- NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION, 113TH CONGRESS

[Senate Hearing 113-270]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

S. Hrg. 113-270
NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION,
113TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOMINATIONS OF

HON. CHARLES T. HAGEL; GEN LLOYD J. AUSTIN III, USA; GEN DAVID M.
RODRIGUEZ, USA; HON. ALAN F. ESTEVEZ; MR. FREDERICK E. VOLLRATH; MR.
ERIC K. FANNING; GEN. PHILIP M. BREEDLOVE, USAF; GEN MARTIN E. DEMPSEY,
USA; ADM JAMES A. WINNEFELD, JR., USN; HON. STEPHEN W. PRESTON; HON.
JON T. RYMER; MS. SUSAN J. RABERN; MR. DENNIS V. McGINN; ADM CECIL E.D.
HANEY, USN; LTG CURTIS M. SCAPARROTTI, USA; HON. DEBORAH LEE JAMES;
HON. JESSICA GARFOLA WRIGHT; MR. FRANK G. KLOTZ; MR. MARCEL J. LETTRE
II; MR. KEVIN A. OHLSON; MR. MICHAEL D. LUMPKIN; HON. JAMIE M. MORIN;
AND HON. JO ANN ROONEY

----------

JANUARY 31; FEBRUARY 12, 14, 28; APRIL 11; JULY 18, 25, 30;
SEPTEMBER 19; OCTOBER 10, 2013

----------

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION,
113TH CONGRESS

UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
87-878 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2014
____________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or
866-512-1800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected]

S. Hrg. 113-270

NOMINATIONS BEFORE THE SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE, FIRST SESSION,
113TH CONGRESS
=======================================================================

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES
UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOMINATIONS OF

__________

JANUARY 31; FEBRUARY 12, 14, 28; APRIL 11; JULY 18, 25, 30; SEPTEMBER
19; OCTOBER 10, 2013

__________

Printed for the use of the Committee on Armed Services

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/

__________

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

JACK REED, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BILL NELSON, Florida JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARK UDALL, Colorado SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia
KAY R. HAGAN, North Carolina ROGER F. WICKER, Mississippi
JOE MANCHIN III, West Virginia KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire
JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, New York LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
JOE DONNELLY, Indiana ROY BLUNT, Missouri
MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii MIKE LEE, Utah
TIM KAINE, Virginia TED CRUZ, Texas
ANGUS KING, Maine

Peter K. Levine, Staff Director

John A. Bonsell, Minority Staff Director

(ii)

C O N T E N T S

----------

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Page

january 31, 2013

Nomination of Hon. Charles T. Hagel to be Secretary of Defense... 1

Statements of:

Nunn, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia, Retired.. 6
Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia,
Retired........................................................ 9
Hagel, Hon. Charles T., to be Secretary of Defense............... 12

february 12, 2013

Business Meeting to Consider the Nomination of the Honorable
Charles T. Hagel to be the Secretary of Defense................ 313

february 14, 2013

Nominations of GEN Lloyd J. Austin III, USA, for Reappointment to
the Grade of General and to be Commander, U.S. Central Command;
and GEN David M. Rodriguez, USA, for Reappointment to the Grade
of General and to be Commander, U.S. Africa Command............ 355

Statements of:

Austin, GEN Lloyd J., III, USA, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, U.S. Central Command.............. 360
Rodriguez, GEN David M., USA, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and to be Commander, U.S. Africa Command............... 361

february 28, 2013

Nominations of Hon. Alan F. Estevez to be Principal Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics; Mr. Frederick E. Vollrath to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Readiness and Force Management; and Mr. Eric K.
Fanning to be Under Secretary of the Air Force................. 529

Statements of:

Estevez, Hon. Alan F., to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics............. 532
Vollrath, Mr. Frederick E., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense
for Readiness and Force Management............................. 533
Fanning, Mr. Eric K., to be Under Secretary of the Air Force..... 534

iii
april 11, 2013

Nomination of Gen. Philip M. Breedlove, USAF, for Reappointment
to the Grade of General and to be Commander, U.S. European
Command and Supreme Allied Commander, Europe................... 687

Statement of:

Breedlove, Gen. Philip M., USAF, for Reappointment to the Grade
of General and to be Commander, U.S. European Command, and
Supreme Allied Commander, Europe............................... 692

july 18, 2013

Nominations of GEN Martin E. Dempsey, USA, for Reappointment to
the Grade of General and Reappointment as Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff; and ADM James A. Winnefeld, Jr., USN, for
Reappointment to the Grade of Admiral and Reappointment as Vice
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.......................... 765

Statements of:

Dempsey, GEN Martin E., USA, for Reappointment to the Grade of
General and Reappointment as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.......................................................... 769
Winnefeld, ADM James A., Jr., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade
of Admiral and Reappointment as Vice Chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff................................................ 772

july 25, 2013

Nominations of Hon. Stephen W. Preston to be General Counsel of
the Department of Defense; Hon. Jon T. Rymer to be Inspector
General of the Department of Defense; Ms. Susan J. Rabern to be
Assistant Secretary of the Navy for Financial Management and
Comptroller; and Mr. Dennis V. McGinn to be Assistant Secretary
of the Navy for Energy, Installations, and Environment......... 949

Statements of:

Warner, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia,
Retired........................................................ 953
Preston, Hon. Stephen W., to be General Counsel of the Department
of Defense..................................................... 956
Rymer, Hon. Jon T., to be Inspector General of the Department of
Defense........................................................ 957
Rabern, Ms. Susan J., to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Financial Management and Comptroller........................... 958
McGinn, Mr. Dennis V., to be Assistant Secretary of the Navy for
Energy, Installations, and Environment......................... 959

july 30, 2013

Nominations of ADM Cecil E.D. Haney, USN, for Reappointment to
the Grade of Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Strategic
Command; and LTG Curtis M. Scaparrotti, USA, to be General and
Commander, United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S.
Forces Korea................................................... 1081

Statements of:

Haney, ADM Cecil E.D., USN, for Reappointment to the Grade of
Admiral and to be Commander, U.S. Strategic Command............ 1084
Scaparrotti, LTG Curtis M., USA, to be General and Commander,
United Nations Command/Combined Forces Command/U.S. Forces
Korea.......................................................... 1085

september 19, 2013

Nominations of Hon. Deborah Lee James to be Secretary of the Air
Force; Hon. Jessica Garfola Wright to be Under Secretary of
Defense for Personnel and Readiness; Mr. Frank G. Klotz to be
Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear Security; Mr. Marcel J.
Lettre II to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence; and Mr. Kevin A. Ohlson to be a Judge of the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Armed Services........................ 1157

Statements of:

Conrad, Hon. Kent, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota,
Retired........................................................ 1161
James, Hon. Deborah Lee, to be Secretary of the Air Force........ 1163
Wright, Jessica Garfola, to be Under Secretary of Defense for
Personnel and Readiness........................................ 1164
Klotz, Mr. Frank G., to be Under Secretary of Energy for Nuclear
Security....................................................... 1166
Lettre, Mr. Marcel J., II, to be Principal Deputy Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence.................................... 1168
Ohlson, Mr. Kevin A., to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Armed Services......................................... 1169

october 10, 2013

Nominations of Mr. Michael D. Lumpkin to be Assistant Secretary
of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict;
Hon. Jamie M. Morin to be Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation (CAPE), Department of Defense; and Hon. Jo
Ann Rooney to be Under Secretary of the Navy................... 1353

Statements of:

Hoeven, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of North Dakota... 1358
Morin, Hon. Jamie M., to be Director of Cost Assessment and
Program Evaluation, Department of Defense...................... 1361
Lumpkin, Mr. Michael D., to be Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict.................. 1362
Rooney, Hon. Jo Ann, to be Under Secretary of the Navy........... 1363

APPENDIX......................................................... 1485

NOMINATION OF HON. CHARLES T. HAGEL TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

----------

THURSDAY, JANUARY 31, 2013

U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m. in room
SD-G50, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Senator Carl Levin
(chairman) presiding.
Committee members present: Senators Levin, Reed, Nelson,
McCaskill, Udall, Hagan, Manchin, Shaheen, Gillibrand,
Blumenthal, Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, King, Inhofe, McCain,
Sessions, Chambliss, Wicker, Ayotte, Fischer, Graham, Vitter,
Blunt, Lee, and Cruz.
Committee staff members present: Richard D. DeBobes, staff
director; Travis E. Smith, chief clerk; Leah C. Brewer,
nominations and hearings clerk; and Mary J. Kyle, legislative
clerk.
Majority staff members present: Jonathan D. Clark, counsel;
Jonathan S. Epstein, counsel; Gabriella E. Fahrer, counsel;
Richard W. Fieldhouse, professional staff member; Creighton
Greene, professional staff member; Michael J. Kuiken,
professional staff member; Gerald J. Leeling, counsel; Peter K.
Levine, general counsel; Jason W. Maroney, counsel; Thomas K.
McConnell, professional staff member; William G.P. Monahan,
counsel; Michael J. Noblet, professional staff member; Roy F.
Phillips, professional staff member; John H. Quirk V,
professional staff member; Robie I. Samanta Roy, professional
staff member; Russell L. Shaffer, counsel; and William K.
Sutey, professional staff member.
Minority staff members present: John A. Bonsell, minority
staff director; Adam J. Barker, professional staff member;
Steven M. Barney, minority counsel; Thomas W. Goffus,
professional staff member; Ambrose R. Hock, professional staff
member; Anthony J. Lazarski, professional staff member; Daniel
A. Lerner, professional staff member; Lucian L. Niemeyer,
professional staff member; and Robert M. Soofer, professional
staff member.
Staff assistants present: Jennifer R. Knowles, Mariah K.
McNamara, and Brian F. Sebold.
Committee members' assistants present: Carolyn Chuhta,
assistant to Senator Reed; Jeff Fatora, assistant to Senator
Nelson; Jason Rauch, assistant to Senator McCaskill; Casey
Howard, assistant to Senator Udall; Brian Nagle, assistant to
Senator Hagan; Patrick Hayes, assistant to Senator Manchin;
Chad Kreikemeier, assistant to Senator Shaheen; Elana Broitman,
assistant to Senator Gillilbrand; Ethan Saxon, assistant to
Senator Blumenthal; Marta McLellan Ross, assistant to Senator
Donnelly; Nick Ikeda, assistant to Senator Hirono; Jim Catella,
assistant to Senator King; Paul C. Hutton IV, assistant to
Senator McCain; T. Finch Fulton and Lenwood Landrum, assistants
to Senator Sessions; Joseph Lai, assistant to Senator Wicker;
Brad Bowman, assistant to Senator Ayotte; Craig Abele,
assistant to Senator Graham; Charles Prosch, assistant to
Senator Blunt; Peter Blair, assistant to Senator Lee; and
Brooke Bacak, assistant to Senator Cruz.

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR CARL LEVIN, CHAIRMAN

Chairman Levin. Good morning. The committee meets today to
consider the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel to be
Secretary of Defense.
Before we begin, I want to first welcome Senator Inhofe as
the new ranking Republican on our committee, succeeding Senator
McCain. Senator McCain has been a great partner over the last 6
years, and I thank him for all that he has done to get our
bills enacted, for all of his leadership on a host of issues,
for his support of the work of this committee, and for always
keeping our hearings lively.
Senator Inhofe has shown his strong commitment to the
national defense over his 20 years on this committee, and I
know that we are going to work well together to continue the
bipartisan tradition of the committee.
We're also pleased to welcome the eight Senators who are
joining the committee this year, both those who are new to the
Senate and those who are new to our committee--Senators
Donnelly, Hirono, Kaine, and King on the Democratic side, and
Senators Blunt, Cruz, Fischer, and Lee on the Republican side.
You will all find that this is a wonderful committee where we
work across party lines to support our troops and their
families and their national defense mission.
I would also like to pause for a moment to offer my thanks
and the thanks of our committee to Secretary Leon Panetta, who
delayed his retirement and his return to California to serve
our country first as Director of Central Intelligence and then
as Secretary of Defense. Secretary Panetta has provided a
steady hand at the Department of Defense (DOD) through 2 very
difficult years, and has earned our great respect and our
appreciation.
Finally before we get started, I would like to announce
that the committee will be holding hearings next week on
Benghazi and the week thereafter on the impact of the sequester
on DOD.
Senator Hagel, we welcome you to the Senate Armed Services
Committee and as an old friend of those of us with whom you
served during your years in the Senate. There are few jobs that
are more demanding than the position to which you have been
nominated. The hours are long and extremely challenging, and
require sacrifices from both the Secretary and his family.
We traditionally give our nominees an opportunity to
introduce their families at these hearings, and we would
welcome your doing so during your opening statement.
If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former
enlisted man and the first veteran of the Vietnam war to serve
as Secretary of Defense. You cannot read Senator Hagel's
account of his military service and not be impressed by it. As
Senator Hagel explained a few years ago, ``Probably most
fundamental for me when we talk of going to war, we need to
think it through carefully, not just for the political, and the
geopolitical, and the diplomatic, and the economic
consequences, and those are important. But at least for me,''
he said, ``this old infantry sergeant thinks about when I was
in Vietnam in 1968, someone needs to represent that perspective
in our Government as well. The people in Washington make the
policy, but it's the little guys who come back in the body
bags.''
Senator Hagel's background provides an invaluable
perspective, not only with respect to the difficult decisions
and recommendations that a Secretary of Defense must make
regarding the use of force and the commitment of U.S. troops
overseas, but also with respect to the day-to-day decisions
that a secretary must make to ensure that our men and women in
uniform and their families receive the support and assistance
that they need and deserve.
It would be a positive message for our soldiers, sailors,
airmen, and marines in harm's way around the world to know that
one of their own holds the highest office in DOD, and that he
has their backs.
Senator Hagel, you would be in a position to make key
recommendations regarding Afghanistan, where we are down to the
pre-surge level of troops with 66,000 military personnel in the
country. The Secretary of Defense is called upon to advise the
President on the size and mission of a post-2014 residual
force, and the pace of the drawdown between now and the end of
2014. The key to this transition is ensuring the readiness and
ability of Afghanistan security forces to take over the defense
of their own country. I have always believed that should be our
main mission and its key to success.
During my trip to Afghanistan with Senator Jack Reed last
month, we heard from U.S. commanders on the ground that
Afghanistan security forces are operating on their own on most
operations, including conducting more than 85 percent of
operations with limited or no U.S. support in the difficult
Regional Command East. Yet difficult obstacles remain to the
process of reducing our forces and shifting responsibility to
Afghanistan forces, including the difficulty of negotiating a
status of forces agreement, including recent reports that the
Afghanistan Government might slow down a successful program of
growing and training the Afghanistan Local Police, and
including questions about the current plan to reduce the size
of the Afghanistan National Security Forces from 352,000 to
around 230,000 after 2015.
We face a number of new and growing threats elsewhere in
the world, such as the ongoing threat posed by Iran's nuclear
weapons program and the increasingly destructive civil war in
Syria with the risk that conflict could result in the loss of
control over that country's substantial stockpile of chemical
weapons. There's also the continuing instability in other
countries affected by the Arab Spring, the growth of al Qaeda
affiliates in ungoverned regions, including Yemen, Somalia, and
North Africa, and the continued unpredictable behavior of a
nuclear armed regime in North Korea.
We face these challenges at a time when the DOD budget is
under a unique pressure as a result of cuts previously agreed
upon by Congress, the budgeting by Continuing Resolution (CR),
and the impending threat of a sequester. Secretary Panetta has
said that a sequester would be devastating for our military.
Senator Hagel's views today on the CR and the sequester will be
of great interest to this committee and to the Nation.
Those of us who have served with Senator Hagel in the
Senate know that he is a man who is not afraid to speak his
mind. Senator Hagel has made a number of statements over the
course of his career which committee members will ask him about
during today's hearing. For example, Senator Hagel has stated
that unilateral sanctions against Iran, ``are exactly the wrong
approach,'' and that, ``they are the worst thing we can do
would be to try to isolate Iran''. I believe that while
effective multilateral sanctions are preferable, that
unilateral sanctions are an important part of the approach that
the Obama administration has followed, and that Congress has
supported. It appears that sanctions are producing tremendous
pressure on Iran.
Another statement which has raised concern is Senator
Hagel's recommendation that we conduct, ``direct,
unconditional, and comprehensive talks with the Government of
Iran''. Now while there is value in communicating with our
adversaries, the formulation used by Senator Hagel seemed to
imply a willingness to talk to Iran on some issues that I
believe that most of us would view as non-negotiable, and,
therefore, any willingness to talk to Iran would need to be
highly conditional. Senator Hagel's reassurance to me in my
office that he supports the Obama administration's strong
stance against Iran is significant, and we look forward to
hearing from Senator Hagel today in some depth on that subject.
We will also be interested in Senator Hagel's addressing
troubling statements that he has made about Israel and its
supporters here in the United States, a statement in 2008 that
our policy of non-engagement with the Syrians, ``has isolated
us more than the Syrians,'' and a 2009 statement that ``we
should not isolate Hamas, a terrorist organization''.
There is much to be explored at this hearing, but as we
struggle with the difficult security challenges facing our
Nation, the President needs to have a Secretary of Defense in
whom he has trust, who will give him unvarnished advice, a
person of integrity, and one who has a personal understanding
of the consequences of decisions relative to the use of
military force. Senator Hagel certainly has those critically
important qualifications to lead DOD.
Senator Inhofe.

