Speaking Friday to members of Russia’s Security Council, Putin noted that “the challenges in this area have become even more pressing, serious and extensive.”

He charged that “an outright aggression has been unleashed against Russia, a war has been waged in the information space.”

Putin added that “the cyber-aggression against us, the same as the attack on Russia by sanctions in general, has failed.”

He ordered officials to “perfect and enhance the mechanisms of ensuring information security at critically important industrial facilities which have a direct bearing on our country’s defensive capability, and the stable development of the economic and social spheres.”

Also on Friday, Ukrainian authorities said their troops repelled a Russian attack in the east, as Moscow struggled to gain ground in the region that is now the focus of the war even while intensifying its campaign there.

Battered by their monthslong siege of the vital port city of Mariupol, Russian troops need time to regroup, Britain’s Defense Ministry said in an assessment — but they may not get it. The city and the steelworks where Ukrainian fighters have held off the Russian assault for weeks have become a symbol of Ukraine’s stoic resistance and surprising ability to stymie a much larger force.

On Friday, a number of soldiers — just how many was unclear — were still holed up in the Azovstal plant, following the surrender of more than 1,900 soldiers in recent days, according to the latest figure from Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu. Efforts to remove the dead from the battle were also underway, according to Denis Prokopenko, the commander of the Azov Regiment, which is among those defending the plant.

Speaking of the “fallen heroes,” Prokopenko said: “I hope soon relatives and the whole of Ukraine will be able to bury the fighters with honors.” The Red Cross, meanwhile, said it has visited prisoners of war from all sides of the conflict, amid international fears that the Russians may take reprisals against Ukrainian prisoners.

With the battle for the steel plant winding down, Russia has already started pulling troops back from the site. But the British assessment indicated Russian commanders are under pressure to quickly send them elsewhere in the Donbas.

“That means that Russia will probably redistribute their forces swiftly without adequate preparation, which risks further force attrition,” the ministry said.

The Donbas is now President Vladimir Putin’s focus after his troops failed to take the capital in the early days of the war. Pro-Moscow separatists have fought Ukrainian forces for eight years in the region and held a considerable swath of it before Russia’s Feb. 24 invasion.

But the effort to take more territory there has been slow-going. In a sign of Russia’s frustration with the war, some senior commanders have been fired in recent weeks, the British Defense Ministry said.

It was all part of the Army’s XVIII Airborne Corp artificial intelligence-enabled live-fire target identification exercise on Thursday that used nearly 20 platforms and units from each of the other branches.

The event was the fourth of its kind for the Scarlet Dragon program, which began in 2020.

The Corps, assisted by elements of the Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps, worked with various platforms in all domains. But a key ingredient was the National Geospatial-Intelligence Center, which provided satellite imagery for software to sift through and find targets.

Due to safety concerns with weather conditions, no steel struck any targets, but Col. Melissa Solsbury, chief data officer for the Corps, told Army Times that the event “achieved machine to machine learning at scale.”

“Since our first event we have been able to reduce the speed of moving data from sensor to shooter by nearly 50 percent,” she said.

Officials did not disclose the time necessary to move data from sensor to shooter.

And maritime assets in the exercise were used for intelligence, allowing leaders to test maritime asset integration with AI algorithms on synthetic aperture radar systems, she said.

Which, essentially, gave them a chance to test out aspects of their system in inclement weather, Solsbury said.

Had steel hit target, two GBU-32 bombs would have hit on a 10-digit grid after having scanned across a plethora of potential targets along the mid-Atlantic seaboard.

The first test-fire in December 2020 proved AI-enabled fires set up. The second, in March, worked Multi-Domain Operations tasks. While the third, in June, doubled the number of units and platforms being used and tested the Combined Joint All Domain Command and Control interoperability.

This most recent event worked through Joint All-Domain Operations with the addition of deep troves of an intelligence agency’s data.

Scarlet Dragon is using existing platforms and networks to harness that imagery so that leaders can use it to identify certain targets in a vast array of options. The software for the project comes out of the Pentagon’s Project Maven, an algorithm-based tool used to quickly process drone video for target ID and selection which started in 2017.

Thursday’s iteration worked through all steps to drop two GBU-32 bonds on range targets after scanning possible targets in a 7,200 square kilometer area stretching from Virginia to Georgia, officials said.

