[Congressional Record Volume 168, Number 116 (Thursday, July 14, 2022)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3299-S3300]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                         General Mark A. Milley

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, I am here today in the Senate to sound 
the alarm about one of America's guiding principles--everybody knows 
about this--the constitutional principle of civilian control of our 
military, very much a cornerstone of our Republic.
  This fundamental principle of self-government may have been in 
jeopardy during the final days of the Trump administration, but before 
I get to that, I will provide a historical context.
  That principle became part of the American fabric on June 14, 1775, 
when the Congress of the Continental Congress appointed George 
Washington commander of the Continental Army. His commission ordered 
him to report to civilian authorities.
  It specified:

       You--

  Meaning the new General Washington--

     are punctually to observe such orders and directions, from 
     time to time, as you shall receive from this, or a future 
     Congress of these United Colonies.

  Well, he followed that. At the war's end, General Washington gave 
this

[[Page S3300]]

principle lasting purpose, and he did it with power and grace.
  On December 23, 1783, in a solemn ceremony at the statehouse in 
Annapolis, George Washington voluntarily surrendered his commission, as 
well as his military power, to civilian authority, the President of the 
Continental Congress. The scene is memorialized in a dramatic John 
Trumbull painting that is displayed in the Rotunda not far from here. 
All of my colleagues go through that part of this Capitol every day and 
probably don't pay a lot of attention to it, but it is an important 
description of our basic constitutional principles.
  We know there are other ways of doing these things in other 
countries. We know that dictators rule their nations with an iron fist 
because they control the sword. Washington selflessly laid down that 
sword to ensure America's destiny for generations to come. He chose to 
disband the Army and return to private life at Mount Vernon.
  One scholar explained it this way:

       The Virginian . . . went home to plow.

  By this noble act, Washington cemented a crown jewel of self-rule: 
civilian control of the military. Five years later, as Washington was 
elected President, this bedrock principle was enshrined in our 
Constitution.
  While this governing rule is essential to the preservation of 
democracy, it has been challenged with grave consequences. The Truman-
MacArthur dispute over conducting the Korean war is a case in point. 
President Truman wanted to limit the war. General MacArthur disagreed. 
General MacArthur defied orders, and General MacArthur criticized his 
Commander in Chief's--Truman's--decision, and he did that publicly, so 
Truman fired him for insubordination.
  Now I want to get to the main purpose of coming to the floor. 
Recently, several books, including a book entitled ``Peril'' by Bob 
Woodward and Robert Costa, suggest that the Chairman of the Joint 
Chiefs of Staff, General Milley, may have trampled on this principle. 
The book ``Peril'' provides an alarming account of his words and deeds.
  Milley told the authors he ``was certain'' that the Commander in 
Chief was ``in serious mental decline . . . and could go rogue and 
order military action or the use of nuclear weapons. Milley felt no 
absolute certainty the military could control or trust the President.''
  So Milley, in his words, ``took any and all necessary precautions.''
  ``His job,'' he said, was ``to think the unthinkable'' and, in his 
words, ``pull a Schlesinger.'' To ``contain Trump,'' he had to ``inject 
a second opinion.'' His opinion was then injected into the command 
structure.
  In doing so, he may have stepped out of his lane as the President's 
principal military adviser and into the statutory chain of command 
where law doesn't allow him to go because, by law, the Chairman of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff has no command authority.
  When President Nixon faced a crisis over impeachment and resignation, 
Secretary of Defense Schlesinger feared that he might order an 
unprovoked nuclear strike. So he, Schlesinger, reportedly took extra 
legal steps to prevent it. That is the same Schlesinger that Milley 
referred to as he was being interviewed for this book.
  It happens that ``pulling a Milley'' as opposed to a ``Schlesinger'' 
is a very different kettle of fish. A four-star general can't ``pull a 
Schlesinger.'' Schlesinger was at the top of the chain of command, just 
below the President. He kept the President's constitutional command 
authority firmly in civilian hands as the Constitution requires. Milley 
allegedly placed military hands--his hands--on controls that belong 
exclusively to the President.
  According to ``Peril,'' the book I am referring to, he summoned 
senior operations officers in the Military Command Center to his 
office. He had them take ``an oath'' not to ``act'' on the President's 
orders without checking with him first.
  These brazen words and actions, if accurate, strike at the heart of 
our democracy: civilian control of the military. They turn this guiding 
rule upside down and show utter contempt for the Commander in Chief. 
Coming from the Nation's top general, they are dangerous and contrary 
to military code 10 U.S.C. 888.
  After describing Milley's actions, the book's authors rightly ask 
this question: ``Was he subverting the President?'' Had he 
``overstepped his authority and taken extraordinary power for 
himself?''
  Milley assured this Senator in a letter to this Senator that his 
actions were on the up and up. The book, however, seems to imply a 
different story. I had a hearing where the general was. Senator 
Blackburn asked him about the mismatch. He replied: ``I haven't read 
any of the books, so I don't know.''
  She said to him: ``Read them and report back to us.''
  He said: ``Absolutely,'' he agreed. ``Happy to do that.''
  Nine months later, he is still dodging the question with the same 
lame excuse.
  To crank up the pressure, I joined Senators Paul and Blackburn a few 
months ago in a letter pushing for a straight answer. When none came, I 
began sending handwritten notes to the general. I soon received a 10-
page letter from General Milley that ignored the question. My second 
note sparked an email. It claimed that our letter did not raise ``a 
direct question'' and asserted ``General Milley answered the specific 
questions.''
  I think I can legitimately ask: Is that Pentagon baloney or what is 
it?
  After my third note, General Milley responded with the same old 
smoke-and-mirrors routine: ``I have never read the books.''
  Years of oversight have taught me this lesson: Evasive answers 
usually offer revealing clues about the truth. I think General Milley 
knows better. He knows the score. If those books and all attendant 
press coverage of those books contained gross misrepresentations, we 
would have heard about it a long time ago. He would have hammered the 
authors and corrected the record. However, to date, not a peep from the 
general. His silence speaks volumes.

  Something doesn't smell right. As the Pentagon watchdog, when I get a 
whiff of wrongdoing, I sink in my teeth and don't let go.
  So Congressman   Jim Banks, a member of the House Armed Services 
Committee, and I upped the ante on April 11. With 12 pointed questions, 
we gave General Milley a second bite of the apple to clear the air. 
Now, 2\1/2\ months later, we still have no response.
  General Milley, you said you were going to answer Senator Blackburn's 
question. Honor your word. Answer the question. Come clean with the 
American people. We are all ears.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Virginia.