busy road before a big storm.

In 2019, he was named Huntsville Police Department's West Precinct Officer of the Year, a testament to the respect he had already earned from his peers, supervisors, and community during his time with the Tuscaloosa and Huntsville Police Departments.

He is survived by his wife Taylor Campbell Crumby; father William ``Russ'' Crumby; mother Janet Sherman; grandparents James and Sammi Sherman; sisters Jennifer Crumby, Courtney Crumby, and Casey Wright (David); and 10 nieces and nephews.

Alabama is grateful for Officer Crumby's contributions to public safety. We will never be able to repay him for his sacrifice, but we will make sure that he is never forgotten.

Madam President, this month, I am proud to recognize U.S. Army Veteran Jason Guyton of Toney, AL.

Some of Jason's favorite childhood memories were trying on his dad's Navy uniform and flipping through photo albums from his grandad's time in the Navy. Even as a young boy, he recognized the importance of their military service and admired their sacrifice.

After a successful wrestling career at Howard University, where he became the first freshman in school history to compete for a NCAA Division I Championship, Jason decided to follow in his dad and grandad's footsteps. But instead of joining the Navy, Jason enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserves as a chemical operations specialist, while also keeping his day job as an operations manager at West Corporation. During his time in the Reserves, Jason was deployed to Operation Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom, where he ensured sites were safe from nuclear chemicals and biological threats.

Like many veterans, the challenges of serving our country did not end after Jason's 12 years in the military. He experienced several personal setbacks, causing him to fall on hard times financially and become homeless. But thanks to his military training and support from veterans' groups, Jason overcame his situation and channeled his experience into a career in financial services.

Now, Jason serves as a member experience advocate for Avadian Credit Union at its Huntsville location. He is very open about his struggles because he wants other veterans to know that they, too, can overcome any challenges they face after their military service.

Additionally, Jason is very active in Madison County, where he is involved in several local outreach efforts. Although he is not an Alabama native, after finding out Huntsville was the home of the U.S. Space and Rocket Center through an Internet search, Jason decided he wanted to call Madison County home. So he moved to the area nearly 30 years ago, and has been giving back ever since.

He uses his talents to coach wrestling for students between ages 5 and 12, serving as a positive influence for hundreds of athletes whom he has mentored throughout the years. Jason says his greatest success is watching those he has coached compete at a higher level.

And his influence doesn't end with being a coach. Jason's son, Tre, also decided to join the Navy and become a fourth-generation servicemember in the Guyton family. Jason's story is an example of overcoming hardship and using it to help others, and we salute his service to the Madison County community.

Madam President, I reserve the right to object.

I want to start out by mentioning the great respect I have for Senator Reed. I am deeply grateful for the chairman's service to this country, both the service in uniform and as chairman of the Armed Service Committee, of which I am a member.

I believe the chairman and I agree on a lot more than we disagree on, but I take exception to several things that have been said about me by Democratic Members of the Senate.

Every day this week, the majority leader has come to the floor and attacked me by name. It is not very often the majority leader of the Senate attacks a Senator by name 3 days in a row.

Now, in my former profession, I have been called everything so it really doesn't bother me too much, but the majority leader has also tweeted about me. That is good.

So let's get the record straight as we speak.

Right now, I want to talk about what I have done and what I am doing. First of all, I am not blocking anyone from being confirmed or promoted. Every single one of these nominees can receive a vote if Senator Schumer wants it. In fact, one of the civilian nominees is getting voted on this week. If Democrats are so worried about these nominations, let's vote. If we are not going to vote on taxpayer-funded abortion, then let's vote on these nominees. Voting is our job. It is not much to ask of the U.S. Senate to do our job, to vote.

Senator Schumer and some of the other Senators have claimed that my hold on these nominees is unprecedented.

Well, it is not. My hold is far from unprecedented. In fact, Senator Bennet himself threatened to do this exact same thing just a few months ago. Why? Because the Air Force planned to move Space Command from Colorado to Huntsville, AL. We have talked about this recently. Two years ago, we had a Senator from Illinois put a hold on 1,000 nominees over the promotion of one single officer. So far, my hold has affected 184 nominations.