STATEMENT OF SENATOR JAMES M. INHOFE

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I
would like to echo your remarks about Secretary Panetta and the
work that he has done. I do not see him here today, but I do
recall when he was first nominated, I was probably one of the
first phone calls to him, and I have enjoyed working with him.
With Senator McCain, I feel the same way. I will certainly
continue to depend on his counsel, and you and I have worked
very well together in the past.
Mr. Chairman, before I continue my opening statement, I
would like to raise a concern about the sufficiency of
materials provided to this committee by our nominee. Senator
Hagel was requested to provide the speeches he has delivered
over the last 5 years, yet his initial submission was for only
four speeches. Even though, as was noticed by Senator Cruz that
he had honoraria for 12 speeches, but submitted 4 speeches. We
received some more, but only late last night. I think it would
have been a lot more helpful if we had received them before
that, and I am hoping that we will be able to get that
information before we have to cast votes on this nominee. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
The President's nomination of Senator Hagel to serve as the
next Secretary of Defense comes at a critical juncture in our
military and national security interests. Senator Hagel is a
good man who has a record of service. I first learned of that
when he was first elected, and I have been a great admirer of
the time that he spent in Vietnam and the sacrifices that he
made.
While his service is commendable, the fate of his
nomination should be decided by the totality of his record. It
is the votes that he has cast, the statements that he has made
over the many years of his career that will inform us as to his
judgment, his view of America's role in the world, and his view
of the military required to support that role.
As I told Senator Hagel in my office over 2 weeks ago, that
after a long and careful review of his record, and there are
things that he has said and there are things that I have
personally experienced with him, that we are too
philosophically opposed on the pressing issues facing our
country, for me to support his nomination. Therefore, I told
him I would not be supporting his nomination.
His record demonstrates what I view as a lack of steadfast
opposition to policies that diminish U.S. power and influence
throughout the world, as well as a recent trend of policy
reversals that seem based on political expediency rather than
on core beliefs.
On many of the security challenges facing U.S. interests
around the world, Senator Hagel's record is deeply troubling
and out of the mainstream. Too often, it seems, he is willing
to subscribe to a worldwide view that is predicated on
appeasing our adversaries while shunning our friends. I
remember quoting Hiram Mann, who said, ``No man survives when
freedom fails, the best men rot in filthy jails, and those who
cry `appease, appease' are hanged by those they tried to
please.''
I am mentioning a few of these things because they are
going to come out in this hearing. In 2000, an overwhelming
majority of Senators sent a letter to President Clinton
reaffirming our solidarity with Israel. I was one of them who
carried that letter around. I remember it well. Senator Hagel
was one of just four who refused to sign that letter, and I am
sure he will want to comment about that.
In 2001, he was one of just two Senators who voted against
a bill extending harsh sanctions against Iran. A year later, he
urged the Bush administration to support Iran's membership in
the World Trade Organization. Senator Hagel voted against a
resolution designating Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corp, a group
responsible for killing American soldiers in Iraq and
Afghanistan, as a terrorist organization. On multiple
occasions, he has advocated for direct negotiations with Iran,
a regime that continues to repress its people, doggedly pursue
a nuclear weapon capability, and employ terrorist proxies,
including Hamas, Hezbollah, who threaten the security of Israel
and the region.
Senator Hagel has also been an outspoken supporter of the
nuclear disarmament and the Global Zero movement. We are very
sensitive to that, and we know that the President has said many
times he wants a nuclear free world, and I know that Senator
Hagel is right there with him. But at a time when North Korea's
belligerent actions threaten our allies with their nuclear
capabilities and security of our own Nation and that of our
allies, why would we want to unilaterally disarm ourselves of
nuclear capability?
Of late, however, Senator Hagel has expressed views in
meetings with Senate colleagues, I have been informed, and
through the press that appear glaringly at odds with many of
his long-held positions, particularly on issues dealing with
Israel, Iran, and our nuclear arsenal. This apparent
willingness to walk back or alter his position, possibly for
the sake of political expediency on such important issues, is
deeply troubling and sends a concerning message to our allies
and adversaries alike.
Though I respect Senator Hagel, his record to date
demonstrates that he would be a staunch advocate for the
continuation of the misguided policies of the President's first
term. Retreating from America's unique global leadership role
and shrinking the military will not make America safer. On the
contrary, it will embolden our enemies, endanger our allies,
and provide opportunity for nations that do not share our
interests to fill a global leadership vacuum we leave behind.
It is for these reasons that I believe that he is the wrong
person to lead the Pentagon at this perilous and consequential
time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
We have two former chairmen of this committee with us to
introduce Senator Hagel. No Senator has had two dearer friends
or better mentors than I have had with Senators Nunn and
Warner. I just want to welcome them back to this committee. I
do not have to tell them that they are among dear, dear
friends, those of us who have known them and who have worked
with them. It is a real, real treat actually to welcome you
back to the committee.
I think I will call on you, Senator Nunn, first. I think we
will call on you alphabetically. I do not have any better way
to do it. Sam, welcome back.

STATEMENT OF HON. SAM NUNN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
GEORGIA, RETIRED

Senator Nunn. First, for the record, seniority and age are
two different things. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin, Ranking Member Inhofe, members of the Armed
Services Committee, I am honored to join John Warner in
presenting our friend, Chuck Hagel, to the committee and
recommending that Chuck be confirmed as our Nation's 24th
Secretary of Defense.
I think it is worth noting that 68 years ago this month,
John Warner enlisted in the U.S. Navy to fight in World War II.
That was the start of his great career of public service, and
John, I am very proud to be here by your side.
Mr. Chairman, I spent a lot of my Senate career sitting in
your seat waiting on a quorum. Congratulations on not having to
do that today. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. I do not how long it will last, but thanks
for pointing it out.
Senator Nunn. Mr. Chairman, I think it should be noted that
you and Senator McCain have effectively guided this committee
in its important role as a compelling and absolutely essential
voice for a strong and effective defense. Together you have
managed to pass authorization bills, even during contentious
times. I thank you both for your dedicated service to our
Nation. I am confident, Mr. Chairman and Senator Inhofe, that
you will continue this tradition, and that Senator McCain will
still be a very valuable member and voice on this committee.
I believe that our Nation is fortunate to have a nominee
for Secretary of Defense with the character, the experience,
the courage, and the leadership that Chuck Hagel would bring to
this position. First, Chuck is acutely aware that even in an
age of rapid technological advances, our military capability
and effectiveness depend on the quality and the morale of the
people who serve our Nation in uniform, as well as the families
that support them.
Chuck received two Purple Hearts in Vietnam, and when he
returned home, he continued to fight for veterans and for
Active Duty military personnel. He knows that our people are
our strongest assets. Second, Chuck's experience in Vietnam
shaped his life and his perspective. War for Chuck Hagel is not
an attraction. I am confident that if confirmed he will ask the
hard and the smart questions before sending troops into battle.
Chuck Hagel knows that the United States has vital
interests that are worth fighting for and dying for. He also
knows that war should be a last resort and that our Nation must
effectively use all of our tools, not limited only to our
military, to protect our important and to protect our vital
interests.
Certainly, Mr. Chairman, there is a tension in these
values, but it is a tension that we should welcome in the
thought process and in the advice that our Secretary of Defense
gives to our Commander in Chief and to this Congress.
From our service together on the Defense Policy Board in
recent years, I know that Chuck Hagel has a clear world view,
and that it aligns with the mainstream of U.S. foreign and
defense policy, and also with President Obama. Chuck Hagel
believes that we must build and preserve American strength as a
force for good in the world. He recognizes that protecting our
interests requires strong allies and friends, as well as strong
American leadership.
Third, Chuck has the depth of experience and the leadership
skills required to handle this tough job. There is certainly no
shortage of security challenges around the world, as this
committee knows, and as you have enumerated this morning, Mr.
Chairman. A very large and impressive group of former Cabinet
officials and public servants from both sides of the aisle have
said that they trust Chuck Hagel with this important
responsibility. I strongly agree.
Fourth, on the fiscal side, I am confident that Chuck will
be a powerful advocate for a common sense approach, both within
the administration and here on Capitol Hill regarding fiscal
challenges to the defense budget. He understands that our
defense capabilities are being threatened on two budget fronts:
first, sequestration with its damaging across-the-board,
upfront budget cuts, and second, rapidly rising costs within
the Department's budget, including, but not limited to, health
care, personnel, and retirement costs.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, I believe that
Chuck will work effectively with this committee and Congress in
meeting these budget challenges while protecting our people,
protecting our capabilities, and also while ensuring that the
United States has the strongest military in the world.
Chuck Hagel was a soldier and a Senator, but he has been
also a highly successful executive in both the public and
private sectors. He built a successful company from the ground
up. He is a man who knows how to prioritize, and he knows how
to make tough decisions. He will listen to and carefully
consider the views of our military and civilian leaders, and
guide them as necessary.
Fifth, I believe that Chuck Hagel will be a balanced and
responsible voice on nuclear weapons policy. President Reagan
said it often and said it well: ``a nuclear war cannot be won,
and it must not be fought.''
Mr. Chairman, as this committee knows, the risk of a global
nuclear war has thankfully, substantially declined since the
breakup of the Soviet Union. But with nine nations possessing
nuclear weapons, with nuclear weapons usable material and
knowledge spread across the globe, and with terrorists ready to
use a nuclear weapon if they manage to buy, steal, or make one,
we face enormous risk that a nuclear weapon will be used. If
proliferation continues in countries like Iran and North Korea,
and if we do not secure nuclear materials and weapons globally,
the odds of use will go up even more.
Six years ago George Schultz, Bill Perry, Henry Kissinger,
and I made the argument that we reduce reliance on nuclear
weapons as a vital contribution to preventing that
proliferation, keeping them out of dangerous hands, and
ultimately ending them as a threat to the world. Two-thirds of
living former Secretaries of State and Defense, and national
security advisors have agreed with the vision and the steps
that we outlined, including substantial work on verification
and enforcement.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that all members of the committee and
the Senate will read the recent statement by four credible and
very experienced Americans--Ambassador Tom Pickering,
Ambassador Richard Burt, General James Cartwright, and General
John Sheehan--about their work with Chuck Hagel on nuclear
weapons. They made it abundantly clear that they oppose
unilateral moves. They support bilateral negotiations. They
support verifiable U.S.-Russian arms reductions to be followed
by multilateral negotiations, bringing other nuclear weapons
countries into a serious and verifiable process of reductions.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, there are many essential
characteristics and values that a Secretary of Defense should
possess in our dangerous and challenging world. Let me name
just two or three that I think are very important.
First, someone who is well-informed, has an open mind,
engages in critical thinking, who is capable of and who seeks
out independent thought. Second, someone who sets aside fixed
ideologies and biases to honestly evaluate all options, and
then provides his or her candid judgment to the President and
to Congress. Third, someone who pays attention to people with
the best ideas, regardless of their party affiliation. No one
is perfect. We all know that. But Chuck Hagel comes as close as
anyone I know to having all of these qualities.
Mr. Chairman, Senator Inhofe, and members of the committee,
I served for 24 years on this important committee, and I
recognize that much has changed since I retired 16 years ago. I
continue to believe, however, that every major problem we face
today requires the best input from both political parties if we
are to arrive at a solution. I believe that Chuck Hagel will
seek that input. I urge his support by this committee, and I
urge the confirmation of his nomination by the U.S. Senate.
I thank the chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Nunn.
Senator Warner.

STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN WARNER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA, RETIRED

Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a moving
experience for me to reenter this room. I served on this
committee for 30 years. In that period of time, Senator Nunn
was the chairman, and I was the ranking. But I want to say to
you and Jim Inhofe--Jim and I have been good friends and we
worked together not only on this committee, but other
committees. You will be a splendid ranking member. You follow
in the steps of my dear and valued friend of so many years,
John McCain.
The leadership of this committee throughout my 30 years in
the Senate has been drawn from the ranks of the strongest and
the best of its membership. We have it today, and I have every
reason we will have it tomorrow.
I would like to say a word to the new members of this
committee. As I look back over a very fortunate record of
public service for many years, no chapter of my career was more
important than service on this committee. You will carry with
you for the rest of your life the recollections of the work
that you have done for one of America's most valued assets, the
men and the women and their families of the armed services of
the United States.
I have written out a nice long statement, and then last
night late I received Sam Nunn's statement and Chuck Hagel's
statement, and I said that I felt that another statement just
would not do. I would rather say just a few words from the
heart about the importance of what we have by way of decision
before all of us today.
I thank Senator Nunn for that reference of 68 years ago in
the Navy. I did no more than every other kid on my block. We
all went. But I would like to remind you that a half century
ago, you served in the Coast Guard. So, Grandpa, here is
another grandpa. [Laughter.]
Good friends, we thank Chuck Hagel, and Mrs. Hagel, and his
family because if confirmed, there is an enormous commitment by
the family to this position. Having known Lilibet and slightly
your children, you have made that decision to offer yourself
for continued public service. Public service is a privilege. I
have always regarded it as such.
I will not give a long statement. This statement by Senator
Hagel will soon be shared with you. I read it through not once,
twice, but again this morning. I say this carefully, I have
read the statements that have been placed before the members of
this committee for those 30 years. I have never read a more
carefully prepared statement, a more forthright statement, and
one that has no hedges or deviations. He hits firm on those
issues that will make the decision in your minds and that of
your colleagues as to whether or not he is qualified to take on
this very important assignment.
I first entered the Pentagon in 1969 during the war in
Vietnam under Melvin Laird. Jim Schlesinger followed, and I
have worked with every Secretary of Defense since that period
of time, all different, all with their strengths and indeed
some of their weaknesses. But set forth in this is a series of
commitments to you as a committee, to the members of the full
Senate, and to the American public as precisely what his goals
are and what he will do, how he will serve the President, how
he will give the President his best advice. I know Chuck to
give it very strongly.
I'm going to talk a little bit about Chuck Hagel, the man
that I served with for 12 years. My distinguished colleague and
long-time friend, Sam, had gone when Chuck arrived at the
Senate. The first year he was here, we had the defense
authorization bill on the floor. In those days, as it is today,
that bill goes on that floor, that bill stays on that floor,
sometimes a couple of days, sometimes a week, sometimes broken
up, but we get it through. When it's done, we go immediately
back to our committee spaces and begin to write that bill and
get it to the printer so that we can go to conference. How many
times have we done that together, Senator Nunn, Senator Levin,
Senator McCain, Senator Inhofe, many times.
The first year he was here, he watched that process, and
when I had taken the staff back to the committee room,
surprisingly he showed up. I didn't know him that well,
although I had studied his biography and I wanted to get to
know him because of my deep and abiding interesting in the
Vietnam period, having served for 5 years in that period as
Under Secretary of the Navy.
He strolled into the room and I introduced him to the
people. He said to the staff, you are one of the most
impressive group of young people I've ever seen. I learned a
lot. He shared some of histories as a simple, but elegant,
soldier that he was. That is the way he started, and thereafter
he voted for every single final passage of the authorization
bill, every single final passage of the appropriation bill.
He was at home and learned in that generation of Vietnam,
and I am so proud to have the affiliation of having been, yes,
in comparative safety at the Pentagon. But I did go to the
field of battle and see these young men and some women who
engaged in that struggle. Chuck Hagel brings with him the
experience of having come home to an America that was quite
different than what I experienced when my generation came home
from World War II. We were welcomed with open arms. America at
that time in Vietnam, and how well John McCain can remember
this, was very divided. When you wore your uniform back home,
it did not receive the same respect that it deserved for the
sacrifices that you and your colleagues had committed. Chuck
will never forget that. I will never forget it. John will never
forget it.
Today we welcome home and we do it with the fullest heart
the young men and women who serve, but there have been times in
history when that didn't happen, and that was one. That honed
him to be prepared to take on his responsibilities as he
addresses the declining budget situation, which is going to be
a challenge. I am absolutely certain that he will stand up and
fight as hard as two of his predecessors--Leon Panetta you
mentioned today, and Robert Gates. They gave their President
loyalty, but they gave him their best advice and tough advice,
and fought for their troops, and drilled down to what they have
to maintain whatever budget. Sequester is not the route. But
whatever budget, he will maintain morale and combat readiness.
Also, ladies and gentlemen, that pillar of strength of our
military system, the All-Volunteer Force.
We had drafts in Vietnam. We saw the effect of that. We
decided as a Nation to take a gamble, to let every person who
wished to wear the uniform, giving that opportunity and to
volunteer. No one is forced in there. That has to be
maintained. This man has the experience, gravitas, and the
strength to protect the All-Volunteer Force.
I also was deeply impressed by the Senate and the manner in
which it confirmed John Kerry. John Kerry was also in that
generation, and he served his trials and tribulations, and came
home and faced that public in the same way Chuck did. The
Senate confirmed him with a very strong vote. They sent him
away ready to take on the enormity of his responsibility.
Now I mention that because in my experience, I have seen a
good deal of camaraderie, but a good deal of competition
between the Secretaries of Defense and the Secretaries of
State. It is just sort of built in there, and sometimes a lot
of sand gets in that gear box. But it is important to the
United States that they, having the major jurisdiction over
most of the policy issues, work as a team.
John Kerry and Chuck Hagel are a band of brothers out of
Vietnam with that special bond, and I am sure that you will
utilize that and remember it, and make those two departments
performs their functions to best serve the President and to
best serve the country.
I have pretty well said everything I should say. I want to
be brief because it is important that this committee pursue its
work. But again, Bob Gates, Leon Panetta set the bar for this
century of those who take on this job. You mentioned your long
friendships, Chuck, and how you know both. I would keep close
contact. They have the experience to deal with this President
of the United States, and you are the President's choice.
Folks, there is an old saying in the combat Army infantry
and Marine Corps. ``Certain men are asked to take the point,''
which means to get out and lead in the face of the enemy. Chuck
Hagel did that as a sergeant in Vietnam. If confirmed, Chuck
Hagel will do it again, this time not before a platoon, but
before every man and woman and their families in the armed
services. You will lead them. They will know in their hearts we
have one of our own.
You are on your own, and good luck.
Senator Hagel. Thank you. [Laughter.]
Chairman Levin. We thank you both, Senator Warner, Senator
Nunn, for your extraordinarily powerful introductions. I just
wish every member of the Senate and every American could have
heard, and I hope will hear and read about what you said here
today about Chuck Hagel. I also noticed there is another former
Senator, who was a member of that band of brothers, who is with
us today. I just noticed in the audience Max Cleland is here,
and I want to welcome you, Max, too, as an old, old friend of
this committee, and the Senate, and of the Nation.
Let me now call on Senator Hagel. Senator Warner, Senator
Nunn, again, thank you for your introductions, and you are free
to get back to your lives or to stay as you wish.
Senator Hagel.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES T. HAGEL, TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