“The Scarlet Dragon series is designed to increase our joint warfighting capability and how AI-augmented decision making significantly increases the scale, speed and accuracy of our targeting process,” Lt. Gen. Erik Kurilla, XVIII Airborne Corps commander told Army Times.

The Corps is using today’s technology to increase that capability with other services, Kurilla said.

Some of that tech included fires support elements from II Marine Expeditionary Force, F-35s from 2nd Marine Aircraft Wing, A-10s out of 75th Fighter Squadron, F-15s with the Air Force’s 4th Fighter Wing, an E-2 C/D Hawkeye and F-18 from the Navy’s Carrier Air Wing Three, Army 18th Field Artillery Brigade with High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems, rotary wing aircraft, command and control and other assets.

“It’s about seeking ways to achieve decision advantage in large-scale combat operations,” he said. “It’s about learning, as an organization, how to employ data as a strategic asset in the joint fight.”

What AI can do is “accelerate the targeting space,” said Col. Joe O’Callaghan, the XVIII Airborne Corps Fire Support Officer.

Which means helping soldiers make better decisions faster.

“We fully understand that in any future conflict it’s going to be the best shooter for the target or the least worst-case shooter,” O’Callaghan said. “AI is allowing us to rapidly understand an environment and take advantage of it.”

The work being done by Scarlet Dragon is expected to feed into the larger Project Convergence effort by the Army, tying together all of these joint systems, shooters and sensors for a unified battlefield management system.

Undergirding much of the work are efforts that may go unseen during an event such as a large-scale live fire.

That’s creating data-literate soldiers who know not only how to run the machinery and execute code, but to understand the importance of data and how it shapes the fight.

Solsbury told Army Times that effort is Project Ridgeway and it is how the Corps is tackling that concern.

Ridgeway is targeting staff officers and NCOs to upgrade their data skills, in part through a six-week program with Joint Special Operations Command, she said.

The main “data gatekeepers” in the formation are the brigade staff officers, she said.

“By that, I mean that they horde data and do not understand where and how to ensure their data contributes to a body (an aggregate) or insight,” she said. “Our staff officers do not appreciate the power in aggregating, consolidating, and harnessing data—they don’t value or view data as a strategic asset.”

Ridgeway is how officials hope to solve that problem.

Another part of Ridgeway is to help the XVIII Airborne Corps find practical ways to apply emerging technology as they figure out how best to put AI into the fight, she said.

The next live fire is scheduled for early 2022 and will focus on data-centric warfare, using all joing partners in all domains and achieving information advantage over adversaries, officials said.

Dr. John Arquilla and his colleagues at the Rand Corporation and the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School were peering into the interconnected planet, and especially its future battlespace in the early 1990s. Despite creating new uniformed and civilian jobs in defense, as well as establishing U.S. Cyber Command, Arquilla sees cyber thinking among political and military leaders as potentially fractured or sometimes missing the point.

Arquilla served as an advisor to former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, assisted with information strategy for former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre during the Kosovo War and consulted for Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf during Operation Desert Storm.

The NPS professor emeritus wrote the recently published book, “Bitskrieg: The New Challenge of Cyberwarfare,” which provides breadth and depth in a slim volume of roughly 200 pages.

Military Times spoke with Arquilla about the book and some of what he’s trying to share with everyone from the grunt to the general officer and civilian leaders on how the United States needs to shift its thinking and operations.

The following Q&A interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Q: What are your thoughts on Cyber Command, how it was formed, how it’s being staffed, used, etc.?

A: In the past, putting cyber behind the green door slowed the process of getting these ideas out across the services. It ramped up so quickly. I have a concern at the high number of private contractors. I think that’s a problem. The military should put more into getting uniformed personnel into those billets.

I understand that is breaking down now. And in the beginning, there was too sharp a division between offensive and defensive operations. Everything you can learn about good defense can get from doing offense, vice versa.

Q: What should every entry-level service member to service chief understand about cyberwarfare at their level?

A: Every E-1 should know that they are sensors, not just shooters. Every sensitive site exploitation can create an opportunity for information. Also, everyone is an emitter. Your smartphone’s probably got 20 [different] apps on it to say where you are. Information Mission Control is absolutely necessary. Realize that everybody is in the information age. Military organizations are sensor organizations, not just shooting organizations. The business of sensing is complemented by realizing that every individual on some level is an emitter of information.