I also will note that these Senators haven't said a word about our recruiting crisis that we have going on as we speak. Democrats are in a panic about 184 promotions for generals and officers, and yet I have not heard a word from them about the 15,000 enlisted soldiers we are missing right now from last year's recruiting class. That is an entire division.

There is another 8,600 who were discharged over the President's vaccine mandate--kicked out. I don't hear a word about that from the Democrats.

The military is down 23,000 enlisted soldiers due to the actions taken by the Biden administration and his Secretary of Defense just this past year. Yet Democrats are worried about 184 generals getting their promotion? Only one of those things threatens our security. It is not officer promotion.

When my dad was serving in World War II, we had one general for every 6,000 enlisted soldiers--one. Today, we have got one general for every 1,500. We do not suffer from a lack of generals in this country. We suffer from a lack of recruits. Military experts have known for a long time that the Pentagon is top-heavy.

This entire line of attack on me is absolutely false. The generals' jobs are being done. Yet 23,000 enlisted troops that we are missing, their jobs are not being done.

My Democrat friends keep saying abortion is necessary for readiness, but I have yet to hear a shred of evidence to back that up. I have been asking for months. Yet again, my Democrat friends have absolutely zero evidence to show abortion makes our troops safer, stronger, or more lethal.

And let's be clear about what we are talking about. We are not talking about access to abortion. We are talking about taxpayers funding for travel and extra paid time to get elective abortions.

We already have a policy. We already have a policy in the Army about abortion, and it has worked fine. But this policy includes spouses and dependents. We are talking about taxpayer funding for somebody's kid to get an abortion

in another State. This has never been in the policy until now, because Congress has ensured that the Pentagon cannot perform or facilitate abortions except in legal circumstances, and limited.

This morning, I received an email from a soldier's mom in Alabama. She said her son has had to pay thousands of dollars out of his own pocket to buy uniforms and bedsheets. She said it is absurd to force taxpayers to pay for travel for abortions while our troops--our troops--are paying out of pocket for their uniforms. She is right. She is exactly right.

And that is what this is all about. Earlier today. Senator Schumer said this is about women making their own choices. That is not true. That is exactly not true. This is about taxpayer funding. That is what we are talking about. We have strict limits on taxpayer funding for abortions in this country. That has gone through this building right here. There has been a bipartisan consensus for 40 years. Yet, all of a sudden, Democrats are saying the military can't win wars without expanded abortion. It doesn't make sense.

Frankly, we already have policies for abortion in the military. Over the last 5 years, there have been about 20 abortions a year performed in the military. These have been in cases of rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mom. Over the 40 years, I don't recall the military ever once complaining that we weren't performing enough abortions. Not one time have I heard that--not one time.

According to one report cited by the Pentagon officials to my staff, the new policy would expand taxpayer-funded abortions from 20 abortions a year to 4,000--4,000. And who is going to pay for that? The people in this country are going to pay for it.

This goes beyond the law without anybody taking a vote here in this building.

We were elected to pass laws. We were elected to do our job. The Department of Defense wasn't elected. They were appointed.

In fact, this contradicts what Congress has actually voted for. This includes some of the people complaining the loudest. Earlier this week, 37 Democratic Senators went on record in asking for the Department of Defense to go beyond the laws that they themselves have voted for. Now, in fairness, I would note that the chairman and Senator Schumer were not on that list of 37 Senators.

But the idea that more abortions make our troops safer and more lethal is absurd.

This has been a coordinated campaign to pressure me to lift these holds. That doesn't bother me one bit, and it is not going to work. Frankly, it is just going to make me do the opposite.

I am glad the majority leader is taking notes on these holds. If Democrats want to expand taxpayer funding for abortion, then let's vote on it. I am ready to vote on it. The majority leader, the last time I looked, controls this floor. He can make it happen. And if these nominees are so important, then we can vote on them too.