Senator Hagel. Thank you, Chairman Levin, Ranking Member
Inhofe, and distinguished members of the committee. I am
honored to come before you today as the President's nominee to
be the Secretary of Defense.
First, as you suggested, Mr. Chairman, let me introduce my
family--my wife, Lilibet. Our son Ziller, and our daughter,
Allyn, are not with us today. Our son, Ziller, claims he's
taking a test. We will confirm that later. But both are a son
and daughter that Lilibet and I are very proud of. I think like
any proud father and any proud mother, you all know how I feel
about that as you have the same feelings about your children.
It is the same way Lilibet and I feel about ours.
I also want to introduce my brother, Tom, who served with
me in Vietnam, my brother, Mike, who is our number three
brother, and I might add, who actually possesses any talent our
family has. He has in the Pentagon 10 paintings as Chairman of
the Air Force Artist Guild over the years, and they are hanging
in different locations in the Pentagon. We have one brother of
some acclaim, and one of us did make it, my brother, Mike.
Mike's son is sitting behind him, Josh. He is one of three
children that Mike has.
We have here also cousins, many friends, and people I owe
money to. [Laughter.]
Who knows who else since I have received some publicity
over the weeks.
I want to also thank my friends, Sam Nunn and John Warner.
I want to thank them for their support, their encouragement,
and their friendship over many years. As each of you who had
the privilege of serving with those Senators, I, too, add my
thanks for their tremendous service to our country. These two
distinguished Americans represent what is best about American
public service and responsible bipartisanship. They have
embodied both in their careers, long distinguished careers, and
are models for each of us.
Of course to my family and friends, and my fellow veterans
who are here, as has been noted, Max Cleland, Jan Scruggs, good
friends, veterans from all wars, who are here today who I
worked with for many, many years. I am grateful to them. Not
just to those friends, and supporters, and fellow veterans who
are here, but those who are not, thank you.
A life is only as good as the family and the friends you
have and the people you surround yourself with. I also want to
thank my friend, Leon Panetta, for his tremendous service to
our country over so many years. If I am given the privilege of
succeeding him, it will be a high honor.
President Obama for his confidence and trust in me, I thank
him. I am humbled by the opportunity and the possibility he has
given me to serve our country once again. I fully recognize the
immense responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense. I assured
the President that if I am confirmed by the U.S. Senate, I will
always do my best. I will always do my best for our Nation and
for the men and women and their families, who are called on to
make the enormous sacrifices of military service. Their safety,
success, and welfare will always be at the forefront of the
decisions I make.
I also assured the President that I would always provide
him with my most honest and informed advice. I make that same
commitment to this committee and to Congress. If confirmed, I
will reach out to the members of this committee for advice and
collaboration. It will be a partnership because the national
security challenges America faces require it.
Our Nation's security is the highest priority of our
leaders and our Government. We cannot allow the work of
confronting the great threats we face today to be held hostage
to partisanship on either side of the aisle, or by differences
between the bodies represented in Articles I and II of our
Constitution. The stakes are too high. Men and women of all
political philosophies, and parties, and ideas die and fight
for our country. As this committee knows so well, protecting
our national security or committing our Nation to war can never
become political litmus tests.
I know Secretary Panetta has put a strong emphasis on
reaching out to Congress. I, like Leon, come from Congress, and
respect and understand this institution's indispensable role in
setting policy and helping govern our country.
We are all products of the forces that shape us. For me,
there has been nothing more important in my life, or a more
defining influence on my life, than my family. Whether it was
helping my mother raise four boys after my father, a World War
II veteran who died suddenly at age 39 on Christmas Day, or
serving side by side with my brother Tom in Vietnam, or the
wonderful miracle of my wife Lilibet and me being blessed with
two beautiful children. That is who I am.
We each bring to our responsibilities frames of reference.
These frames of reference are formed by our life's experiences.
They help instruct our judgments. We build out from those
personal foundations by continually informing ourselves,
listening, and learning.
Like each of you, I have a record, a record that I am proud
of. I am proud of my record not because of any accomplishments
I may have achieved, or certainly because of an absence of
mistakes, but rather because I have tried to build that record
by living my life and fulfilling my responsibilities as
honestly as I knew how and with hard work. Underpinning
everything I have done in my life was the belief that we must
always be striving to make our Nation a better and more secure
place for all of our people.
During the 12 years I had the privilege of serving the
people of Nebraska in the U.S. Senate, I cast over 3,000 votes
and hundreds of committee votes. I have also given hundreds of
interviews and speeches and written a book. As you all know, I
am on the record. I am on the record on many issues.
But no one individual vote, no one individual quote, no one
individual statement defines me, my beliefs, or my record. My
overall world view has never changed: that America has and must
maintain the strongest military in the world, that we must lead
the international community to confront threats and challenges
together, and take advantage of opportunities together; that we
must use all our tools of American power to protect our
citizens and our interests. I believe, and I always have
believed, that America must engage in the world, not retreat
from the world, but engage with the world. My record is
consistent on these points.
It is clear that we are living at a defining time. Our
Nation is emerging from over a decade of war. We have brought
our men and women in uniform home from Iraq, and have started
to bring them home from Afghanistan.
That does not mean that the threats we face and will
continue to face are any less dangerous or complicated. In
fact, it is quite the opposite. Recent events in Mali and
Algeria remind us clearly of this reality. The 21st century
complexities, technologies, economies, and threats are bringing
the 7 billion global citizens closer together than ever before.
As our planet adds another 2 billion people over the next 25
years, the dangers, complications, and human demands will not
be lessened, but rather heightened.
Despite these challenges, I believe we also have historic
opportunities to help build a safer, more prosperous, more
secure, more hopeful, and more just world than maybe any time
in history of man, for all people. Yes, the curse of
intolerance, hatred, and danger exists around the world, and we
must continue to be clear-eyed about this danger, and we will
be. We will not hesitate to use the full force of the U.S.
military in defense of our security. But we must also be smart,
and, more importantly, wise, wise in how we employ all of our
Nation's great power.
America's continued leadership and strength at home and
abroad will be critically important for our country and the
world. While we will not hesitate to act unilaterally when
necessary, it is essential that we work closely with our allies
and partners to enhance America's influence and security, as
well as global security. If confirmed, I will continue to build
on the efforts of this administration and of former Secretary
Gates, Secretary Panetta, and Secretary Clinton to strengthen
our alliances and partnerships around the world. I will also
look forward to working with my former Senate colleague--your
colleague--and our friend, John Kerry, in this pursuit.
As I told the President, I am committed to his positions on
all issues of national security, specifically decisions that
DOD is in the process of implementing now. This includes the
Defense Strategic Guidance the President outlined in January
2012. Allow me to very briefly address a few of those specific
issues now.
First, we have a plan in place to transition out of
Afghanistan, continue bringing our troops home, and end the
war, which has been the longest war, as we all know, in
America's history. As you also know, discussions are ongoing
about what the U.S. presence in Afghanistan will look like
after 2014. The President has made clear, and I agree, that
there should be only two functions for U.S. troops that remain
in Afghanistan after 2014: counterterrorism, particularly to
target al Qaeda and its affiliates, training, and advising
Afghan forces. It is time we forge a new partnership with
Afghanistan, with its government and, most importantly, with
its people.
Second, as the Secretary of Defense, I will ensure we stay
vigilant and keep up the pressure on terrorist organizations as
they try to expand their affiliates around the world, in places
like Yemen, Somalia, and North Africa. At the Pentagon, that
means continuing to invest in and build the tools to assist in
that fight, such as Special Operations Forces and new
intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance technologies. It
will mean working hand-in-hand with our partners here at home
across the National Security and Intelligence Communities to
confront these and other threats, especially the emerging
threat--the very dangerous and real threat of cyber warfare.
Third, as I have made clear, I am fully committed to the
President's goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon, and I have been on record on that issue. As I have said
in the past many times, all options must be on the table to
achieve that goal.
My policy has always been the same as the President's, one
of prevention, not of containment. The President has made clear
that is the policy of our Government. As Secretary of Defense,
I will make sure the Department is prepared for any
contingency. That is my job. That is my responsibility. I will
ensure our friend and ally Israel maintains its qualitative
military edge in the region, and will continue to support
systems like Iron Dome, which is today saving Israeli lives
from terrorist rocket attacks. That support I have always made
clear and been on the record for.
Fourth, while we pursue the reductions in our deployed
stockpiles and launchers consistent with the New Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty (START), I am committed to maintaining a
modern, strong, safe, ready, and effective nuclear arsenal.
America's nuclear deterrent over the last 35 years has played a
central role in ensuring global security and the avoidance of
world war III. I have been committed to that. My record is
clear on that. I am committed to modernizing our nuclear
arsenal.
As we emerge from this decade of war, we must also broaden
our Nation's focus overseas as we look at future threats and
challenges. As this committee knows, that is why DOD is
rebalancing its resources towards the Asia-Pacific region. We
are in the process of modernizing our defense posture across
the entire region to defend and deepen our partnerships with
traditional allies, especially Japan, South Korea, and
Australia, to continue to deter and defend against provocations
from states like North Korea, as well as non-state actors, and
to expand our networks of security cooperation throughout the
region to combat terrorism, counter proliferation, provide
disaster relief, fight piracy, and ensure maritime security.
I will continue this rebalancing even as we continue to
work closely--closely--with our long-time allies of the North
Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and our friends, and with
allies, and partners, and friends in other regions of the
world. At the same time, we will continue to focus on
challenges in the Middle East and North Africa where we have
clear national interests. Rather, it is a recognition that the
United States has been and always will be a Pacific power, and
the Asian-Pacific area is increasingly vital to America's
security and economic interests. That is why we must become
even more engaged in the region over the coming years.
Doing all of this and much more will require smart and
strategic budget decisions. I have made it clear I share Leon
Panetta's and our Service Chiefs' serious concerns about the
impact sequestration would have on our Armed Forces. As someone
who has run businesses, I know that the uncertainty and
turbulence of the current budget climate makes it much more
difficult to manage the Pentagon's resources and our national
security. If confirmed, I am committed to effectively and
efficiently using every single taxpayer's dollar the right way,
to maintaining the strongest military in the world, and to
working with Congress to ensure the Department has the
resources it needs, and that the disposition of those resources
is accountable.
Even as we deal with difficult budget decisions, I will
never break America's commitment to our troops, our veterans,
and our military families. We will continue to invest in the
well-being of our All-Volunteer Force. Working with the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and other institutions, we
will make sure our troops and their families get the health
care, job opportunities, and education they have earned and
deserve, just as I did when I co-authored the post-9/11 GI Bill
with Senators Jim Webb, Frank Lautenberg, and John Warner. This
includes focusing on the mental health of our fighting force,
because no one who volunteers to fight and die for this country
should ever feel like that they have nowhere to turn. That is
unacceptable in this country.
In my 12 years in the Senate, my one guiding principle on
every security decision I made and every vote I cast was always
this--simply this: Is our policy worthy of our troops and their
families and the sacrifices that we ask them to make? That same
question will guide me if I am confirmed as Secretary of
Defense.
Our men and women in uniform and their families must never
doubt that their leaders' first priority is them. I believe my
record of leadership on veterans issues over the years, going
back to my service in the Veterans Administration under
President Reagan, demonstrates my rock-solid commitment to our
veterans and their families.
We must always take care of our people. That is why I will
work to ensure that everyone who volunteers to fight for this
country has the same rights and same opportunities. As I have
discussed with many of you in our meetings, I am fully
committed to implementing the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell,
and doing everything possible under current law to provide
equal benefits to the families of all our servicemembers and
their families.
I will work with the Service Chiefs as we officially open
combat positions to women, a decision I strongly support. I
will continue the important work that Leon Panetta has done to
combat sexual assault in the military. Maintaining the health
and well-being of those who serve is critical to maintaining a
strong and capable military, because an institution's people
must always come first.
As we look ahead to the coming years, we have an
extraordinary opportunity now at this moment to define what is
next for America's military and our country. It is incumbent
upon all of us to make decisions that will ensure our Nation is
prepared to confront any threat we may face in the future,
protect our citizens, and remain the greatest force for good in
the world.
If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, it will be my great
honor, working with the President, this committee, Congress,
and our military, to ensure our policies are worthy of the
service and sacrifice of America's men and women.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to your questions.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Hagel. Here is
what the plan is now for the hearing. We will have a first
round of 8 minutes each. We have a vote that is scheduled for
12:15 p.m. We are going to work through that vote, and we are
also going to work through lunch, which means that we would ask
you to vote some time during that 12:15 p.m. vote and come back
for those of you who have not had your turn yet.
There are five votes at 2:15 p.m. I hope that we can
complete our first round by 2 p.m. or 2:15 p.m. so that we
could then have a late lunch at 2:15 p.m. during those five
votes. We would then come back perhaps an hour later. We would
ask those who have not had a turn, if that is the case, or
during our second round, that to begin our second round that
you on the final vote, vote early and then come back so we can
start as quickly as possible around 3:15 p.m. or 3:30 p.m., I
would assume, to either complete the first round if it has not
been completed, or to begin our second round.
Because of the time crunch, we have standard questions
which we ask of all nominees. I am going to ask those at a
later time during this hearing, but we will ask them. Again, I
think that we hope to finish today. We will leave the record
open for questions. But our goal would be to finish today no
matter how long it takes today, then to have the record open
for questions.
Let us now begin our first round of 8 minutes.
Senator Hagel, you have made reference to the looming
sequester. We received a letter signed by the Joint Chiefs of
Staff relative to sequester which says that we are on the brink
of creating a hollow force due to an unprecedented convergence
of budget conditions and legislation. They have talked about
the readiness crisis which would result: grounding aircraft,
returning ships to port, stop driving combat vehicles,
training, and so forth.
You have spoken very briefly about your agreeing in general
with the impact. Would you expand on the impact of that
sequester from your perspective?
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, I think the Service Chiefs
have laid it out rather directly, plainly, as Secretary Panetta
has. As recently as 2 or 3 days ago, the Deputy Secretary of
Defense, Ash Carter, in an interview went into some detail.
The fact is, the bottom line if sequester would occur, it
is not just a reduction in a significant amount of dollars that
would occur, but it would be a convergence of taking the
flexibility, the projection, the management, the future, away
from those who are responsible for managing our budget.
Furloughing civilian employees would have to occur. You listed
an inventory of consequences; of cutting back on flying time,
training, steaming. These are real consequences that would
occur.
I know the Pentagon, the Chiefs, those who have
responsibility for managing every department of this 3 million
person operation, security institution, are preparing for the
worst. But make no mistake, this is not an exaggeration. When
managers are not given the flexibility, and the opportunity,
and the tools to manage with complete uncertainty as to what is
ahead, that is disaster.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. On the question of Iran and the
use of force, the President has said that Iran's leaders should
understand that President Obama does not have a policy of
containment. He has a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a
nuclear weapon, that he has made clear that he will not
hesitate, in his words, to use force when it is necessary to
defend the United States and its interests. Do you agree with
President Obama's position that, ``all options should be on the
table,'' to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Senator Hagel. I do. I have, and I strongly agree with him.
Chairman Levin. On Iranian sanctions, President Obama has
said that the sanctions which have been put in place are
crippling the economy of Iran. I happen to agree. Their
currency has dropped 80 percent. Oil production has plunged.
Their economy is in a shambles. Do you share the President's
views on the importance and effectiveness of sanctions against
Iran? If so, how do you reconcile your position with some of
your past statements that suggest that the national security of
the United States is not served by isolating Iran?
Senator Hagel. First, I have always agreed with
multilateral sanctions because I think they have an effect. I
think this President, in particular, has probably done more
than any president to effectively employ those kinds of
international sanctions starting with a United Nations (U.N.)
Security Council agreement and U.N. mandates. I agree with what
the President is doing. I have said publicly, incidentally long
before the President ever asked me to consider this job, that
additional sanctions might be required.
As to my record on votes in the Senate regarding unilateral
sanctions, I have differed on some of those. I have voted for
some as well. It was always on a case-by-case basis. When I
voted against some of those unilateral sanctions on Iran, it
was a different time. For example, I believe one was in 2001.
We were at a different place with Iran during that time. Matter
of fact, I recall the Bush administration did not want a
renewal of the 5-year renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act
(ILSA) during that time because they weren't sure of the
effectiveness of sanctions.
That was not the only reason I voted against it. It was
because I thought that there might be other ways to employ our
vast ability to harness power and allies. It was never a
question of did I disagree with the objective. The objective
was, I think, very clear to both of us.
I recall, for example, in 2008, Secretary of State
Condoleeza Rice sending a letter to the Chairman of the Finance
Committee, Senator Max Baucus, requesting that a sanctions
resolution unilateral in the Finance Committee not come out of
the Finance Committee because the Bush administration at the
time was working with the Russians specifically, but with the
Security Council of the United Nations to try to get
international sanctions, which I think that effort, by the way,
in 2008, led to the 2010 international sanctions.
Chairman Levin. Can you give us your view on the size of
the U.S. force which might be necessary or would be necessary
after 2014, the so-called residual force, if you have an
opinion on the size? You indicated in your opening statement
two missions for that residual force.
Can you also give us your opinion about the size of the
Afghanistan National Security Force after 2014, and whether you
agree with me, and Senator Graham on this committee, and others
that we ought to reconsider the position that the Afghanistan
National Security Force should be reduced by a third starting
in 2014 to about 230,000 from what its current goal is, which
is about 350,000.
Senator Hagel. As you all know, General Allen has presented
his options to the President for the President's consideration.
As far as I know, as of this morning, the President had not
made a decision on what a residual force, numbers wise, would
look like. I have not been included in those discussions, so I
do not know, other than knowing that he has a range of options,
as you do.
But I would say that from what the President has told me,
what Secretary Panetta has told me, that decision will be made
to assure resourcing the mission and the capability of that
mission.
As to what kind of a force structure should eventually be
in place by the Afghans, I do not know enough about the
specifics to give you a good answer, other than to say that I
think that has to be a decision that is made certainly with the
President of Afghanistan, what we can do to continue to
support, train, and protect our interests within the scope of
our ability to do that. Obviously the immunity for our troops
is an issue, which was an issue in Iraq. All those
considerations will be important and will be made. If I am
confirmed and in a position to give the President on that, I
will with consultation of our commanders on the ground and our
Service Chiefs giving the best options that we can provide.
Chairman Levin. Will you review that question of the size
of the Afghanistan force with an open mind if you are
confirmed?
Senator Hagel. I will because I think we have to.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, my first question is not to be responded as
to explaining the position. I want to state the position or
restate the position on five things that I mentioned in my
opening statement, and merely to ask you if these are accurate
reflections of things that happened in the past.
The first one is in 2007, you voted against the designating
of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corp as a terrorist
organization. The second thing in 2006, you were 1 of 12
Senators who refused to petition the European Union (EU) to
identify Hezbollah as a terrorist group. Third, in November
2003, you failed to vote on a Syria accountability act
authorizing sanctions on Syria for its support of terrorism and
occupation of Lebanon. Fourth, in 2001, you were one of only
two Senators that year to vote against renewal of the Iran-
Libya Sanctions Act. Lastly, in 2001, you were one of four
Senators who refused to sign the letter supporting Israel. Are
those accurate?
Senator Hagel. Let's start with the----
Senator Inhofe. No, I just want to know if these are votes
that took place. Do you agree that those votes took place?
Senator Hagel. I want to ask about the letter that you just
noted in your fifth point, what was the date in the letter?
Senator Inhofe. The date?
Senator Hagel. You said I refused to sign a letter.
Senator Inhofe. It was October 2001.
Senator Hagel. A letter to----
Senator Inhofe. Okay, skip that one. Are the other ones
true? [Laughter.]
Senator Hagel. It is very important, Senator, that we----
Senator Inhofe. It is very important because I was holding
the letter at the time that we were gathering signatures.
Senator Hagel. I see. On the 2008 question regarding
designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist
organization, I did vote against it.
Senator Inhofe. I am sorry, and I do not want to be rude.
You and I are very good friends, but I know that my time is
going to expire. Others are going to ask you why you did this.
I was asking for the accuracy, and you do not want to answer
that, that is fine.
Senator Hagel. No, I just said I did vote against it, and I
was going to explain why I voted against it.
Senator Inhofe. I know, and they will be asking you for
your explanation. I want to get to three other things, and that
is why it is critical that we keep moving along here.
One of the criticisms I have had of this administration is
the lack of priority and funding for the military. While they
have increased the deficit by $5.3 trillion in 4 years, the
only major part of the budget that has decreased has been the
military.
Now, that is something that is pretty well known. A lot of
people do not like that idea. The thing that bothers me just as
much is putting another agenda under the military budget. For
example, you have heard Senator McCain, and me, and others talk
about the fact that the Navy paid for 450,000 gallons of fuel,
some $26 a gallon that you can get on the market for $3. The
Air Force, the same thing, except that it is $59 a gallon.
The question I would have of you is just a commitment that
if you are confirmed, will you confine the dollars that we are
going to spend in the defense budget for defense purposes, for
warfighting purposes?
Senator Hagel. Of course I will because that is the intent
of our budget and DOD.
Senator Inhofe. Good. I appreciate that very much. There
was an article the other day in the Washington Post by Jennifer
Rubin called ``Our Dimwitted State Department''. It was kind of
an interesting article. There are four questions that I am
going to ask that you respond for the record. For people who do
not know what that is, that means later on in writing.
The questions that I liked that she asked were, did the
sale of the F-16s encourage Mohamed Morsi to crack down on his
people? Number two, had we known he would crack, would we still
have sent the weaponry? Number three, how will we respond to
Morsi's anti-democratic moves and the rise in violence against
Christians in Egypt, or, as will likely be the case, a failure
to live up to Egypt's security obligations regarding Gaza?
Four, have we miscalculated the Muslim Brotherhood? That would
be for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]