Mid-career military members don’t need to be computer geeks but need to understand themselves as information managers. Make sense of all this information. What’s relevant to the situation that I am facing?

At higher levels, G1+ must make sure to connect those sensor and information links with issues of advanced organization and doctrine. And create the next AirLand Battle.

Q: There are a lot of references to Distributed Maritime Operations, Multi-Domain Operations, and other new warfare concepts. How does “Bitskrieg” fit in with or contradict these approaches?

A: On MDO, it’s important as a step towards Bitskrieg. But if you’re truly operating like China in warfare or Russian Gerasimov doctrine, then you need to tease out the implications for military doctrine and organizations for themselves. The “how you fight” optimal doctrine is not going to be mass on mass, not even maneuvers like Blitzkrieg. It’s the distribution of forces and fires capabilities. We called that “swarming.” My belief, to this day, the gathering swarm the coming swarm is really where we need to be moving. I do see distributed lethality, DMO, all building blocks to the battle.

To optimize the emerging new doctrine, you have to have the right organizational form. A century ago, planners brought the tank, plane, radio communications and other technologies together. And they realized it was important to concentrate tanks in their own organizational unit such as the Germans did with the Panzer division. Germans got it right first, others followed. What’s the right organizational form? The biggest challenge and most important is organizational. Instead of a military of a few large things like aircraft carriers, bomber fleets or Marine Expeditionary Units, we should build a military of many small things. That allows us to operate in a distributed way, be more elusive, more accurate as shooters. Feed the whole notion of the military as a sensory organization.

Among all the services I think the Marines are the farthest ahead in catching a glimpse. They’re the closest to Bitskrieg if you ask me. Decoupling range and accuracy from weapons. Working across great distances and extremely high levels of accuracy. The many and the small operating highly effectively. Especially in littoral operations. Hopefully what the Marines are doing will be a laboratory for the other services.

Q: Is the United States doomed to sluggishly trudge along with our cyberwarfare concepts as China and Russia’s militaries move ahead until there’s a reckoning?

A: We are way out of balance here. Our defenses are exceptionally weak, [but] to some extent moving ahead. I’m proud to say the NPS is one of the principal early advocates for data mobility and cloud storage. Keep your data moving and encrypted and it’s better. Strong encryption and data mobility has to happen and it has to happen right away. Every time you hear a story, whether it’s the colonial pipeline, title companies, office of personnel management got hacked, [the] emphasis [needs to be] on defense. I know everyone loves offense, but we’ve got to balance. Russia, China, North Korea and Iran have balanced.

And as far as kinetic warfare, now bombs and bullets will be directed by bits and bytes, just as the French and British took tanks and planes and parceled them out across the forces. Today we’re grafting the new technologies. Whether it’s carrier ops or land battle or any other area of military activity. We’re a little bit behind the Russians and a lot behind the Chinese. It’s less about an arms race and more about an organizational race. We have to redesign and redefine ourselves.

Q: You reference early successful operations in Afghanistan. Turning to similar areas, how could we properly use cyberwarfare in our non-peer operations in Libya, Somalia, Mali, etc.

A: I think we need to rekindle the spirit of those 11 Green Beret A-Teams that went to Afghanistan in the fall of 2001. Things like the tactical webpage and other tactical systems. They won a campaign in a very short amount of time. The campaign against ISIS under President Donald Trump was very much organized in small teams. Kurds were a tremendously reliable indigenous force to achieve in a very quick time. Again, it’s an example of how the many and the small, less permissive in some places, probably not sending teams in Libya or Yemen but we do have them operating in and around Somalia. Even in an era of great power competition, there are little brushfires going on. Just like in the Cold War and we’re going to see that again. But it’s going to be “little green men,” not the tanks into the Fulda Gap.

Q: Any closing thoughts to share with readers on cyberwarfare and its future?

A: I am very optimistic and here’s why: I think the early experiences of an officer are formative. The three-four stars today had their formative experiences in Desert Storm. The officers starting to put on stars now, will all have had their formative experience in the post-9/11 period campaigns. All will have these experiences and understanding and willingness to use new tools in new ways. I saw it until I retired recently in my classrooms. Officers usually attend NPS at about 10-12 years into their careers. I saw it coming in 2008-09.

