[Congressional Record Volume 167, Number 12 (Thursday, January 21, 2021)]
[Senate]
[Pages S86-S87]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                          LEGISLATIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

   PROVIDING FOR AN EXCEPTION TO A LIMITATION AGAINST APPOINTMENT OF 
   PERSONS AS SECRETARY OF DEFENSE WITHIN SEVEN YEARS OF RELIEF FROM 
                              ACTIVE DUTY

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the Senate will 
proceed to consideration of H.R. 335, which the clerk will report.
  The senior assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

       A bill (H.R. 335) to provide for an exception to a 
     limitation against appointment of persons as Secretary of 
     Defense within seven years of relief from active duty as a 
     regular commissioned officer of the Armed Forces.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will now be up to 30 minutes of debate 
on the bill
  Ms. COLLINS. Madam President, I rise today in opposition of the 
legislative waiver for the nominee to become the next Secretary of 
Defense.
  Since the inception of our Republic, civilian control of our military 
by democratically-elected civilians has been fundamental to American 
Government. This principle was firmly established as General George 
Washington famously resigned his commission to the Continental Congress 
in 1783, when he might have easily positioned himself as the leader of 
the fledgling American Government instead. With this bedrock principle 
in mind, Congress in 1947 established a limitation on former military 
generals serving as Secretary of Defense without a sufficient number of 
yes in civilian life. Today, Active-duty military members must have 
been retired for at least 7 years before becoming eligible to serve as 
Defense Secretary.
  Four years ago, despite great concern for what I saw as an erosion of 
the principle of civilian control of our military, I voted in support 
of granting a ``one-time exception'' to the statutory requirement for 
the confirmation of Gen. James Mattis. Until Congress

[[Page S87]]

