The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“LEGISLATIVE SESSION” mentioning Chris Van Hollen was published in the Senate section on pages S86-S87 on Jan. 21.
Of the 100 senators in 117th Congress, 24 percent were women, and 76 percent were men, according to the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.
Senators' salaries are historically higher than the median US income.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
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 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:
YEAS--69
BennetBluntBoozmanBraunBrownCantwellCapitoCardinCarperCaseyCassidyCoonsCornynCramerCrapoCruzDainesDurbinErnstFeinsteinFischerGrahamGrassleyHagertyHassanHeinrichHickenlooperHironoHoevenInhofeJohnsonKaineKellyKennedyKingKlobucharLankfordLeahyLujanManchinMcConnellMenendezMurkowskiMurphyOssoffPadillaPaulPetersPortmanReedRischRomneyRoundsSandersSchatzSchumerScott (SC)ShaheenShelbySinemaSmithStabenowSullivanThuneTubervilleWarnerWarnockWhitehouseWicker
NAYS--27
BaldwinBarrassoBlackburnBlumenthalBookerCollinsCortez MastoCottonDuckworthGillibrandHawleyLeeLummisMarkeyMarshallMerkleyMurrayRosenRubioSasseScott (FL)TesterToomeyVan HollenWarrenWydenYoung
NOT VOTING--4
BurrHyde-SmithMoranTilli
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.
____________________
Alerts Sign-up