[Congressional Record Volume 169, Number 69 (Tuesday, April 25, 2023)] [Senate] [Pages S1323-S1331] From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Date: 2023-04-25
Chamber: SENATE
Mr. TUBERVILLE: 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. Wecould 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.