Question. Did the sale of the F-16s encourage Morsi to crack down
on his people?
Answer. I do not believe that there is a correlation between the
sale of F-16s and the recent violence in Egypt. The F-16 aircraft has
been a key component of the U.S. defense relationship with the Egyptian
Armed Forces (EAF) for the last 30 years. The EAF have been a reliable
partner during Egypt's transition, and provided security to reinforce
Egyptian Ministry of Interior forces during elections and when called
upon by President Morsi during the recent protests in the Suez Canal
governorates. I believe it is in U.S. interests to maintain our defense
relationship with Egypt. Working together to maintain the U.S.-Egypt
defense relationship is also in the interest of Israel. It is critical
that the U.S. Government continues to assist with the
professionalization and the building of EAF capabilities to enable
border security, participate in regional missions, and continue Egypt's
role as a pillar of regional stability.
Question. Had we known he would crack down, would we still have
sent the weaponry?
Answer. I cannot speak for the administration, but as I stated, I
do not believe that there is a direct linkage between the sale of F-16s
and the recent unrest in Egypt. I join U.S. and foreign leaders in
condemning the recent violence. It is clear that a large number of
Egyptian citizens are frustrated with the direction and pace of
political and economic reform. It is critical that all stakeholders,
government and opposition, work to address their frustrations and
concerns peacefully and through dialogue.
Question. How will we respond to Morsi's anti-democratic moves and
the rise in violence against Christians in Egypt, or as will likely be
the case, a failure to live up to Egypt's security obligations
regarding Gaza?
Answer. If confirmed, I will take every opportunity to call for a
transparent, inclusive political process grounded in universal rights,
the rule of law, and respect for the rights of women and religious
minorities. The United States maintains the ability to halt assistance
to Egypt if it is determined that there are major reversals in Egypt's
democratic transition, a severe degradation in the rule of law, or
changes in Egypt's foreign or military policy that directly threaten
U.S. interests, including any changes to the Treaty of Peace with
Israel.
I will also be clear with Egyptian leaders that Sinai security
remains a serious concern, which poses risk to Egypt's internal
stability as well as the security of Egypt's neighbor Israel. Restoring
Sinai security requires consistent action against violent groups acting
in the Sinai and weapons smuggling into Gaza. If confirmed, I will look
for opportunities to provide U.S. security assistance through training
and border security equipment to assist Egypt in addressing this shared
security objective, as well as consistently engage senior Egyptian
leaders on Sinai security.
Question. Have we miscalculated the Muslim Brotherhood?
Answer. No. We are clear-eyed about the Egyptian leadership; the
fact is that the Freedom and Justice Party--the political arm of the
Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood--won a majority of votes in Egypt's
presidential elections. President Morsi has publicly committed to
upholding Egypt's international obligations, including the Peace Treaty
with Israel. We need to hold him to these commitments, as he attempts
to lead Egypt's political transition and democratic consolidation,
address Egypt's rapidly deteriorating economy, and develop sustainable
civil-military relations. President Morsi, as the democratically
elected leader of Egypt, has a special responsibility to build national
consensus and strengthen Egypt's democracy. In my view, U.S. support
through economic and security assistance, as well as consistent
engagement, is critical so that Egypt will continue to serve as a
pillar of regional stability and peace.
Question. Do you support a third site of ground-based interceptor?
It would be on the east coast somewhere.
Answer. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the analysis
Congress requested in section 221 of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2013 to evaluate additional missile defense
locations in the United States, including on the east coast, will be
delivered on a timely basis, and that Congress remains informed about
the Department's analysis about how to best protect the U.S. Homeland.

Senator Inhofe. In the area of the Global Zero policy, you
and I talked about that in my office. Others have talked about
it. We are very much concerned.
When I heard Senator Warner and others talk about what used
to be the case, the problem, in terms of nuclear capability, we
used to be talking about Russia and the United States. It is
not true anymore. Our intelligence has told us since 2007 that
Iran will have that nuclear capability and a delivery system by
2015, so it is other countries that are involved in that.
The question I would ask you, in your book you wrote that,
``We must once again convince the world that America has a
clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament
commitments that we have made.'' Then a bit more recently you
said, ``I believe that providing necessary resources for
nuclear modernization of the triads should be a national
priority.'' Do you stand by your last statement?
Senator Hagel. My last statement was----
Senator Inhofe. Your last statement is saying that, ``I
believe that providing the necessary resources for nuclear
modernization of the triads should be a national priority.''
Senator Hagel. Absolutely it should be, and I agree with
that. That is what the policy of this administration is.
Senator Inhofe. I am merely bringing out the inconsistency
because when you were involved with supporting the Global Zero
or whatever the organization was, their declaration is, ``We,
the undersigned believe that to protect our children, our
grandchildren, our civilization from the threat of nuclear
catastrophe, we must eliminate all nuclear weapons globally.
We, therefore, commit to working for a legally binding
verifiable agreement, including all nations, to eliminate
nuclear weapons by a date certain.''
Senator Hagel. The position of Global Zero, my position,
some of the individuals--national security leaders, as Senator
Nunn talked about, including himself, has never been unilateral
disarmament, ever. Never. We have over the years, which I have
supported, the United States has led the efforts to reducing
nuclear warheads. There was no more significant voice for that
than Ronald Reagan when he laid before Secretary General
Gorbachev in 1986 a rather bold plan. In fact, I believe,
paraphrasing President Reagan, we must eliminate nuclear
warheads from the face of the planet. I believe he said
something to that effect.
Global Zero has been very clear on this. Their effort is in
line with every major national leader in the world, including
President Obama, to continue to try to make an effort to reduce
our nuclear warheads. But in a dangerous world, nuclear
arsenals and our containment policy, which I mentioned in my
statement, has been critically important. We are not going to
unilaterally disarm. Verifiable. It has to be bilateral. It has
to be negotiated, as all our treaties have been.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Senator Hagel, but the reason I
mentioned the mission statement is that is the group that you
belong to. We can talk about that later. You may want to expand
on that for the record.
My time has expired, but I have one last question I would
like to ask, and that is, given that Iran--``The people''--and
I am quoting right now--``from Iran, people of the Middle East,
the Muslim region, and North Africa, people of these regions
hate America from the bottom of their heart.'' It further said,
``Israel is a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Islamist
world.'' It further said, ``Iran's warriors are ready and
willing to wipe Israel off the map.''
The question I would like to ask you, and you can answer
for the record if you would like, is, why do you think that the
Iranian foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination
to be the Secretary of Defense?
Senator Hagel. I have a difficult enough time with American
politics. Senator, I have no idea. But thank you, and I will be
glad to respond further for the record.
[The information referred to follows:]

Question. The question I would like to ask you, and you can answer
for the record if you would like, is, why do you think that the Iranian
foreign ministry so strongly supports your nomination to be the
Secretary of Defense?
Answer. While I cannot speak to the motivations of the Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson behind making those statements, there
should be no doubt that I fully support and--if confirmed--will
faithfully execute the President's multi-vector strategy towards Iran.
This strategy has included tough-minded diplomacy, crippling sanctions,
and serious contingency planning with the objective of preventing Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would ask unanimous consent that several letters
of support, including one from 13 former Secretaries of
Defense, Secretaries of State, and National Security advisors,
strongly endorsing Senator Hagel's nomination, be placed in the
record.
Chairman Levin. It will be placed in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Senator Reed. Mr. Chairman, I think the President chose
wisely. There are very few people in this country with the
experience, as a combat infantryman, decorated and wounded, as
a business leader, as the second leader of the Veterans
Administration, as a U.S. Senator, as someone who every day
understands that the decisions we make will be carried out by
young Americans, actually looked in the face of young
Americans, who has seen them suffer and die for this country. I
think that quality is, if not unique, extraordinarily part of
the nominee before us. Again, I think the President made a wise
choice.
I think Senator Inhofe's discussions of the Global Zero
Report is an opportunity for a quote, and let me quote. ``There
is one way safely and legitimately to reduce the cost of
national security, and that is to reduce the need for it. This
is what we are trying to do in negotiations with the Soviet
Union. We are not just assessing limits on a further increase
of nuclear weapons. We seek instead to reduce the number. We
seek the total elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the
face of the Earth.'' President Ronald Reagan in his second
inaugural address.
The notion of Global Zero is not something unique. I would
also point out that as signatories to the nuclear disarmament
treaty, the Nonproliferation Treaty, Article 6 undertakes to
commit at least to a treaty ultimately on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective control.
This is an aspiration that the United States has embraced
for a very long time under presidents of both parties. I think,
as Senator Hagel pointed out, this is not unilateral
disarmament. This is a long process of making sure we have the
nuclear weapons in place to deal with appropriate challenges,
some of them very different than the Cold War, but the
aspiration is important. It has been a bipartisan and constant
one for decades. Is that a rough summary of what you might
agree to, Senator?
Senator Hagel. Yes, it is, Senator. Thank you.
Senator Reed. The other issue is that there were several
specific points raised with your record, and let me give you
the opportunity to respond, if you will, to the questions that
Senator Inhofe posed with respect to votes. If you have the
list before you or----
Senator Hagel. The what? I'm sorry?
Senator Reed. Senator Inhofe posed several issues about a
2007 vote, a 2006 resolution with Hezbollah, 2003 Syrian
sanctions, et cetera. You were prepared to comment. I think it
is appropriate that you have an opportunity to comment. If you
want to do so now, I would invite you to do so.
Senator Hagel. I would be glad to further comment for the
record because I have none of those specific quotes in front of
me, and which I will, Senator, listing every vote I took.
I would say, though, included in those votes, which I do
recall some of them, was a vote in 1998, a vote in 2000, a vote
in 2006, specifically against Iran, sanctioning companies,
unilateral sanctions, that in any way assisted in Iran's
building their capability of nuclear weapons or rocket or
missiles. I voted for those.
I recall signing a letter, a Warner-Levin letter in 2002 to
the President of the United States regarding anti-Semitism in
Russia. I wrote a letter to President Clinton specifically in
1999 recommending to President Clinton a number of steps that
he take with President Yeltsin regarding anti-Semitism in
Russia. I remember specifically there were two unanimous
consent resolutions in 2006 against Hezbollah, against Hamas,
against Syria, and Iran that we had unanimous consent, I
supported on the floor of the Senate.
So there is a more complete record, Senator, than just one,
or two, or three, or four, and those are some of them that I
recall. As I noted in one of the responses back to Senator
Inhofe, I did not take any action on any vote, as I suspect
every colleague has the same way to approach votes, on this
specific issue, on Hezbollah, Hamas, which I am on the record
many times designating and saying that Hezbollah and Hamas are
terrorist organizations. I am on the record many times in
speeches, and on the floor of the Senate, and in the book I
wrote in 2008 saying that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism.
That is not new. That is in my record.
But the way I approached every vote I ever took in the
Senate was based on what I thought could be most effective,
what was the situation at the time, how could we do this
smarter and better. I have always believed that the President
of the United States is the elected leader of America. He has
within his responsibilities, and I believe it is clearly
articulated in Article 2, to conduct foreign policy. I always
thought the best way to deal with foreign leaders was let the
President do that directly, for us to communicate with the
President.
I do not think there was a letter that I can recall I
signed to a President on any of these issues that I agreed with
it that I did not sign. So it was never a matter of differing
objectives here. It was a matter of how best we could do it.
I mentioned in 2008, the Secretary of State did not want
one of those unilateral sanctions to go forward during the Bush
administration, wrote a letter, 2001, which is one of the
issues that Senator Inhofe brought up. The Bush administration
was opposed to a 5-year renewal of ILSA.
Now, I am not saying that is right or wrong, but every one
of the decisions I made, every vote I cast, was based on at the
time what I thought made the most sense.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Senator Reed. Senator, you have clearly stated that you are
supportive of the President's efforts to support the State of
Israel. You have indicated specifically the example of Iron
Dome. I recall a statement recently by Defense Minister Barak
that he has seldom seen or never has seen the same level of
military support to the State of Israel that he has seen in the
last several years.
You are, I presume and I hope, fully prepared to carry out
that same effort, that same level of support, because of the
vital interests that we share with the State of Israel.
Senator Hagel. I am, and I have a record on that. In my
book in 2008, interviews, speeches, I have always said I am a
supporter of Israel. In some cases, I have said I am a strong
supporter of Israel. In some cases I have even written, and I
think it is in my book, that we have a special relationship
with Israel. We always have had.
I have never voted against Israel ever in the 12 years I
was in the Senate whether it was military authorizations,
additional supplemental appropriations. The record is very
clear on that.
I might add, as long as we are on this subject, that--and
Senator Nelson may have a clearer view of this since he was
just in Jerusalem, there have been a couple of recent
statements made by the current Israeli Ambassador to the United
States, the former Israeli Ambassador to the United States, now
the Deputy Foreign Minister of Israel, that were fairly
positive about me.
I think all the Israeli leaders I have dealt with over the
years and met, I have been to Israel many times. The first two
times I was in Israel was when I was the head of the United
Services Organizations (USO). I kept the Haifa USO open. We did
not close it. There was a lot of pressure when I took over the
World USO to close USOs around the world, and we did. There was
a lot of pressure to close the Haifa USO. I am the one that
made the decision not to do that.
The former Chief of Naval Operations of Israel, Admiral Zev
Almad, who has recently been interviewed about me, has strongly
supported me and said specifically that I was a strong friend
of Israel. Now the USO is closed, but the current then director
of the USO, a lady by the name of Gila Garrison, who lives in
Haifa, said I was a strong supporter and friend of Israel.
I think my record is pretty clear on my support of Israel,
and I would, of course, continue to support the President's
policies. I think he has been as strong a supporter of Israel
as maybe any President since 1948 when Harry Truman helped give
birth to Israel. This President has been there. As he said, I
have Israel's back--$3.1 billion in assistance, almost $300
additional million out of the Defense Department for Iron Dome,
what we are doing with David Sling Arrow. I am a strong
supporter of all those programs and will continue to support
them.
Senator Reed. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. Before I call on Senator McCain,
there is a quorum that is now present, and I now ask the
committee to consider a list of 952 pending military
nominations. They have all been before the committee the
required length of time.
Is there a motion to favorably report those nominations?
Unidentified Speaker. I so move.
Chairman Levin. Is there a second?
Unidentified Speaker. Second.
Chairman Levin. All in favor, say aye? [A chorus of ayes.]
Opposed, any? [No response.]
The motion carries. Thank you all very much.
[The list of nominations considered and approved by the
committee follows:]
Military Nominations Pending with the Senate Armed Services Committee
which are Proposed for the Committee's Consideration on January 31,
2013.
1. MG William H. Etter, ANG to be lieutenant general and Commander,
First Air Force (Air Force North) and Commander, Continental U.S. North
American Aerospace Defense Command Region (Reference No. 53)
2. MG Kenneth E. Tovo, USA to be lieutenant general and Commander,
Combined Security Transition Command-Afghanistan/Commander, North
Atlantic Treaty Organization Training Mission-Afghanistan (Reference
No. 59)
3. Col. Barbara R. Holcomb, USA to be brigadier general (Reference
No. 62).
4. Col. Patrick D. Sargent, USA to be brigadier general (Reference
No. 63).
5. In the Army there are two appointments to the grade of major
general (list begins with Brian C. Lein) (Reference No. 64).
6. In the Air Force there is one appointment to the grade of major
(Kory D. Bingham) (Reference No. 70).
7. In the Air Force Reserve there are three appointments to the
grade of colonel (list begins with Michael A. Cooper) (Reference No.
71).
8. In the Air Force Reserve there are four appointments to the
grade of colonel (list begins with Victor Douglas Brown) (Reference No.
72).
9. In the Air Force Reserve there are four appointments to the
grade of colonel (list begins with Walter S. Adams) (Reference No. 73).
10. In the Air Force Reserve there are six appointments to the
grade of colonel (list begins with John J. Bartrum) (Reference No. 74).
11. In the Air Force Reserve there are eight appointments to the
grade of colonel (list begins with Kimberly L. Barber) (Reference No.
75).
12. In the Air Force Reserve there are 11 appointments to the grade
of colonel (list begins with Dina L. Bernstein) (Reference No. 76).
13. In the Air Force Reserve there are 12 appointments to the grade
of colonel (list begins with Timothy Lee Brininger) (Reference No. 77).
14. In the Air Force Reserve there are 198 appointments to the
grade of colonel (list begins with Francis Xavier Altieri) (Reference
No. 78).
15. In the Army there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant
colonel (Jonathan A. Foskey) (Reference No. 79).
16. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
colonel (Marion J. Parks) (Reference No. 80).
17. In the Army Reserve there is one appointment to the grade of
colonel (Karen A. Pike) (Reference No. 81).
18. In the Army there are two appointments to the grade of major
(list begins with Derek S. Reynolds) (Reference No. 82).
19. In the Army there are two appointments to the grade of major
(list begins with Edward A. Figueroa) (Reference No. 83).
20. In the Army Reserve there are two appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Jack C. Mason) (Reference No. 84).
21. In the Army Reserve there are 79 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Ruth E. Aponte) (Reference No. 85).
22. In the Army there are 88 appointments to the grade of major
(list begins with Leslie E. Akins) (Reference No. 86).
23. In the Army Reserve there are 217 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Timothy G. Abrell) (Reference No. 87).
24. In the Army Reserve there are 225 appointments to the grade of
colonel (list begins with Rafael E. Abreu) (Reference No. 88).
25. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
major (Jackie W. Morgan, Jr.) (Reference No. 91).
26. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (Dana R. Fike) (Reference No. 92).
27. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (Samuel W. Spencer III) (Reference No. 93).
28. In the Marine Corps there is one appointment to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (Larry Miyamoto) (Reference No. 94).
29. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with George L. Roberts) (Reference No.
97).
30. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with Richard D. Kohler) (Reference No.
98).
31. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Eric T. Cline) (Reference No. 100).
32. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with Jose L. Sada) (Reference No. 101).
33. In the Marine Corps there are three appointments to the grade
of major (list begins with Frederick L. Hunt) (Reference No. 102).
34. In the Marine Corps there are three appointments to the grade
of major (list begins with Todd E. Lotspeich) (Reference No. 103).
35. In the Marine Corps there are three appointments to the grade
of lieutenant colonel (list begins with Jason B. Davis) (Reference No.
104).
36. In the Marine Corps there are three appointments to the grade
of lieutenant colonel (list begins with Travis M. Fulton) (Reference
No. 105).
37. In the Marine Corps there are four appointments to the grade of
lieutenant colonel (list begins with Bryan Delgado) (Reference No.
106).
38. In the Marine Corps there are two appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with David B. Blann) (Reference No. 107).
39. In the Marine Corps there are five appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Michael Gasperini) (Reference No. 108).
40. In the Marine Corps there are six appointments to the grade of
major (list begins with Stephen R. Byrnes) (Reference No. 109).
41. In the Marine Corps there are seven appointments to the grade
of major (list begins with Peter K. Basabe, Jr.) (Reference No. 110).
42. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of commander
(Harry E. Hayes) (Reference No. 115).
43. In the Navy there is one appointment to the grade of lieutenant
commander (Shemeya L. Grant) (Reference No. 116).
44. In the Navy there are two appointments to the grade of
commander and below (list begins with Christopher J. Kaine) (Reference
No. 117).
45. In the Navy there are 29 appointments to the grade of
lieutenant commander (list begins with Jeanine F. Benjamin) (Reference
No. 118).
Total: 952.

