-9999

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KAINE. Mr. President, I rise to talk about the pending matter of the Pete Hegseth nomination to be Secretary of Defense.

Before I get into the bulk of my comments, I want to just state my own record in terms of votes for the Secretary of Defense as a member of the Armed Services Committee. This administration is the fourth Presidential administration I have been part of. I was elected with the second Obama administration, then served in the first Trump administration, then the Biden administration, and now a second Trump administration. As to my track record as an Armed Services Committee member and as a Member of this body, I voted for every Secretary of Defense nomination before the body.

In focusing on the Trump nominees, President Trump nominated General Mattis to be Secretary of Defense. I voted for him in committee. I voted for him on the floor, and he received a 98-to-1 vote with 1 abstention when he was before us in 2017. Secretary Mattis served during a portion of President Trump's term and then stepped down, and President Trump nominated Mark Esper, who had been the Secretary of the Army, to succeed General Mattis.

A Trump administration nominee paid me the honor of asking if I would introduce him before the Armed Services Committee, and I did. He is a Virginian. I had worked with Secretary Esper when he was the Army Secretary on military housing issues. He had been responsive and professional. So I said: Sure. You are President Trump's nominee, but I am going to introduce you before the committee.

Secretary Esper was approved in the committee--I think unanimously-- and the vote on the floor for Secretary Esper was 90-8-2.

I bring that up just to say it is not my desire or norm to stand on the floor and speak in opposition to a nominee for Secretary of Defense or to speak in opposition to a nominee by President Trump for Secretary of Defense.

I spoke the other day--probably 2 days ago--here about why I am opposing Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. What I want to focus on today is his claim. I know my colleagues have been on the floor all day long explaining their own reasons for their opposition to Pete Hegseth, but I want to just really drill down on what Pete Hegseth is saying about the allegations that folks are making against him.

This was pretty apparent in the committee hearing a week ago Tuesday, and it has been consistent since. It was most clear in a recitation that he had back and forth with Senator Kelly of Arizona.

Senator Kelly asked him: I am just going to ask you really simple questions. Here is an event that someone says you participated in; true or false?

Again and again and again, what Pete Hegseth said was ``anonymous smears.'' He didn't say ``false'' because if you say ``false'' to something that you have done, it could verge on perjury. He didn't say ``true'' because if you say ``true'' to these kinds of allegations, it could be disqualifying.

So it was a very interesting litany where, again and again and again, Senator Kelly said: Here is an event; true or false?

``Anonymous smears.''

``Anonymous smears'' was a very, very sophisticated way of not answering the question. Yet, even as I examined Pete Hegseth about marital infidelity and about a sexual assault allegation against him that led him to make a payout to the complainant, about allegations of spousal abuse, again and again, what he said was ``anonymous smears.''

So what I want to do during my time today, since I have already laid out sort of my bill of particulars about why I am not supporting his nomination, I want to focus on this: The claims that have been made against Pete Hegseth are not anonymous, and they are not smears. They are not anonymous, and they are not smears.

Let me start with ``not anonymous.''

To begin with, many of the claims are claims that have been admitted by Pete Hegseth. So let's start with the man himself. He has admitted serial infidelity in both of his first two marriages. He told me at the committee hearing that he took an oath of fidelity to his wife, but he admitted to serial infidelity. That is not an irrelevant factor when we are analyzing whether someone who takes an oath to become Secretary of Defense is able to carry out that oath.

Pete Hegseth admitted as recently as yesterday that he made a payout to somebody who charged him with a sexual assault. There was an incident in Monterey in September of 2017 that led to a criminal sexual assault complaint and a criminal investigation. It did not lead to criminal charges, but it did lead to a civil charge and a settlement and a payout and a nondisclosure agreement. He has admitted to all of that. He claims it was a consensual event, and the victim claims it was a sexual assault, but as to the fact of the interaction and the fact that it was both cheating on an existing wife and also on the mother of a newborn child, he has admitted to all of that. It is not an anonymous claim when Pete Hegseth has admitted to this.

Second, it is not anonymous what Pete Hegseth's mother wrote to him. Pete Hegseth was in the middle of a very contentious divorce from his second wife, Samantha, in 2018, and he received a most extraordinary email from his mother. This is not anonymous, and I want to read the email. It is an extraordinary bit of tough love from a mom to a son.

Son, I have tried to keep quiet about your character and behavior, but after listening to the way you made Samantha feel today, I cannot stay silent. And as a woman and your mother I feel I must speak out.

You are an abuser of women--that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother, it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth.

I am not a saint, far from it, so don't throw that in my face, but your abuse over the years to women (dishonesty, sleeping around, betrayal, debasing, belittling) needs to be called out.

Sam is a good mother and a good person (under the circumstances that you created) and I know deep down you know that. For you to try to label her as ``unstable'' for your own advantage is despicable and abusive. Is there any sense of decency left in you? She did not ask for or deserve any of what has come to her by your hand. Neither did Meredith.