And artificial intelligence will transform much of what we’re doing. I think GI Joe and “AI Jane” are going to get together in the coming years and AI will have as profound an effect in military affairs in the 21st Century as the aircraft did in the 20th Century. That is something that has tremendous potential for military and human affairs. China and Russia moving full speed ahead. An AI arms race, I think, is underway and will have transformational effects. I want to make sure that the U.S. military is in the forefront of development and what they will mean organizationally.

For the past 15 years to 20 years senior leaders have had access to an unprecedented amount of data on every inch of the battlespace while deployed, Berger said Aug. 2 at the annual Sea Air Space conference hosted by the Navy League.

Information tied with the natural desire of control has hurt the Corps’ ability to think ahead and has reduced the independence of junior leaders, he says ― an independence that is necessary to cultivate for the future of dispersed operations that Berger envisions.

Small unit Marine leaders “are ready to make decisions, I think at their level we are shackling them,” Berger said.

The Corps is undergoing a revolutionary force design change aimed at moving it away from the past 20 years of wars in the Middle East to one focused on near-peer opponents like China and Russia.

Berger sees the future of the Corps as a small, light, maneuverable force widely dispersed within range of the theoretical enemy’s weapons and rocket systems.

The dispersion and maneuverability will prevent the hypothetical enemy from landing any knockout blow against the Marines, while a location near the opponent will allow them to track the enemy’s naval movement and accurately direct missile fires.

The dispersion will put extra pressure on junior leaders with future companies, potentially having them take on the responsibilities currently residing with battalions or even regiments.

“I think the best commanders I’ve seen actually sit outside their command centers because they sense, ‘I can’t get overwhelmed by what’s happening in the moment I need to think ahead,” Berger said.

While Berger trusts those junior leaders, he is unsure if his generation of leaders are capable of handing them the reins and if the structure of the Corps encourages leaders at that level to take risks.

The commandant said one of the main driving forces in his vision for a future Corps was an order sent by former Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Ernest King in January 1941.

The letter, popularly known as serial 53, calls out the Navy’s culture of “flag officers and other group commanders to issue orders and instructions in which their subordinates are told ‘how’ as well as ‘what’ to do to such an extent and in such detail that the ‘Custom of the service’ has virtually become the antithesis of that essential element of command — ‘initiative of the subordinate.’”

King goes on to cite the anxiety of commanders to perform their duty so “smoothly that none may comment unfavorably,” as the main cause of the micromanaging of commanders.

Berger said the Corps could lift King’s “diagnosis” and apply it to the modern-day Marine Corps.

“If we give them broad guidance and let them make the mistakes, let them run, we will have much better small unit commanders,” he added.

To help junior Marine leaders be more comfortable making decisions the commandant has set about reforming both officer and enlisted schoolhouses, allowing Marines to take on more responsibility from the very start of their careers.

The Corps is implementing changes that will use “YouTube” style videos, online flashcards, issued laptops or tablets and other tools to help Marines pass courses at their own pace and take greater ownership of their own learning.

The strategy already has led to more than 100 Marines graduating from the Network Administrators Course at Marine Corps Communication Electronics School.

The so called “21st century learning” model also was implemented in the Corps’ new infantry school, where the focus was on creating future squad leaders and platoon sergeants, rather than just competent trigger pullers.

Graduates from the first pilot program ran at the School of Infantry–West on Camp Pendleton, California, left the course more proficient in many infantry skills, but most importantly they were free-thinkers capable of solving a problem without the help of instructors or noncommissioned officers.

“By accident we created tacticians,” Lt. Col. Walker Koury, commanding officer for Infantry Training Battalion–West, told a group of reporters in April.

Berger suggested the Marine Corps re-evaluate how it performs its after action reports once in the fleet.

Instead of immediately critiquing a decision made by small unit leaders, Berger said every after action report, from a training scenario, should start off by thanking the leader for simply making a decision.

Berger also wants to put new technology in the hands of captains and majors, allowing them to develop uses and protocols for the new tech that may have been missed by top brass in the Pentagon.