Chairman Levin. Senator McCain.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to
see an old friend here before the committee, and especially
pleased to see Senator Warner and Senator Nunn, two of the
great members of this committee, who have contributed so much
to our Nation's defense.
Senator Hagel, members of this committee will raise
questions reflecting concerns with your policy positions. They
are not reasonable people disagreeing. They have fundamental
disagreements. Our concerns pertain to the quality of your
professional judgment and your world view on critical areas of
national security, including security in the Middle East.
With that in mind, let me begin with your opposition to the
surge in Iraq. In 2006, Republicans lost the election, and we
began the surge, and you wrote a piece in the Washington Post
called ``Leaving Iraq Honorably''. In 2007, you said it is not
in the national interests to deepen its military involvement.
In January 2007, in a rather bizarre exchange with Secretary
Rice in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee after some
nonsense about Syria and crossing the border into Iran and
Syria because of Syria, and a reference to Cambodia in 1970,
you said, ``When you set in motion the kind of policy the
President is talking about here, it's very, very dangerous.
Matter of fact, I have to say, Madam Secretary, I think the
speech given last night by this President represents the most
dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country since Vietnam.
If it is carried out, I will resist it.'' Then of course you
continued on and on for months afterwards talking about what a
disaster the surge would be, even to the point where it was
clear the surge was succeeding.
In March 2008, you said, ``Here the term quagmire could
apply. Some reject that term, but if that is not a quagmire,
then what is?'' Even as late as August 29, 2011, in an
interview with the Financial Times, you said, ``I disagreed
with President Obama, his decision to surge in Afghanistan as I
did with President Bush on the surge in Iraq.''
Do you stand by those comments, Senator Hagel?
Senator Hagel. Senator, I stand by them because I made
them.
Senator McCain. Were you right? Were you correct in your
assessment?
Senator Hagel. I would defer to the judgment of history to
support that out.
Senator McCain. The committee deserves your judgment as to
whether you were right or wrong about the surge.
Senator Hagel. I will explain why I made those comments.
Senator McCain. I want to know if you were right or wrong.
That is a direct question. I expect a direct answer.
Senator Hagel. The surge assisted in the objective. But if
we review the record a little bit----
Senator McCain. Will you please answer the question? Were
you correct or incorrect when you said that ``The surge would
be the most dangerous foreign policy blunder in this country
since Vietnam.'' Where you correct or incorrect, yes or no?
Senator Hagel. My reference to the surge being the most
dangerous----
Senator McCain. Are you going to answer the question,
Senator Hagel? The question is, were you right or wrong? That
is a pretty straightforward question. I would like an answer
whether you were right or wrong, and then you are free to
elaborate.
Senator Hagel. I am not going to give you a yes or no
answer on a lot of things today.
Senator McCain. Let the record show that you refuse to
answer that question. Now, please go ahead.
Senator Hagel. If you would like me to explain why----
Senator McCain. I actually would like an answer, yes or no.
Senator Hagel. I am not going to give you a yes or no. I
think it is far more complicated that, as I have already said.
My answer is, I will defer that judgment to history.
As to the comment I made about the most dangerous foreign
policy decision since Vietnam was about not just the surge, but
the overall war of choice going into Iraq. That particular
decision that was made on the surge, but more to the point, our
war in Iraq, I think was the most fundamental bad, dangerous
decision since Vietnam.
Aside from the cost that occurred in this country through
blood and treasure, aside what that did to take our focus off
of Afghanistan, which, in fact, was the original and real focus
of a national threat to this country, Iraq was not. I always
tried to frame all the different issues before I made a
decision on anything.
Now, just as you said, Senator, we can have differences of
opinion, but that is essentially why I took the position I did.
Senator McCain. It is a fundamental difference of opinion,
Senator Hagel. Senator Graham and I, and Senator Lieberman,
when there were 59 votes in the U.S. Senate, spent our time
trying to prevent that 60th. Thank God for Senator Lieberman. I
think history has already made a judgment about the surge, sir,
and you are on the wrong side of it. Your refusal to answer
whether you were right or wrong about it is going to have an
impact on my judgment as to whether to vote for your
confirmation or not. I hope you will reconsider the fact that
you refuse to answer a fundamental question about an issue that
took the lives of thousands of young Americans.
Senator Hagel. Senator, there was more to it than
flooding----
Senator McCain. I am asking about the surge, Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. I know you are, and I am trying to explain
my position. The beginning of the surge also factored in what
General Allen had put into place in Anbar Province, the Sunni
Awakening. We put over 100,000 young soldiers----
Senator McCain. Senator Hagel, I am very well aware of the
history of the surge and the Anbar Awakening, and I also am
aware that any casual observer will know that the surge was the
fundamental factor, led by two great leaders, General Petraeus
and Ambassador----
Senator Hagel. Well, I do not know if that would have been
required and cost us over 1,000 American lives and thousands of
wounded.
Senator McCain. So you do not know if the surge would have
been required. Okay.
Senator Hagel, let me go to Syria now. More than 60,000
people have been killed in Syria. Do you believe that we should
be more engaged in Syria?
Senator Hagel. I know this administration is very engaged
in working with its partners.
Senator McCain. So you do not think we should do more?
Senator Hagel. When you say ``do more,'' do you mean----
Senator McCain. Do you think we should make sure that the
Syrians get the weapons they need, and perhaps establish a no
fly zone? Do you think we do?
Senator Hagel. I believe that part of our review is looking
at those options.
Senator McCain. It has been 22 months, Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. I was not there. I do not know the details.
I am not there now.
Senator McCain. I am sure you have read in the newspapers
that 60,000 people have been killed, and that it is in danger
of spilling over into neighboring countries. My question, I
guess, is how many more would have to die before you would
support arming the resistance and establishing a no fly zone?
Senator Hagel. I do not think anyone questions the terrible
tragedy that is occurring there every day. It is a matter of
how best do we work our way through this so that we can stop it
to begin with, and then what comes next. I think the
President----
Senator McCain. Did you disagree with President Obama on
his decision for the surge in Afghanistan?
Senator Hagel. I did not think we should get ourselves
into--first of all, I had no regional position as far as no
formal position. But I did not think we were----
Senator McCain. But you were reported on August 29, 2011
saying, ``I disagreed with President Obama and his decision to
surge in Afghanistan.''
Senator Hagel. That was my personal opinion, yes.
Senator McCain. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCain.
Senator Nelson.
Senator Nelson. Since the issue of Iraq has come up here, I
just want to state for the record and lay the predicate that
this Senator was one of many that voted for the authorization
to go into Iraq, and as it turns out, the lessons of history,
we were given incorrect information as a justification for
going into Iraq.
We were told by the Secretary of Defense, by the Secretary
of State, by the National Security advisor, and the Director of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that there were weapons
of mass destruction in Iraq. So for a lot of the decisions that
were made at the outset, they were decisions that were informed
with incorrect information. As the committee is judging Senator
Hagel on that decision as well as others, I want to tell the
committee what was this experience of this Senator.
Now, what I would like to do with my time here is that
since there are a few of this in this room that served in the
military during the Vietnam era, and you clearly had that
experience in combat, Senator Hagel, I would--and by the way, a
lot of people do not know anything about Vietnam, and do not
know how difficult it was, as Senator Warner has so eloquently
stated in his comments, how the Nation was divided.
But I would like for you, as the committee is getting to
know you, to know something about your service in Vietnam, and
your combat experience. Were you wounded, Senator Hagel?
Senator Hagel. Senator Nelson, thank you. If I may, and if
I read into your question some latitude in answering, I would
respond this way. I think my time is better served to maybe
talk about more of the specific things, like Senator McCain
asked me about and some others. Maybe weave some of my
experience as to how it formed my judgment, rather than going
through a 12-month journal of my time in the jungles when my
brother, Tom, and I were both wounded twice together.
When Tom and I served there, 1968 was the worst year we
had. Those who may not recall that year, we sent over 16,000
dead Americans home. Now, that is unfathomable in the world
that we live in today, 16,000 dead Americans. I saw that from
the bottom.
I think Chairman Levin, in an accurate and appropriate
quote about what I said, in his introductory statements about
what formed me, and it directly goes to Senator McCain's
question about the surge. Just as I said in my statement, I had
one fundamental question that I asked myself on every vote I
took, every decision I made. Was the policy worthy of the men
and women that we were sending into battle and surely to their
deaths? In many cases, unfortunately tens of thousands of cases
that we are living with, these poor families are living with,
wounded, the results, the consequences.
I know it is easy here--it is anywhere--if you do not have
a connection to some of this to see these things a little
differently. It does not mean I am any better, Senator. It does
not mean I am any smarter. It does not mean I am any more
appreciative of the service of our country. That is not it. I
saw it from the bottom. I saw what happens. I saw the
consequences and the suffering when we are at war.
So I did question a surge. It was not an aberration to me
ever. I always ask the question, is this going to be worth the
sacrifice, because there will be sacrifice. In the surge case
in Iraq, we lost almost 1,200 dead Americans during that surge
and thousands of wounded. Now, was it required? Was it
necessary? Senator McCain has his opinion on that shared by
others. I am not sure. I am not that certain that it was
required. Now it does not mean I am right. It does not mean I
did not make wrong votes. But that is what guides me.
You asked me the question about my time in Vietnam and was
I wounded. I was a very insignificant part of this. We were
just doing our job, Senator, as every military person knows
that. Some of this committee has rather distinguished members
who served, starting with Senator McCain, and the sacrifices he
has made to this country.
But it does condition you. I am not shaped, framed, molded,
consumed by that experience. Of course not. But it is part of
me. I tried to explain that in my opening statement. We are all
shaped by those experiences. I hope that experience that I have
had is for the better. I hope if I have the privilege of
serving as Secretary of Defense it will put someone in charge
at the Pentagon--not questioning past Secretaries of Defense; I
can only speak for myself--who understands the realities of
consequences of war. It does not mean I am better, but that is
who I am. I do not walk away from that. I acknowledge that. But
it does not consume me, Senator.
I do not see the lens of every world event and whether we
should use American power through the lens of Vietnam. That is
part of me. It is part of that lens. I think that is for the
better. I think we need to be cautious with our power. I think
we need to be wise with our power.
We have great power. We have awesome power. No nation in
the world is even in our league. We have done so much good with
that power. I do not think there is a nation in the history of
man who has ever been as judicious and careful with its power
as we have. I want to make sure we continue to do that, as you
all do.
We will have differences, Senator, on policies, but all I
can do is my best based on my own experiences. As I also said
in my statement, reaching out, listening, learning, never
knowing enough, understand circumstances change.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Nelson.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Senator Hagel, it is great to
have you with us and to have this hearing and an opportunity to
discuss important issues. I admire your service to your
country, and your combat experience is something we all honor
and respect.
I have been for the most part chairman, ranking member, or
member of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of this Senate
Armed Services Committee for the time I have been in the
Senate. We came into the Senate together. So I have had some
experience and knowledge about the great debates involving
nuclear weapons and national security. I believe the Secretary
of Defense should be the core, the rock-solid person, for
defense of America. I believe he should project an image of
solidity and steadfastness that the whole world and American
people can depend on.
I am more than a little troubled by the report that you
participated in--the Global Zero report that calls for the
total elimination of nuclear weapons, and clearly suggests that
is an achievable goal in a realistic period of time, although
certainly not immediately. Your report writers defend you. They
have issued an article defending you and the report that was
just issued last year. They protest mightily and say that,
``Chuck Hagel and Global Zero's views on nuclear weapons are in
the national security interests and squarely in the
mainstream.''
Indeed, your defendants insist you are in the mainstream
because your position is that of President Obama's, and
dramatically they assert you are out of the mainstream if you
believe otherwise.
So your report explicitly calls for, ``an urgent and
transformational change in the U.S. nuclear force structure,
strategy, and posture''. I think it is a rather exceedingly
dramatic report frankly.
Now, specifically as to the historic nuclear force triad
that has been the bedrock of our defense policy for half a
century, your report calls for bilaterally or unilaterally
totally eliminating the intercontinental ballistic missile
(ICBM) triad leg. In fact, the report refers to itself as a
dyad instead of a triad report. You propose eliminating the 76
nuclear B-52 bombers entirely, leaving only 18 B-2 bombers,
reducing nuclear submarines from 14 to 10.
Further, the committee report that you were one of the five
members that produced it, you favor eliminating all tactical
nuclear weapons, de-alerting all weapons, and according to the
report as I read it, that would mean it would take from 1 to 3
days to place a weapon on alert. I certainly agree that that
would be a transformational change in our nuclear force
structure, strategy, and posture. I think it is a big historic
thing.
Now, General Kehler, the present Commander of the U.S.
Strategic Command (STRATCOM) and Secretary of Air Force Mike
Donley do not agree with the recommendations in this report,
people you will supervise. General Kehler told the press on
August 8, 2012, ``I do not support the former vice chairman,''
and that is General Cartwright. ``I do not think that we are in
a place he suggests now, nor do I see that particular place any
time soon.'' So you will be supervising him.
Would you share with us where you are today on that issue?
Do you support the view of General Kehler, or do you support
the view of the commission report that you signed?
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Senator. Let me first correct
some of your interpretation of what the Global Zero report was,
and is, and what it actually said.
First, it did not propose or call for anything. It was, in
fact--the word specifically used at the front end of that
report was ``illustrative,'' proposing nothing, but laying out