Meredith was the first wife.

I know you think this is one big competition and that we have taken her side . . . bunk. . . . We are on the side of good and that is not you. (Go ahead and call me self- righteous, I don't care.) Don't you dare run to her and cry foul that we shared with us. . . . That's what babies do. It's time for someone--

Someone--

(I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women.

We still love you, but we are broken by your behavior and lack of character. I don't want to write emails like this and never thought I would. If it damages our relationship further, then so be it, but at least I have said my piece.

And yes, we are praying for you (and you don't deserve to know how we are praying, so skip the snarky reply).

I don't want an answer to this . . . I don't want to debate with you. You twist and abuse everything I say anyway. But . . . on behalf of all the women (and I know it's many) you have abused in some way, I say . . . get some help and take an honest look at yourself . . . Mom.

This is not an anonymous smear. I know a little bit about a mother's love. I know a little bit about a mother's tough love. This is not an anonymous smear, but it is an extraordinary, painful, candid rebuke.

Why do I have this letter? This is not a letter that anyone in this body had. This is a letter that appeared in a newspaper about a month ago. The only people who would have had this email are family, the people closest in the world to Pete Hegseth. No one else would have seen this. No one else would have had it. No one else could have read it on the floor of the Senate unless someone very close to Pete Hegseth--a member of his immediate family--decided years after it was written that a man nominated to be Secretary of Defense whose character had led his own mother to write this letter--that this is a fact that should be put before the public in analyzing the character and qualifications of this individual--not anonymous.

Pete Hegseth's former sister-in-law Danielle Hegseth, who had been married to his brother Nathaniel, submitted an affidavit that is in the Senate records, which is available to all of my colleagues, and all have read this affidavit or made a decision that they didn't want to read it, but it is available to all of us.

The affidavit that Danielle has written about the treatment that was referred to by his mother in this letter is completely consistent with what the mother says. The mother wrote this. It is now public. Danielle has signed an affidavit about it. It is now public, and it is completely consistent with what the mother said. Danielle Hegseth is not anonymous.

There is a whistleblower report that is available to all Senate Members. I read it 10 days ago. It is for Members only, but it is available to all hundred of us, and I hope all of my colleagues have read it. It would be a huge mistake to vote on this nomination not having read that whistleblower report.

What does the whistleblower report involve? It is anything but anonymous. It is a report that was generated years ago when Pete Hegseth was the leader of an organization called Concerned Veterans for America. It wasn't created for this hearing. It wasn't created because of a Secretary of Defense nomination. It was created by disgruntled employees in an organization that Pete Hegseth was leading. It is a seven-page, single-spaced whistleblower report.

Again, I have to say it is anything but anonymous. In fact, it mentions, by my count, 36 names of individuals connected with Concerned Veterans for America and multiple events of improper behavior by Pete Hegseth as the leader: being at work events impaired by alcohol, creating a toxic work culture that led to the sexual harassment of women employees, repeated instances of unprofessional behavior, and fiscal mismanagement of the organization.

I know that Pete Hegseth calls that ``anonymous smears.'' But when you read this 6-page document--and, again, I just want to say to any public watching this: The Senators in this body have all had access to it. So if you see somebody like Pete Hegseth saying it is an ``anonymous smear''--no, the Members of this body have all had access to Danielle Hegseth's affidavit, to Pete Hegseth's admissions, to the mother's letters, and to a whistleblower report with 36 names in it attesting to a variety of unprofessional behaviors. That document was provided to Mr. Hegseth and his attorney, and they submitted a response.

But by my read of the document, they could not get a single individual whose name is mentioned to challenge or retract any of the statements that are made in the document. This is anything but anonymous.

Again, all Members have seen this. All Members have had access to it. These are not anonymous claims. They are on-the-record claims by people very close to this man, including in a most unusual way, his own mother.

Now, I will acknowledge this: There are some who have come forward who are anonymous. I have to acknowledge that. They are anonymous because they are afraid.

I have had extensive conversations with a close personal friend of the second wife who has told me things that are directly supportive of the public materials contained in the mother's letter and in the Danielle Hegseth affidavit.

I don't know that he knows Danielle, but what he told me is completely consistent with Danielle Hegseth's allegations that Pete Hegseth was abusive to his second wife. But this individual is afraid to come forward and have his name mentioned because he believes that, if his name was mentioned, he would be subject to abuse and potentially violence.

I have spoken to a close friend of Jane Doe, the complainant in the sexual assault allegation and the sexual assault civil complaint and settlement, with direct knowledge of this. She has told me a number of things that confirm the public reporting about the sexual assault allegation, but she is afraid, for her own physical safety, to come forward.

And I have spoken to one of the individuals whose name is mentioned, among the 36 whose names are mentioned, in the whistleblower report, who participated in putting it together years ago, who was able to give some texture and context to this report that all Members have had access to. She expressed a willingness to speak to the FBI about it. She doesn't want to come forward publicly because she is afraid, but she expressed a willingness. Mr. President, get this: She expressed a willingness weeks ago to talk to the FBI about the whistleblower report, which they had.

