[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
Ms. WARREN: let's be clear what is at issue here. The Department of Defense has said if a servicemember requires reproductive healthcare for themselves or for a member of their family, care that is not available in the location where the member is currently stationed, the member can request time away from the base to travel elsewhere for treatment. As Pentagon leaders have testified, military commanders respect the privacy of servicemembers and do not request information about the specific medical treatment or who it is for. The Senator from Alabama doesn't like that. He is worried that a servicemember might--might--be seeking an abortion for themselves or for a family member. And he doesn't think the Department of Defense should participate in that in any way. Fine. The Senator from Alabama can advocate for a bill to invade the medical privacy of every single servicemember. He can advocate for a bill that requires every commanding officer to do what no private employer can do, and that is to rifle through a servicemember's personal medical information. The Senator from Alabama can seek to change Federal law so that a commanding officer interrogates a servicemember with questions like: Do you need time off because you are having trouble getting pregnant? Has your wife had a miscarriage? How many weeks pregnant are you? Was your daughter raped? These are not questions that commanding officers want to ask, nor should they be authorized or required to ask them. Now, Senator Tuberville can push for a vote on the bill he cosponsors to ban the Department from providing paid leave or transportation to access reproductive care. Frankly, I don't think the Senator has enough support in Congress to pass any bill like that. And I understand the Senator's frustration. Many of us have proposals to change Pentagon policies that don't have enough support in Congress to pass, but that is not an excuse to jeopardize our active military operations all around the world. I confess, I am a little stunned by the Senator from Alabama's argument here. I had not been aware that it was a controversial view that our military needs officers in charge of the Fifth Fleet or the Seventh Fleet, our fleets in the Pacific and in the Middle East. It is pretty alarming to hear the Senator suggest that we don't need leaders running the Army, the Navy, and the Marine Corps. Every President since World War II would probably disagree that there is no need for a chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Now, look, if the Senator from Alabama thinks that there should be fewer high-level leaders in the Armed Forces, he could advance legislation to reform our leadership structures. But blocking leaders from taking the jobs to which they have been assigned is reckless. Not only that, these delays are felt throughout the ranks since this creates, as Secretary Austin described it, a ripple effect throughout the military. It is cruel to our servicemembers. Just because you are not going to run the Army does not mean that your promotion does not matter. As Army Chief of Staff McConville recently testified to the Senate Armed Services Committee, these delays affect both the families and some of the kids. They are trying to figure out where they are going to school, where they are going to move.  I think back to my own three brothers. All three of them served in the military. My oldest brother was career military. I cannot imagine a circumstance where he had worked, he had put his life on the line, he served in combat off and on for 6 years, and yet to be told that although the Air Force thought he was ready, had served, had been an exemplary member of the military, that he could not have his promotion, he could not have his pay increase, he could not go to his next assignment all because one Senator decided to hold it up over a different discussion about policy. I would urge my colleague from Alabama to find another way to press for the policy changes that he wants at the Department. I heard him say that he had read the letter that I had sent to Secretary Austin asking about the impact on our military. Secretary Austin has already spoken to that, but I hope he will be responding soon to my letter. But I hope that these words from the Senator, that he is looking forward to Secretary Austin's response, have at least opened the door, that if Secretary Austin says: This has an effect on our military readiness, that the Senator from Alabama will be prepared to lift his objection and let what are, currently, 184 members of the military go forward and the ones who need to go forward in the future. So I hope he has left the door open for that. The Senator from Alabama and I fundamentally disagree on the issue of abortion. We disagree on Department of Defense policies. But all of us should be able to agree that a blockade of the promotion of every single senior member of our Nation's military creates unacceptable risks to our national security, and it needs to stop right now. In a moment, I will be asking the Senate to confirm Calendar No. 94. Collectively, these 37 nominees in Calendar No. 94 have served in the Army for nearly a thousand years. This list includes a commanding officer stationed in South Korea, the head of plans for central command, and the deputy chief of staff in the fight against ISIS. The list also includes the deputy provost marshal general for the Office of the Provost Marshal General, which is responsible for all--all--of the Army's policing functions. There is also a graduate of Auburn University, where the Senator from Alabama was once head coach. And I am sure that this servicemember never expected that his promotion would be blocked by the Senator from Alabama. Mr. President, I renew my request with respect to Calendar No. 94.