So far this year, the Senate has already taken 24 days off. This is in addition to the 2-week recess in January and the 2-week recess which starts at the end of this week. I have only been here for 2 years, but I am told this is one of the slowest years in memory around here. I don't have anything to compare it to. Sometimes, we don't even vote until 5:30 on a Tuesday. People back home don't work those kind of hours, but they are expected to pay for what we are talking about.

Yet the Democrats are in a panic over the idea of taking more votes. I don't mind working full weeks. I worked all my life. I had a full- time job. I will stay here until hell freezes over. I am not going to be intimidated by a campaign of selective outrage.

Let me remind the chairman that I gave the Pentagon fair warning. I gave them fair warning. They chose to go forward with this policy.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record this letter I sent to Secretary Austin on December 9, 2022.

Now, I didn't want to do this, and I told the Department of Defense that. I told the people who were in charge of all the nominations.

This was the Biden administration's choice, and I am going to keep my word. And because of that, I object.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I object, and I will give the reasons why. I am happy to explain all of the holds on my nominations, and I am glad to see my colleague, the Senator from Ohio, who will be here in just a moment to support these efforts.

My friend from Colorado says this hold is unprecedented. It is not unprecedented at all. In fact, there is very recent precedent. Just a couple of years ago, the junior Senator from Illinois, a Democrat, held more than 1,000 military nominations. The reason she held them was over one single officer she wanted promoted.

My colleague from Colorado threatened to do the same thing just a few weeks ago.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a news article from January 24.

The headline reads: ``Colorado [Democrat] threatens to hold Pentagon nominees over Space Command [Headquarters].'' That Colorado Democrat happens to be my colleague opposite me as we speak.

He has given us emotion and opinion. Let's talk about the facts.

Last summer, the Supreme Court returned the decision to regulate abortion to the States. In response, the Department of Defense claimed that this was a threat to the readiness of our Armed Forces. They said this without any evidence at all.

On July 15 of last year, Republican members of the Armed Services Committee asked Secretary Austin how the Department came to this conclusion. It wasn't until November that the Department scheduled a briefing with Senate offices to give us some answers. However, minutes before the briefing was scheduled to begin, the Department canceled.

On December 5, 2022, I sent a letter to Secretary Austin letting him know I would hold all civilian and general and flag officer nominees until we got some answers. Less than 24 hours later, we got answers. The answers were disturbing.

We learned the Pentagon intended to go well beyond what has been authorized by Congress. Federal law only allows the military to provide abortions in three very narrow circumstances: rape, incest, and threat to the life of the mother. Yet the Biden administration has turned the DOD into an abortion travel agency. They did it by using just a memo.

The Biden administration wants abortion-on-demand for not just those enlisted in our military but their family members as well. This would expand the policy to millions of people. Now, the American taxpayers are on the hook to cover nonchargeable paid time off and travel costs for abortions for our military and their families. Again, nobody voted for this. This goes beyond the law.

We still have a Constitution in this country to go by, and the Constitution is clear: Congress makes the laws. The executive branch enforces the laws.

Secretary Austin seems to think he can make a change in the law without going through Congress. It would be irresponsible for the U.S. Senate to allow an administration to walk all over the legislative branch. Secretary Austin cannot change the law by memo. Congress cannot be replaced by a post on the Department of Defense website.

In December, I warned the Department that I would hold their nominees if they tried to force abortion-on-demand on our military, and they did it anyway. The Department knew what the consequences would be. It was clear. This was their choice.

I will continue to hold these nominees until the Department of Defense follows the law or Congress changes the law. In the meantime, we should do our job and vote. If these nominees are so important to the Democrats, then the Democratic leader can find time to get them on the floor.

Frankly, I wish Democrats were this concerned about our enlisted servicemembers. We have a recruiting crisis in this country. The Army missed its recruiting goal by 15,000 last year. That is an entire division. One of the causes of this crisis is the policies of the Biden administration.

At yesterday's Armed Services hearing, I talked about the Navy's training materials. Many of these materials denigrate religious Americans, who are the majority in this country.

Democrats seem a lot more worried about these nominations than about our recruitment, the people who actually fight wars.

