Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his strong leadership as our new ranking member, and I look forward to working with him and the chairman on what is truly still, I think, the most bipartisan committee in Congress. I want…
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Alabama for his strong leadership as our new ranking member, and I look forward to working with him and the chairman on what is truly still, I think, the most bipartisan committee in Congress.
I want to make clear that I have enormous respect for General Austin's service. I don't think anyone can look at his record and not come away very impressed.
But I also strongly oppose this bill. There is no waiver; we are actually changing the underlying law. This was one of the biggest talking points 4 years ago. And we should not do so lightly.
Much has been made about the historic nature of Mr. Austin's nomination, which is true but in more ways than one. If we change the law today, we will now have done so twice within 4 years, effectively destroying the historical precedent against such exemptions.
We will also invert the congressional intent in the underlying National Security Act by setting the precedent that the presumption is for approval, not the disapproval, of recently retired officers.
So the law and the norm of civil-military relations that it is meant to buttress is on life support right now.
And, as in 2017, we will be granting this exemption without a public hearing of the Armed Services Committee, which is the bare minimum of our constitutional obligations. We will be getting rolled over, to borrow a phrase that was used 4 years ago.
And I don't know, I am not in the room where these ratios are discussed, and this and that, but it seems to me that it is worth waiting a few days in order to have such a public hearing, but it is my understanding that our entire workweek next week has been canceled.
So I don't think it withstands basic scrutiny to suggest that we couldn't have had a public hearing to discuss this very, very important issue.
Now, 4 years ago, I voted in favor of the exemption for Secretary Mattis. I think it was my first vote. It was certainly my first speech on the House floor. So it is fair to ask what has changed. Well, a lot has changed.
First and perhaps most importantly, the threat from China is far greater, and we need a Secretary with INDOPACOM experience. The nominee has admitted that he is not uniquely qualified in that regard, and I don't think there is a more important aspect of his experience that we could analyze in considering whether to change the underlying law.
Second, budgetary pressures on the Department are much bigger. Particularly in the post-pandemic world, it is going to be far more difficult to build off of the success that we have had in giving the Department the resources it needs, and we will need a Secretary with political experience who can fight and win interagency battles for a higher top line.
And, third, we also have more data. Four years ago, we ran this experiment for the first time in 67 years, and we learned that recently retired general officers face unique challenges when leading the Department--specifically, the need to publicly advocate for a higher top line, which requires some political experience. And the nominee has made much of the apolitical nature of his prior experience.
Now, I know in politics we are not supposed to change our minds, but if we are unwilling to learn from recent experience or change our minds in response to new information, then we are doomed to repeat the exact same mistakes.
This is why I am voting ``no,'' among other reasons.
But I want to be clear. I want Mr. Austin, soon-to-be Secretary Austin, to be successful in this job. Nothing would make me happier than to look back on his time at DOD and be able to say he was the most successful Secretary of Defense in our Nation's history because that will mean that we as a committee were successful in working with him to do what is right for our men and women in uniform and do what is right for the rest of the country.
Though I will oppose changing the law again for the second time in 4 years, I very much look forward to working with my colleagues, both Republican and Democratic. I genuinely appreciate the honest exchange of views we had 4 years ago and 4 years later. I can only say that 4 years from now, I hope we are not having the same debate because it will prove we have learned nothing from this.