“We’re at a disadvantage at my grade and age,” Berger said.

“That’s the sweet spot, just give them the tools, don’t tell them how to use them, they’ll probably by the end of tomorrow figure out seven ways you had never envisioned,” Berger said.

Marines will be armed to the teeth with sensors and potentially missiles capable of sinking enemy ships. That’s the vision of Marine Corps Commandant Gen. David Berger that was formulated specifically to faceoff against China in the Pacific Ocean, but Marine leaders say can it be used in any other potential theater of war.

While the Corps is still fine-tuning certain aspects of dispersed operations, like training and equipment, one major questions remains.

How will the Marine Corps provide logistical support to dispersed Marines in a hostile environment?

Marine Lt. Gen. Eric Smith the current commander of the Marine Corps Combat Development Command and the deputy commandant for combat development and integration has one possible solution: Foraging.

“The first thing about being able to handle a logistics enterprise support you in a distributed environment is need less,” Smith said Tuesday at the 2021 Sea-Air-Space conference.

“Why would I move water to the South China Sea? That’s insane, why would I move food? It’s called expeditionary foraging,” he added.

In the future Marines may be tasked with getting their own food, processing their own water and potentially even buying replacement parts for their equipment while dispersed on small far-flung expeditionary advanced bases, the general said.

In December 2019, Marines with the 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit put some of those foraging concepts to the test while training on the island of Tinian, Northern Mariana Islands.

During the exercise Marines with Combat Logistics Battalion 31, were tasked with maintaining logistical support of the MEU using “21st century foraging,” Marine Corps Times previously reported.

Smith believes future Marines will deploy with small water purifiers, which can be carried by a single Marine, and wearable power generators.

“The only thing I wish to move is lethality,” Smith said.

“Fuel, additives you don’t have to bring everything.”

The information made available by accounts on certain apps “is a privacy and security concern,” according to a Marine administrative message signed July 28.

Marines also are prohibited from having gaming, dating or gambling platforms on their government-furnished mobile devices, per the memo.

“Users are strongly encouraged to delete any apps from their personal devices that the US Government has deemed a risk,” the memo urged.

Lists of authorized and unauthorized apps will be made available to Marines, and prohibited applications will be automatically removed from devices by a management server.

Banning apps

Banning applications is not a new cybersecurity measure in the military.

Earlier in 2020 each branch of the military banned service members from installing the Chinese-made video sharing app TikTok on government-issued phones over fear that the app was being used by the Chinese government to collect data and spy on American citizens.

Cryptocurrency, favored by cybercriminals for its anonymity and ease of use, can be obtained through the resource-intensive process of mining. Because of the high processing power and energy costs associated with such activities, mining popular coins like Bitcoin can be unprofitable without a specialized setup.

Less popular coins with smaller networks, however, can be more easily mined on individual devices, cybersecurity expert Randi Eitzman told Marine Corps Times.

For this reason, criminals often “cryptojack” computers, infecting them with malware that will install mining applications and use a victim’s electricity and processing power for profit, FireEye reported.

Even if a service member were to use cryptocurrency mining applications on a government device without malware, they would still be using government resources for their personal gain.

“While some may try to argue cryptocurrency mining is a sort of ‘victimless crime,’ it is important to realize that it is theft,” Eitzman said.

Other branches of service have their own guidelines and lists of authorized apps, though none specifically outlaw the act of cryptocurrency mining.

The Army and Air Force use the Defense Information Systems Agency’s regulations.

“Users are only authorized to download approved applications, and users who download unapproved or third-party apps may result in the device being flagged,” a DISA spokesperson told Marine Corps Times.

DISA did not comment on what types of apps are or are not approved.

The Navy’s acceptable use policy limits personal use of government technology, prohibiting activities inappropriate for the workplace but allowing some personal use like posting items for sale on a forum, similar to a workplace bulletin board.

The policy prohibits any use of Navy technology that would reflect poorly on the Department of the Navy, said Joe Gradisher, spokesman for the office of the deputy chief of naval operations for information warfare.

“Using the AUP as the guide then, cryptocurrency mining would not be a permissible activity on GFE (government furnished equipment),” said Gradisher.

The Marine Corps was not able to immediately respond to requests for comment or about whether or not there have been cases of Marines mining cryptocurrency on their government mobile devices.

