[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 1 (Wednesday, January 3, 2018)]
[Senate]
[Pages S18-S19]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                        NOMINATION OF JOHN ROOD

  Ms. WARREN. Mr. President, I rise today to discuss the nomination of 
John Rood for the position of Under Secretary of Defense for Policy.
  I am concerned about the influence of different industries on key 
positions in government. Today, the specific problem under discussion 
is the influence of the defense industry over the Pentagon. The defense 
industry in America is powerful and profitable. The big five defense 
contractors together represented more than $100 billion in government 
contracts in 2016 alone. Think about that--5 corporations, $100 billion 
in taxpayer money in 1 year.
  The defense industry in America is powerful. President Trump has 
stocked the Pentagon with an unprecedented number of nominees from 
defense industry. These nominees will oversee all those government 
contracts. They will influence which companies get billions in taxpayer 
dollars and what exactly those companies have to do to collect their 
checks. Without strict ethics rules and oversight, these nominees have 
the power to significantly influence the profitability of their former 
employers--the same companies that may, once again, be the nominees' 
future employers after they have finished their government service.
  Mr. Rood may be a decent man, but he is the latest example of this 
trend. He will come to the Defense Department directly from Lockheed 
Martin International, where he was most recently a senior vice 
president. Lockheed is the biggest of the big five defense contractors. 
In 2016, the U.S. Government awarded the company over $40 billion in 
contracts. That was in 1 year.
  According to his official bio submitted to the Senate Armed Services 
Committee, Mr. Rood's responsibilities included ``developing and 
executing strategies to grow Lockheed Martin's international business'' 
and ``managing marketing and government relations activities'' 
overseas. In other words, he was responsible for selling Lockheed's 
products to other countries, and it seems as though he was pretty good 
at it. Lockheed made over $12 billion--or more than one-quarter of its 
net sales--from its international customers in 2016.
  Here is why that matters. According to Lockheed's most recent annual 
statement, the international division that Mr. Rood managed made about 
66 percent of its sales to foreign customers through the Pentagon's 
Foreign Military Sales Program. This is a program that allows for the 
sale of U.S. defense products overseas.
  In that same report, Lockheed acknowledges that its foreign sales are 
``highly sensitive'' to changes in regulations and ``affected'' by U.S. 
foreign policy. In other words, government officials influence whether 
Lockheed's foreign military sales barely break even or whether sales 
shoot through the roof and bring in billions of dollars for Lockheed.
  If confirmed as Under Secretary of Policy, Mr. Rood will play a 
significant role in setting U.S. defense policy and overseeing the 
regulation of foreign military sales of those very same products to 
those very same countries. If he is given this job with no constraints, 
Mr. Rood could implement policies that increase Lockheed's 
profitability, whether that is in the interest of the American people 
or not.
  Chairman McCain and I questioned Mr. Rood about this conflict of 
interest during his confirmation hearing. I asked him a simple yes-or-
no question: Would he commit not to seek a waiver from his obligation 
to recuse himself from Lockheed Martin business, as required by his 
ethics agreement? That is all I asked.
  He hemmed, he hawed, and finally made it clear that, well, no, he 
would not make that commitment.
  So I asked him another simple question: Would he at least recuse 
himself from policy discussions about the sale of Lockheed Martin 
products through the Foreign Military Sales Program?
  The answer was again clear. No, he would not make that commitment 
either.
  I followed up with additional written questions. I asked: ``Mr. Rood, 
will you commit not to seek or accept a waiver from your recusal 
obligations under your ethics agreement?''
  Here is his response. ``I am concerned that a commitment never to 
seek or accept a waiver could unnecessarily restrict my ability, if 
confirmed, to take an action that is important to U.S. national 
security and defense interests should a circumstance arise that is 
currently unforeseen.''
  In other words, no, he would not commit to abide by his own ethics 
agreement. Just think for a minute about what that means. President 
Trump has nominated an industry executive to one of our most senior 
national security positions, and that individual is unwilling to steer 
clear of the conflicts of interest involved in doing that job.
  I think the standard here should be pretty simple. If a nominee 
cannot do the job to which he has been nominated without seeking a 
waiver from his ethical obligations, then he should not have that job.
  Mr. Rood is not the only Trump nominee with this problem. The 
President has nominated many other executives from industry to the most 
senior positions at the Department of Defense. The Deputy Secretary of 
Defense was previously a senior vice president at Boeing. He now runs 
the Pentagon's budget process, including making the final call on which 
defense programs get funding and which do not.
  The Secretary of the Army was a senior lobbyist for Raytheon and even 
ran Raytheon's political action committee. The Under Secretary of the 
Army, the No. 2 position, was also a vice president at Lockheed. The 
Deputy Chief Management Officer previously ran XCOR Aerospace, now a 
bankrupt developer of rocket engines and space launch systems. The 
Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics 
spent her career at Textron, an aerospace and defense contractor.
  I could go on with this list. I don't doubt that many of these 
individuals are service-minded, and I know that many have also served 
honorably in government, both in and out of uniform. I also believe 
that a strong partnership between government and industry is important 
to our national defense.
  Industry experience, in and of itself, does not disqualify someone 
from public service, but there must be balance. When too many top 
government jobs are filled by industry insiders, we risk corporate 
capture of the whole policy making process.
  The overrepresentation of defense industry officials at the highest 
levels of the Department of Defense has real consequences. It suggests 
to the American people that only one viewpoint or one experience will 
dominate our policy making decisions. No outsiders, no one with a 
competing point of view need apply, and the revolving door between 
industry and government raises questions about who our government 
serves.
  No taxpayer should have to wonder whether the top policy makers at 
the Pentagon are pushing defense products and foreign military sales 
for any reason other than the protection of the United States of 
America. No American should have to wonder whether the Defense 
Department is acting to protect the national interests of our Nation or 
the financial interests of the five giant defense contractors. No man 
or woman in uniform should have to wonder whether their civilian 
leaders are putting the private financial interests of themselves and 
their friends ahead of the safety and the interests of our military 
servicemembers.
  The American people have a right to know who their government works 
for and that the senior leadership of the Department of Defense is 
putting our national security first. Everyone has a right to know that. 
The readiness and safety of our men and women in uniform is too 
important for any of us to have to ask those questions.
  As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I will not vote 
to confirm any nominee from industry

[[Page S19]]

who does not agree to fully recuse himself or herself from matters 
involving their former employer for the duration required by their 
ethics agreement, without waiver and without exception. I think we owe 
our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines at least that much.
  Because he will not make the commitment to abide by his own ethics 
agreement without waiver or exception, I will be voting against Mr. 
Rood as Under Secretary of Defense, and I urge other Senators to do the 
same.
  I yield back.
  I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Lee). The clerk will call the roll.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. GARDNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________