different scenarios, and possibilities, and schedules. But here
is the key part of all this, and by the way, this was
summarized in a letter to President Obama in 2009. Bilateral,
never unilateral. Nothing was ever suggested on a unilateral
basis to take down our arsenal. Negotiated, verifiable. These
are all terms that were in the report.
As Senator Nunn said in his opening statement, and I have
alluded generally to this, the mainstream thinking of most
Presidents we have had the last 65 years, and I go back to
Ronald Reagan's comments as Senator Nunn quoted, was reduction
of nuclear weapons for the obvious reasons. That is why we have
engaged in treaties to reduce nuclear weapons. Those were not
unilateral arrangements, those were bilateral arrangements.
The United States and the Russians have about 90 percent of
the nuclear in the world today. Now there are others who have
them. There are nine nuclear powers, dangerous. Obviously the
so-called loose nukes or non-state actors, terrorist groups
getting a hold of these are threats.
Senator Sessions. But, Senator Hagel, I think----
Senator Hagel. I just want to make sure that is clear.
Senator Sessions. I know, but it is not clear in your
report. The report says on page 1, ``These steps could be taken
with Russia in unison through reciprocal presidential
directives, negotiated in another round of bilateral arms
reductions, or in implemented unilateral.'' A little further
on----
Senator Hagel. Well, that is not proposing.
Senator Sessions.--it says it two more times in this report
that these ideas could be a--less good approach would be to
adopt this agenda unilaterally. It suggests that it should be
adopted. That would not be as good, but you would do so. There
is another reference to that, and it does call for these
reductions. In your conclusion, you say, ``The United States
should seek to achieve such reductions in 10 years and plan to
base its arsenal on a dyad of nuclear delivery vehicles.''
You go on to say, ``Trident missile submarines--the optimal
mix would consist of 10 Trident submarines and 18 B-2 bombers,
the normal conditions it would have for the warhead stockpile
would be deployed on these carriers. The other half would be
kept in reserve. All land-based intercontinental missiles armed
with nuclear payloads would be retired, along with carriers of
non-strategic nuclear warheads, all of which would be
eliminated. That is the tactical nuclear weapons, all of which
would be eliminated from the stockpile. B-52 bombers would be
completely dismantled or converted to carry only conventional
weapons.''
I do not believe that is consistent with the policy of the
country as a whole. I supported legislation to create a
bipartisan commission several years ago to help us--Senator
Levin and others supported that. The House supported it, and it
passed--to help us determine how much further we can continue
to draw down our nuclear weapons. It was chaired by William
Perry, the Secretary of Defense under Carter, James
Schlesinger, who served in the Carter and Nixon cabinets. It
had John Glenn on it, Martin Halperin, Lee Hamilton, James
Woolsey, Keith Paine, and others. They had access to the
Defense Department secret documents and information, and they
came out with quite a different view.
Let me just point out some of the things that they came up
with. They said maintain the triad. They said maintain tactical
nuclear weapons. They recommended no change in the alert
statute, and, in fact, the Defense Department's nuclear posture
review under President Obama and Secretary Gates, explicitly
found the alert status should not be altered in their review of
nuclear weapons. They fundamentally found a need for nuclear
weapons. That is the point. Your commission basically said that
it undermines the request for nuclear weapons.
I will give you a chance to respond. On Global Zero, they
sort of I think foresaw this argument. Before your report was
issued, they said this, ``The conditions that might make
possible the global elimination of nuclear weapons are not
present today, and their creation would require a fundamental
transformation of the world political order.''
That is a very strong statement, and I think it was aimed
at this idea that is practical and realistic for us to expect
that the world is going to move to zero nuclear weapons.
So first, I want to ask you one question that you told me
in our meeting that I appreciated. President Obama stated when
we did the New START treaty discussion, vote, and debate, ``I
intend to modernize or replace the triad of strategy nuclear
systems, a heavy bomber, and air launch cruise missile, and
ICBM, and nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine.''
He committed to, ``accelerate the design of the Chemistry
and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear Facility and the
Uranium Processing Facility''--those are the two buildings
where our modernizations would take place--``and request full
funding for those projects''.
First, let me ask you, would you support that vision and
commitment the President made?
Senator Hagel. Absolutely I do, and----
Senator Sessions. Then you are free to respond to what I
was saying. But I really do feel that--I am uneasy about this
vision expressed in that committee report of yours.
Senator Hagel. Let me just briefly come back to what you
said, Senator, and I appreciate you giving me a chance to
respond.
First, my record has always been very clear, everything I
have voted on in my career in the Senate and wherever I have
been. A strong, agile, safe, secure, effective, nuclear arsenal
for the United States is not debatable. I voted that way. I
believe that. You know that the home of STRATCOM is now in
Senator Fischer's State, which used to be the State I
represented or I used to be in that State as a Senator. It has
not changed.
I know a little something about it, not as much as you and
others on the committee, but I have been to that facility many
times. I know General Kehler very well, know all the STRATCOM
commanders very well. You know what the motto of STRATCOM is.
It is a pretty significant motto. ``Peace is our business.''
What has kept the peace, as I noted in my opening statement
as much as anything else in the world since World War II, is
that nuclear deterrent. This prospective, Secretary of Defense,
would never do anything or in any way take any action that
would minimize, or harm, or downgrade that reality. But again,
I go back to--not to get caught up in this report. This report
was about illustrative possibilities, what and how could things
be done. Always bilateral. Always verifiable. Always
negotiable, just as we have always done in our treaties.
I will stop there. That is the commitment I make to you. I
made it to the President. My record is clear on that.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. I think we have to move on.
Senator Sessions. Just thank you. I would just say the
vision stated in your Global Zero report, I believe, is likely
to create instability rather than confidence and stability,
create uncertainty in the world among our allies and our
potential adversaries. I do not believe it would meet the goal
that you said not to weaken our ability.
So I am troubled that--I feel--I appreciate your comments
today, but I am troubled by the language in that report.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Sessions.
Senator McCaskill.
Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the 6 years
I have served on this committee, I have served under Senator
Warner as a ranking Republican member, and Senator McCain as a
ranking Republican member. I have to tell you that there has
never been a time that I did not sense that we all agreed that
our work on behalf of our Nation in terms of protecting our
country and defending our country, that it was a bipartisan
effort.
I believe very strongly that this committee needs to be
bipartisan. I hope that the new ranking member holds the same
regard for that as Senator McCain and Senator Warner did,
because at all times I felt that they were respectful and were
willing to listen to our disagreements. I am hopeful that will
continue, and I will be optimistic that it will.
I am going to ask a series of questions, and then at the
end of them, if you need more time, just say so.
Do you believe that all options should be on the table when
we confront Iran?
Senator Hagel. Absolutely.
Senator McCaskill. Do you believe Iran is currently a state
sponsor of terrorism and provides material support to Hezbollah
and to Hamas?
Senator Hagel. Yes, and I am on the record a number of
times saying that.
Senator McCaskill. Do you support sanctions against Iran?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. Do you believe that the United States
should unilaterally eliminate its nuclear arsenal?
Senator Hagel. No.
Senator McCaskill. Do you agree with four national security
leaders, including Henry Kissinger, Sam Nunn, William Perry,
and George Schultz, President Reagan's Secretary of State, when
they said, ``The four of us have come together in a nonpartisan
effort, deeply committed to building support for a global
effort to reduce reliance on nuclear weapons, to prevent their
spread into potentially dangerous hands, and to ultimately to
end them as a threat to the world. We remain committed to
working towards this vision and advancing the steps essential
to achieve this goal.'' Do you agree with those four bipartisan
national leaders in the area of national security and foreign
policy?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator McCaskill. I wanted to take a few minutes to talk
about some of the things we talked about in my office, and some
people on the committee are going, oh, here she goes on
contracting, but the auditability of the Defense Department.
I know you stated in some of the advance policy questions
that you want to hold people accountable on auditability. I do
not think most Americans realize that as we face shrinking
budgets and as we want to secure the preeminence of our
military, and not hollow out the spending at the Defense
Department, that auditability is a crucial ingredient to us
being able to figure out whether all the money that is being
spent there is being spent like Americans would want it to be
spent.
Can you reassure me that auditability, as prescribed by
law, coming through this committee, that it needs to happen no
later than 2017? Can you make a commitment to me today on the
record that will be a priority of yours, making sure as,
Secretary Panetta did and Secretary Gates before him, that
auditability will be an essential priority of your time as
Secretary of Defense?
Senator Hagel. As I told you, Senator, I will. I make that
commitment to this committee.
Senator McCaskill. Then turning to contracting, I have yet
to have provided to me, other than raw numbers that we spent,
any data that would indicate that major infrastructure
rebuilding as part of a counterinsurgency strategy works.
There are many things that work in a counterinsurgency
strategy, and one of them, as it was originally posed to me
back some 6 years ago on this committee by General Petraeus,
was that the Commander's Emergency Response Program (CERP)
funds, that walking around money to fix plate glass windows in
neighborhoods, that that was an essential part of the
counterinsurgency (COIN) strategy.
That morphed into our military building major
infrastructure projects without really any data ever to
indicate that the billions of dollars that we were spending
was, in fact, advancing our military mission.
In addition to that, it is clear if you want to look at
Iraq and the failures that Iraq represents in some ways, one of
the failures is the crumbling investments that this country
made in Iraq: the health centers that never opened, the water
parks that sit crumbling, the power facilities that were blown
up before they even had an opportunity to operate. I can go
down billions of dollars of waste because we didn't do the
analysis on sustainability after we left.
I am convinced that we have made the same mistakes in
Afghanistan. I would like your response to this issue of major
infrastructure building while we are in a conflict being
conducted by our military, not by the U.S. Agency for
International Development, not by the State Department, and
whether or not you would make a commitment to come back to this
committee with a report analyzing whether or not there is data
to support that aspect of the COIN strategy.
Senator Hagel. I will make that commitment, and it is part
of the larger series of questions and factors always involved
when a nation gets clearly committed, as we were, and still
are, in Afghanistan, and were in Iraq for 8 years. When you are
at war, the highest first priority is to take care of your
people. As a result of that, all the rest of the normal
latitude, and guidance, theory, and policy, is secondary.
I think in both of those wars, because we got ourselves in
so deep with so many people, and the welfare of our men and
women was paramount, we tried a lot of things. We had never
been this way before. We had never seen anything quite like
these two situations. As a result, our Special Inspectors
General have come up with billions and billions and billions of
dollars that are unaccounted for, corruption, fraud, waste,
abuse. It really is quite astounding. But when you think about
the universe of money that went into both those wars, no one
should be surprised.
Now, how do we fix it? What do we do? To your point, how do
we learn? How do we learn from this? We need to learn from
this. It was not the fault of the military. The military was
asked to do everything. We overloaded the circuits of our
military. We said, you do it. You have the money. You have the
structure. You have the organization. You have the people. Now
go do it.
We put these people--these young captains--you talked about
CERP funds--in very difficult spots. These young captains were
given $100,000 in cash, essentially walking around money to
take care of tribal chiefs and so on and so on. It wasn't their
fault. They were told to do this. This is what was part of the
strategy.
I do not question necessarily any particular strategy or
part of it, but I do think it is part of the whole that you are
talking about. If I am confirmed and go over there, I will take
a look at this, and we will go deeper and wider into this
because we owe it to our people. We owe it to the people of
this country who pay the bills. For the future, what did we
learn for future challenges?
Senator McCaskill. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator McCaskill.
Senator Chambliss.
Senator Chambliss. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Chuck, again,
congratulations on your nomination. As we talked the other day,
you and I have been good friends since I came to the Senate in
2002, sat next to each other for 6 years on the Intel
Committee, and during that process you cast some votes that I
questioned. But we were always able to dialogue, and it never
impacted our friendship, and I am very appreciative of that.
You also were introduced by two of my dearest friends,
Senator Nunn and Senator Warner, which certainly is a credit to
you.
I want to drill down, Chuck, on the issue that I think is
going to be very much at the forefront--probably the number one
issue you are going to have to deal with, assuming that you are
confirmed, and that is the issue of our relationship with Iran
and where we go in the future, short term as well as long term.
Now, you wrote in your book, ``We blundered into Iraq
because of flawed intelligence, flawed assumptions, flawed
judgments, and ideologically driven motives. We must not repeat
these errors with Iran, and the best way to avoid them is to
maintain an effective dialogue.'' You then go on to advocate
again, ``for a direct and strategic diplomatic initiative''.
Now, I heard you in your opening comments say that your
position on Iran is prevention, not containment, when it comes
to their nuclear weaponization. I want you to expand on that,
and I want to go back to Senator Inhofe and Senator Reed's
question or comment relative to why you did not vote to
designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Council as a
terrorist organization.
Iran is the number one terrorist sponsoring state in the
world. I do not think there is any disagreement about that. I
want you to expand on your position on a nuclear weaponized
Iran, and talk about red lines. If your position is truly
prevention and not containment, Chuck, what is the red line?
What is the point? We know there are some things happening over
there right now that are very serious. So how far do we go?
Do you still advocate direct negotiations with Iran as you
said and you made clear that all options are on the table, and
you stated again that military options is one of those. If you
will, talk about direct negotiation. We have never negotiated
with a terrorist state. Why do you feel like that we ought to