granted a waiver of this requirement in 2017 for General Mattis, 
Congress had approved a waiver only once before, in 1950 for General 
George Marshall. With the nomination of Gen. Lloyd Austin, what I had 
thought would be a once-in-a-generation waiver in 2017 now appears to 
be the start of an unwelcome trend.
  To be clear, I do not believe that General Austin himself poses a 
specific risk to the civilian control of our military. By all accounts, 
he is a dedicated public servant and patriot with more than 40 years of 
successful military service. However, I do not believe that President 
Biden has offered a strong enough justification for granting another 
legislative waiver in so short a time.
  Should a waiver for his service be approved over my objections, which 
appears likely to occur, I intend to support General Austin's 
nomination based on his merits and qualifications. Over the course of 
his long and distinguished career, including as commander of U.S. 
Central Command during one of the region's most challenging periods for 
the United States, he has served with professionalism and diligence and 
has earned the trust of President Biden.
  General Austin has committed to uphold the principle of civilian 
control of the military and pledged to ensure civilian leadership and 
oversight over the Pentagon's strategic and operational planning. I 
commend General Austin for once again answering the call to serve, and 
I look forward to working with him to rebalance our civil-military 
relations toward civilian control.
  In November 2018, the congressionally appointed National Defense 
Strategy Commission concluded that, ``There is an imbalance in civil-
military relations on critical issues of strategy development and 
implementation. Civilian voices appear relatively muted on issues at 
the center of U.S. defense and national security policy.'' Losing this 
civilian perspective can have profound, long-term strategic impacts on 
the Pentagon and our national security policy.
  There are many reasons for this trend toward unbalanced civil-
military relations in recent years, including the failure of the prior 
administration to adequately fill Senate-confirmed positions at the 
Pentagon, instead relying on acting officials with limited ability to 
assert themselves within the department.
  We have also seen a troubling increase in the politicization of our 
military. For example, hundreds of retired generals and admirals signed 
public letters of support for Presidential candidates in 2020, with 
both campaigns competing for the most military endorsements. That was 
coupled with a growing trend toward political expression among the 
ranks on social media and elsewhere; in at least one instance, 
servicemembers in uniform were featured at one of the national 
Presidential nominating conventions. It is imperative that military 
officers do not come to view their commands as auditions for future 
political appointments or opportunities to curry favor with civilian 
political leaders.
  As Dr. Lindsay Cohn, a professor at the U.S. Naval War College, 
stated during the recent Senate Armed Services Committee hearing 
examining civilian control of the Armed Forces, civilian control of our 
military is not necessarily an on-off switch. It is a web of 
institutions, norms, practices, and understandings which can be 
weakened or strengthened. Recently, we have begun to see the principle 
of civilian control of the military weakened and degraded.
  In my view, Congress must not simply acquiesce to that growing trend. 
I do not believe it would be wise to allow the exception to swallow the 
rule when it comes to such a foundational principle of our Republic as 
civilian control of the military.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Madam President, I rise today to once again oppose a 
waiver to bypass U.S. law and allow a recently retired member of Armed 
Forces to serve as our Secretary of Defense. On the merits, I support 
the nomination of Lloyd Austin, and I believe that Mr. Austin is highly 
qualified for this role. However, the importance of civilian leadership 
at the Department of Defense is greater than any individual nominee.
  The subordination of military authority to civil authority is a 
bedrock principle of our democracy. In 2017, when I voted against a 
waiver to allow James Mattis to serve as Secretary of Defense, I 
stressed that our Founders' emphasis on civilian leadership 
distinguished the young United States from the other nations of the 
time. I also noted that in enacting the exception for General Marshall 
in 1950, Congress expressly stated that: ``the authority granted by 
this Act is not to be construed as approval by the Congress of 
continuing appointments of military men to the office of Secretary of 
Defense in the future. It is hereby expressed as the sense of the 
Congress that after General Marshall leaves the office of secretary of 
defense, no additional appointments of military men to that office 
shall be approved.''
  I still believe that the 7-year waiting period is a valuable 
practice--one of many--that preserves our--Nation's long tradition of 
placing civilian authority above military authority. In 2017, I said 
``should Congress vote to waive this law at this moment in time, I will 
review the nomination [. . .] on its individual merits.'' And I intend 
to apply my words then to my actions now and will consider Mr. Austin's 
nomination on its merits when it comes to the floor for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I would ask unanimous consent to yield 
back all time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The clerk will read the title of the bill for the third time.
  The bill was ordered to a third reading and was read the third time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The bill, having been read the third time, the 
question is, Shall the bill pass?
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I ask for the yeas and nays.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there a sufficient second?
  There appears to be a sufficient second.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  Mr. THUNE. The following Senators are necessarily absent: the Senator 
from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the Senator from Mississippi (Mrs. 
Hyde-Smith), the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran), and the Senator from 
North Carolina (Mr. Tillis).
  Further, if present and voting, the Senator from Kansas (Mr. Moran) 
would have voted ``nay.''
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote or change their vote?
  The result was announced--yeas 69, nays 27, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 4 Leg.]

                                YEAS--69

     Bennet
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Braun
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cassidy
     Coons
     Cornyn
     Cramer
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Daines
     Durbin
     Ernst
     Feinstein
     Fischer
     Graham
     Grassley
     Hagerty
     Hassan
     Heinrich
     Hickenlooper
     Hirono
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Johnson
     Kaine
     Kelly
     Kennedy
     King
     Klobuchar
     Lankford
     Leahy
     Lujan
     Manchin
     McConnell
     Menendez
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Ossoff
     Padilla
     Paul
     Peters
     Portman
     Reed
     Risch
     Romney
     Rounds
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Scott (SC)
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Sinema
     Smith
     Stabenow
     Sullivan
     Thune
     Tuberville
     Warner
     Warnock
     Whitehouse
     Wicker

                                NAYS--27

     Baldwin
     Barrasso
     Blackburn
     Blumenthal
     Booker
     Collins
     Cortez Masto
     Cotton
     Duckworth
     Gillibrand
     Hawley
     Lee
     Lummis
     Markey
     Marshall
     Merkley
     Murray
     Rosen
     Rubio
     Sasse
     Scott (FL)
     Tester
     Toomey
     Van Hollen
     Warren
     Wyden
     Young

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Burr
     Hyde-Smith
     Moran
     Tilli
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn having voted in the affirmative, the bill is passed.

  Under the previous order, the motion to reconsider is considered made 
and laid upon the table.
  The bill (H.R. 335) was passed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from New Jersey.

                          ____________________