And as of 2 hours ago, the FBI has not been in contact with a single individual whose name is mentioned in this whistleblower report.

Now, we already know that the FBI, in their initial investigation, did not reach out to either of the wives--wife one and wife two. They didn't reach out.

I haven't seen the FBI report. I am not allowed to see it. It is only accessible by our committee chair and ranking. But I asked Senator Reed: Was there any reference to it? Was there any evidence that either of the first wives were interviewed?

I mean, you had the letter from the mother. Why wouldn't you go talk to the wives about the behavior? The FBI didn't talk to the first or second wife. They had to go back and do an interview, after we brought that up that they hadn't even done it. They did a cursory interview about Mr. Hegseth's drinking but didn't ask him about the abuse allegations.

But as of 2 hours ago, the FBI still has not reached out to a single person whose name is contained as someone with knowledge about the whistleblower report and the activities of Mr. Hegseth when he was the CEO or the lead executive of Concerned Veterans for America.

I am saddened that a friend of wife two, that a friend of Jane Doe, that somebody who is a whistleblower is so physically afraid to come forward and say what they know because of fears of violence against them. That makes me sad. But I will stake my reputation on this: What they have told me is a direct match and an affirmation of the material contained in the public accounts from the mother, from Pete Hegseth's own admissions, from the sexual assault facts that we know, and from the Danielle Hegseth affidavit.

I have taken some time to go over this to show that the material that this body is considering is not anonymous, and now I want to turn to the second. It is not a smear.

The Pete Hegseth allegation seems to be that this is all created at the last minute to try to derail him from being Secretary of Defense, and, in that way, it is a smear. It wouldn't be further from the truth.

The sexual assault claim happened years ago. It was not created to try to stop Pete.

The whistleblower report was written more than a decade ago. It was not written to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense.

Pete Hegseth has admitted to serial infidelity years ago. Those allegations were not brought up to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense.

And, finally, this letter from Pete Hegseth's mother, it was sent years ago, and it wasn't sent to stop Pete Hegseth from being Secretary of Defense. It was sent, as his own mother has recently stated in media interviews, as a message of love. This painful, painful email was sent to her son as a message of love.

None of this material was a smear. None of this material was created once Pete Hegseth was nominated to be Secretary of Defense to try to stop him. This material has been around for many, many years and was created contemporaneously with abuse that he was visiting upon others because people were trying to stop him. They were trying to stop him as a message of love. They were praying for him. They were encouraging him to look in the mirror and improve. Yet he says this is all a smear.

That is not the case. They are not smears. They are clear and consistent and contemporaneous reports of the behavior, judgment, impulse control, and character of this nominee for the most important Cabinet position that any President will forward to the U.S. Senate.

I am going to conclude and just say this: We can do better. As a nation, we can do better. As a U.S. Senate, we can do better. Supporters of President Trump can do better. Members of the military can do better. Veterans can do better. Blue Star families--I am one. My kid is a Marine reservist. We can do better.

We need to do better. We need to do better by our Active Duty. We need to do better by our Guard and Reserve. We need to do better by DOD civilians. We need to do better by military families. We need to do better by defense contractors. We need to do better by all who care about the important mission of the American military. And we can do better.

Mr. President, you and I both know this: There are so many good public officials who have aligned on the Republican side, who have supported President Trump, who have their own credentials.

In this body--I could name a bunch, but I am worried I would forget one and then get in trouble with one of the ones I don't name. But in this body, there are Senators who have served honorably in the military and are well qualified for the position of Secretary of Defense.

In the House, there are Members who are loyal to this President who have served honorably in the military and are qualified to be Secretary of Defense.

We have Governors, we have mayors, we have leaders of companies who have supported this President and are loyal to his agenda and could get a 90-8-2 vote, like Mark Esper did, or a 98-to-1 vote, like General Mattis did, and would be loyal to this President and carry out this President's agenda.

They are there. There are hundreds of them without the personal baggage of sexual assault claims that have been settled, of allegations of spousal abuse that have been testified to, of allegations of drunkenness on the job and fiscal mismanagement that are the subject of a very extensive report written by non-anonymous coworkers.

So as we near the vote for this most important position, my plea to my colleagues, as one who has supported every Secretary of Defense who has ever come before my committee--Democrat or Republican--is don't rush this and make a mistake.

No one in this room, should this break badly following the confirmation, could say: Well, I didn't know. I didn't know.

Everyone knows. Everyone has access to this material. Everyone knows the risk we would be undertaking in confirming Pete Hegseth to be Secretary of Defense. There will be no place--no shelter, no refuge--of ``Wow, I was unaware of this.''

But, more importantly than that, we all know people right in this Chamber who are qualified by background, who are qualified by credential, but, most importantly, who are qualified by character to undertake this most solemn responsibility.

Let's get this one right. Let's take the time and get this one right.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source