If Democrats are so worried about the nominations, then they can bring them up for a vote. We have more than enough time to vote on nominees. We have voted on plenty of nominees this year. That is about the only thing the leader has let us do so far.

I will continue to come down here and lay out the facts for as long as my colleague from Colorado wants to. We talked about this less than a month ago. The facts have not changed. My position has not changed. So I reserve the right to object.

I object.

Mr. President, on a lighter note than the majority leader's, I would like to talk about something a little different.

A couple of weekends ago, Americans across the country lost an hour of sleep to ``spring forward'' and reset their clocks for what we call daylight savings time. I am willing to bet losing that hour might have caused some friends back home in Alabama to have been late for church that day.

But the outdated practice of changing our clocks twice a year has many more consequences than the inconvenience of running behind, and Congress should make this year the last time we ever change our clocks by passing the Sunshine Protection Act.

Over the past 2 years, I have received many, many calls from people across Alabama to make daylight savings time permanent. Many Alabamians, including parents, seniors, farmers, citizens, and mental health professionals, have all reached out to my office in support of days of more sunshine in the evening--but not just Alabamians. Millions--I mean, millions--of Americans are ready to end the outdated practice of springing forward and falling back.

The idea of daylight savings time was originally known as wartime, W- A-R. It was first introduced as a temporary measure to conserve energy and better utilize resources during World War I. Now, nearly 100 years later, Americans' energy consumption has rapidly, rapidly changed. While adjustments to our clocks might have made sense when it first began, it does not make sense for modern times today.

That is why I joined Senator Marco Rubio and a bipartisan group of my colleagues to reintroduce the Sunshine Protection Act to make daylight savings time permanent. The bill would provide an extra hour of sunlight in the afternoon, which would be most notable during the dark and cold winter months.

Many studies have proven that extra sunlight in the evening can lead to improvements in mental health, physical fitness, economic growth, and overall well-being. It is a simple way we could positively impact the day-to-day life of all Americans and finally get something done that a lot of people really care about.

Shifting clocks can disrupt sleep patterns, but a permanent daylight savings time will help Americans maintain a consistent sleep schedule. Studies have suggested that the disruption of sleep patterns associated with the shift in time has increased the risks of cardiovascular disease and physical injuries. Northwestern Medicine found that the ``fall back'' and ``spring forward'' comes with a 9-percent spike in fatal car accidents and a 24-percent higher risk of heart attacks.

Additionally, the long-term effects linked to daylight saving time include weight gain, headaches, and depression. The time switch in the fall increases seasonal affective disorder every year.

A study published in 2017 found that the transition from daylight saving time to standard time increased--increased--the number of hospital visits for depression by 11 percent.

Permanent daylight saving time with extra sunlight in the evening will also encourage more physical activity, allow more time for people to go on walks, participate in recreational activities, and attend outdoor events. Kids will be able to enjoy more time outdoors after school with friends year-round, and older Americans will have more access to vitamin D.

Longer daylight hours in the evening have proven to stimulate economic activity, as well, because people are more likely to shop, dine out, and participate in other activities.

COVID lockdowns, which were very recent, and their crippling economic effect throughout the country underscore how valuable our small businesses are for local economies and our entire Nation as a whole.

The agriculture industry is also greatly affected by daylight saving time, as more sunshine during working hours means more time to work on their crops, which could translate into a more profitable bottom line. It could also decrease expensive energy consumption on farms by reducing the need for artificial lighting and heating.

It is estimated that the time change costs the U.S. economy more than $400 million in lost productivity annually.

Alabama, along with 17 other States, has already passed legislation to end the outdated practice of changing our clocks--17. However, the Federal Government must act to make those laws go into effect.

Congress should listen--should listen--to the people and pass the Sunshine Protection Act to make daylight saving time permanent before we readjust our clocks again next fall. The change would improve our health, bolster our economy, benefit our farmers, and put America on the path to a brighter future.

It is time for America to move forward and stop falling back.

I yield the floor.

I suggest the absence of a quorum.