The leader of the directorate handles cyber policy for the Army’s G-3/5/7 office at the Pentagon.

Buckner is deputy commander of Joint Task Force-ARES, which engages in the cyber fight against ISIS, at U.S. Cyber Command at Fort Meade, Maryland.

She was named to her current role last June, after serving as deputy commander of operations for the Cyber National Mission Force at U.S. Cyber Command. In 2014, she was named commandant for the newly formed Army Cyber School and tasked with growing the school and developing cyber training.

Buckner is a career intelligence officer whose training includes electronic warfare and signals intelligence courses, airborne and jumpmaster schools, Joint and Combined Warfighting School and Harvard’s Executive Education Program in cybersecurity. She is a 1990 graduate of the United States Military Academy at West Point.

The Army has not announced when she will transition into her new role. An Army spokeswoman told Army Times that no additional information is available yet.

The current director of Army cyber is Maj. Gen. Patricia Frost, who has led the directorate since it opened in summer 2016.

The directorate has focused on integrating the Army’s cyber, information and electronic warfare operations as the Army builds its cyber organizations and career field.

The Army has made a “very significant” investment in cyber as it rapidly formed Army Cyber Command and built its cyber mission force, Frost told Army Times in October.

“I feel very strongly that the Army is truly leading the way in this space,” Frost said in the interview. “I think we’re really seeing that come together now in how we’re equipping the cyber mission force, the operational capabilities we’re putting in our support to our geographic combatant commands we’re aligned to.”

Meanwhile, the Army has wasted up to $40 billion by some estimates, McCain said, on programs like the $2.2 billion Crusader howitzer, $5.9 billion on the armed reconnaissance helicopter, and the joint tactical radio system.

“Every one of those that I mentioned never became reality,” he said. “Never.”

Army leaders have testified on Capitol Hill multiple times this year that the service needs more funding to meet its current operational requirements and increase end strength for the future.

But McCain has rejected the idea of increasing funding until the procurement process shows improvement.

“I’m embarrassed to go in front of my constituents saying, ‘We need more money,’ when we just blew $7.5 billion for a thing called Warfighter Information Network-Tactical — or WIN-T — which the Army still is trying to hang on to,” he said.

The issues are larger than a few mistakes, added Sen. Angus King, I-Maine.

“Number one, it seems to me the fact that the Army has had this series of failures without too many successes over the past 10 — or actually, almost 20 — years, says that there’s something systemic in their procurement system that needs to be thought about,” he said.

McCarthy pointed to shifting requirements during acquisition as a major reason so many programs drag on for years and go so far over budget.

“I saw it firsthand with the Future Combat Systems in 2009, that changing midstream from light and fast to a heavier concept, that confusion in fluctuation confuses what you want to achieve with the system,” he said.

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, a retired Army lieutenant colonel, chimed in, indignant that the Army just last year awarded the contract for its new pistol, replacing a handgun it had been using since 1982.

“Russia continues to upgrade its service rifle and we continue to carry the M4 and the M16s,” she said. “The Army just figured out how to procure new pistols. How simple. I can’t believe how long it took to procure a new handgun.”

McCarthy suggested looking at off-the-shelf rifles that could be modified to fit the Army’s needs. For instance, he said, the successful mine-resistant, ambush protected vehicle used by both the Army and Marine Corps was inspired by a similar vehicle used by South African forces.

Despite the hammering, McCain agreed that readiness — Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley’s top priority — could not continue to slip.

“Mr. McCarthy, the U.S. Army is facing a crisis,” he said. “With current operational demands, we can no longer accept that only about one third of the Army’s [brigade combat teams] are ready for deployment.”

McCarthy agreed.

“Six years ago, when I left the Department of Defense, the world was a complex and dangerous place. The Army had over 178,000 soldiers deployed in Afghanistan and Iraq,” he said. “Today the danger and complexity in the world has only increased, while the size of the total Army has decreased.”

The Army reversed its end strength drawdown this year and leaders have said they would like to see the number of soldiers spread throughout the active and reserve components continue to climb.

Despite his tough questioning, McCain said he would like to move the nomination along as quickly as possible, and promised a fight on the Senate floor if his Democratic colleagues continue to hold up Trump nominations.