dialogue with them, even on this issue today?
Lastly, what alterations, if any, do you think are
necessary to our military force posture in the Gulf region to
deter Iranian regional ambitions and support international
diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons
capability? That is a broad statement on my part, broad
question, but this is the issue from a national security
standpoint, Chuck, and I would like you to be pretty specific.
Senator Hagel. Let us start with the specific question on a
vote regarding designating the Revolutionary Guard as a
terrorist organization. You recall because you were there,
there were 22 Senators who voted against that. The effort
against it, the main point made on the floor of the Senate came
from Senator Jim Webb. His point was we have never, ever
designated a part of a legitimate government, a state--and when
I say ``legitimate,'' it does not mean we agree with Iran, but
it is a member of the United Nations. Almost all of our allies
have embassies in Iran. So that is why I note an elected
legitimate government, whether we agree or not.
But we have never made any part of a legitimate independent
government designated them or made them part of a terrorist
organization. We have just never done that. So you say, well,
so what? What is the big problem? The problem was, at least 22
of us believed--they were both Republicans and Democrats, by
the way, in that vote, but it was Jim Webb who was on the floor
most of the time on it--said that if you do that, that is
tantamount to giving the President of the United States
authority to use military force against Iran without having to
come back to get a resolution from, or partner with, or
cooperate with, the Congress of the United States. Essentially
if we vote for this, we are giving a President, in a sense,
that authority. Now, you can agree or disagree with that.
But I listened to that debate, and there was some pretty
thoughtful debate. That debate I thought was pretty powerful
with me. We were already in two wars at the time, and I thought
that this made sense, and so I voted against it. That is why I
voted against that. You might also remember that almost
Secretary of State Kerry voted against it. Then Senator Obama,
he gave speeches against it. He did not vote that day. Vice
President Biden voted against it. Dick Lugar voted against it.
There were some other Republicans.
As to the Iranian red line, Persian Gulf, some of the
Iranian questions you asked. I support the President's strong
position on containment as I have said, and I will speak more
specifically to a couple of the examples you used from my book.
But his position I think is right.
When you asked the question about red line, I think the
President has gone as far as he should go publicly on that. He
said clearly that in his words, he has Israel's back. He said
that his policy is not to allow the Iranians to get a nuclear
weapon.
What constitutes when action would be taken? I think that
is always something that should not be discussed publicly or
debated publicly or out in the public domain.
Your quotations from my book, which you acknowledge as well
that I always said the military option should be on the table,
and I had said that consistently as well as engaging with Iran.
I have always thought it is far smarter to approach these very
serious threats, including Iran, probably as significant a
threat as we have out there today, although North Korea is
beyond a threat. It is a real nuclear power and quite
unpredictable. I think Pakistan is another very complicated
reality.
But staying on Iran, I think we are far smarter to do what
the President has been doing, which I laid out, by the way, in
my book. I have a chapter on Iran. I have two chapters on Iraq.
I have a chapter on the Middle East. Getting the world
community behind us with these U.N. sanctions through the
Security Council of the United Nations. These are tough
sanctions. They are having a tremendous impact, you know that,
on Iran.
If, in fact, the military option is the only one required,
I think we are always on higher ground in every way,
international law, domestic law, people of the world, people of
the region to be with us on this if we have tried and if we
have gone through every possibility to resolve this in a
responsible, peaceful way rather than going to war.
Everything I said in my book was about that. I do not have
a problem with engaging. I think great powers engage. I think
engagement is clearly in our interests. That is not
negotiation. Engagement is not appeasement. Engagement is not
surrender. I think if the time is right, the climate is right,
the dynamics are right, we should find ways, if we can find
ways. We cannot force it. But I think we are always smarter and
wiser to take that approach initially.
Posture in the Persian Gulf. Senator, our Fifth Fleet is
located in the Persian Gulf in Bahrain. As you also know, we
have a couple of carrier battle groups in that area. Our
military posture there is very strong. It is very ready. It is
very capable. These are contingencies and options that the
Secretary of Defense, working with these Service Chiefs and
their combatant commanders, always have to give in the present
and make sure that we are prepared.
Let me stop there, I may have missed some of the specific
things that you wanted to discuss.
Senator Chambliss. I am understanding you to say that you
are not ready to discuss red lines in a specific way. Am I
hearing that right?
Senator Hagel. I do not think that is my role now to start
with. I am not the Secretary of Defense. But I think the
President is wise in his course of action in not discussing
that publicly. I think it is a far smarter way to handle it,
and I think he has said what he needs to say. I think it has
been understood in Iran. I think the world understands his
position.
By the way, I have just been handed a note that I misspoke
and said I supported the President's position on containment.
If I said that, I meant to say that obviously his position on
containment, we do not have a position on containment. I
recognize that I have had more attention paid to my words the
last 8 weeks that I ever thought possible, so I do not take any
chances. Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. I think I understood you correct on
containment and prevention.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Chambliss. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Just to make sure your correction is clear,
we do have a position on containment, which is that we do not
favor containment.
Senator Hagel. We do not favor containment. That is the
President's position, and that was my position.
Chairman Levin. Thank you. I just want to clarify the
record.
Senator Hagel. If you need further clarification, that is
why I am here.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Chambliss.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning,
Senator Hagel.
Senator Hagel. Senator.
Senator Udall. Thank you for your service. Thank you for
your willingness to once again heed the call and lead DOD.
We had a great private meeting with you last week. We
covered many of the threats and challenges that our country
faces: shrinking budgets, strategic national security shifts,
and ensuring, as you have underlined over and over again
already this morning, that we continue to provide fair and
equal opportunities for all of our servicemembers and their
families.
Again, I want to tell you I appreciate that opportunity. I
am going to take you up on your offer, if you are confirmed, to
continue sitting down with you as a member of the Armed
Services Committee.
I know this issue has already been addressed, but I want to
make sure that I am on the record as raising my concerns, and I
want, as I think this committee should, to give you every
opportunity to clarify and underline your point of view.
When we met privately, you emphasized your determination to
keep all options on the table with regard to Iran, including a
military strike, if Iran continues to pursue a nuclear program
in defiance of this international obligation.
We also discussed your longstanding support of Israel and
our longstanding relationship. But you have critics out there--
I do not have to tell you that--who maintain that your record
on Iran is in question, and that you are anti-Israel. These are
serious charges.
So let me direct some questions your way. Why should
Americans trust that you will consider every option when it
comes to one of the most serious national security threats
facing us today, which is Iran?
Senator Hagel. First, thank you for an opportunity to
clarify these issues. My record has been very clear on Iran.
Senator Chambliss noted from my 2008 book and my chapter,
specifically noting that I said the military option must remain
on the table. I said that as recently in an op-ed that I co-
authored last year in the Washington Post with two former U.S.
Central Command (CENTCOM) commanders.
We talked about Iran, and one of the very specific points
we bring out in that op-ed was the military option must remain
on the table along with all the other areas of effort,
expertise, diplomacy, economics, and sanctions, the President
is using, which I have already said I support.
My record is rather thorough on this, and I would continue
to support that position, and I strongly support the
President's position.
Senator Udall. Senator, talk about your view on Israel, our
relationship with Israel, how can we continue to have a special
alliance with a country with whom we share more than an
economic or political philosophy, but with a broader or moral
connection that we have to Israel?
Senator Hagel. I have said many times, just as I have said
regarding the military option on Iran many times, in my book,
speeches on the floor, interviews I have given, I am a strong
supporter of Israel. I have been. I will continue to be. I have
also said specifically, and I believe this is in my book, that
we have a special relationship with Israel.
Again, my record is pretty clear. I voted in 12 years in
the U.S. Senate for every authorization, every appropriation
that I had an opportunity to vote on for Israel. I have been to
Israel many times. I have met with their leaders many times.
So again, if you look at my record, I think my record is
pretty clear in my strong support for Israel.
Senator Udall. Senator, I heard you say when you discussed
your vote against the resolution applying to the Iranian
Revolutionary Guard, that in the end you were protecting
Congress' prerogative when it comes to declaring war. Is that
correct?
Senator Hagel. That is exactly right. That is exactly what
I was saying, and I did not say it, I guess, that way. But that
was the point. Again, I say, like I have in answering some of
the other questions, it was not a question of the objective. I
shared the objective, and I suspect all 22 members in the
Senate who voted against that resolution supported the
objective. But as Jim Webb made the case I think pretty
effectively, and Senator Webb was an individual who had rather
considerable experience in this business. He had been Secretary
of Navy under Ronald Reagan. He had been Assistant Secretary of
Defense under Ronald Reagan. One of the most decorated veterans
of Vietnam, U.S. Senator, celebrated author, lawyer. I thought
he made a pretty strong, persuasive case. So did many of us.
Senator Udall. Let us turn to cyber security. I was pleased
that you mentioned cyber security early in your initial
remarks. The Pentagon's move to significantly expand its cyber
security assets and knowledge. I have to talk about Colorado
since I represent Colorado. The Air Force Academy is well
positioned to train those new cyber security experts. We are
also the home of Space Command and U.S. Northern Command.
Would you talk a little bit more about your take on cyber
security, what we ought to be doing, what sorts of resources we
need?
Senator Hagel. Senator, you may know that I have been to
those facilities in Colorado a few times, and I do not know as
much about them as you do. But I am pretty familiar with them.
They are essential to our national security.
Cyber, I believe, represents as big a threat to the
security of this country as any one specific threat for all the
reasons this committee understands. It is an insidious, quiet
kind of a threat that we have never quite seen before. It can
paralyze a nation in a second, not just a power grid or a
banking system, but it can knock out satellites. It can take
down computers on all of our carrier battleships. It can do
tremendous damage to our national security apparatus.
That is the larger threat. But when you start defining it
down, this body, I know. I watched it, went through a pretty
agonizing 3 months at the end of 2012 trying to find a bill
that they could agree on cyber. I know, I believe, Congress
will come back at it in this new Congress. I think you must,
and you know that.
Because we have different intergovernmental authorizations
here--Department of Homeland Security, DOD--where is the
capacity? Where are the budgets? Where are the authorities?
This is law enforcement. This is privacy, business, a lot of
complications that we have really never, ever had to face
before on other national defense threats to this country.
So cyber will be an area that we will continue to focus on.
We must. It is an area that I will put high priority on if I am
confirmed to be Secretary of Defense.
Senator Udall. Senator, in the 2013 National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA), there is a provision that compels the
military to accommodate the conscience moral principles or
religious beliefs of all members of the Armed Forces. It does
sound reasonable on the surface, but I am especially concerned
that this could lead to misguided claims of a right to
discriminate against lesbian, gay, and bisexual servicemembers,
women, or persons with certain religious beliefs.
The President has said--I want to quote him--that DOD will,
``not permit or condone discriminatory actions that compromise
good order and discipline or otherwise violate military codes
of conduct''.
Will you ensure that DOD, in accommodating religious
beliefs or matters of conscience, does not tolerate
discrimination or harm to others?
Senator Hagel. Absolutely. I will faithfully, diligently
enforce our laws. All men and women deserve the same rights,
and I can assure you that will be a high priority, to enforce
that and ensure that in every way through the entire line of
chain of command and accountability.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Hagel. I look forward to
the second round of questions.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Udall. I think it is now afternoon, so good
afternoon to you, and thank you for being here.
Senator Hagel. Senator, thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Udall.
Senator Wicker.
Senator Wicker. Let me just follow up on that. Does that
mean, though, a chaplain would have to perform a same-sex
marriage, in your view, if he objected based on conscience?
Senator Hagel. I think the Pentagon regulations show,
Senator, that same-sex marriage is legal in the nine States.
Senator Wicker. No, would a chaplain be able to bow out of
that procedure based on conscience?
Senator Hagel. Certainly.
Senator Wicker. Okay.
Senator Hagel. But what we do not want, Senator Udall's
point is someone to be denied to be married in a chapel or a
facility and so on, but certainly a matter of conscience, yes.
What I am talking about is a strict interpretation of defending
the law, which defends rights.
Senator Wicker. Thank you very much for clarifying that,
and thank you for calling on me early on. We had our
conversation on January 8, and I appreciated that opportunity.
You just said that your statements over time have gotten a
lot more attention than you ever dreamed possible. I hope you
agree that is entirely appropriate in this context.
Chairman Levin mentioned in his opening statement that in
speaking your mind, you said terrible things that caused him
concern. He asked you about that. Senator Inhofe mentioned
several of your statements involved what some people feel are
policy reversals based on expediency, and so those are
concerns.
You and I talked about two of these topics during our
conversation, and one of them was with regard to sanctions
against Iran. You told me in our conversation that you opposed
unilateral sanctions because they do not work and they isolate
the United States. Indeed you had made that statement to the
Omaha paper just the day before. ``I have not supported
unilateral sanctions because when it is us alone, they do not
work and they just isolate the United States,'' in the Omaha
paper.
I will have to say that statement seems to be in direct
contradiction to your letter to Senator Boxer 1 week later when
you told her, ``I agree that with Iran's continued rejection of
diplomatic overtures, further effective sanctions, both
multilateral and unilateral, may be necessary.''
Now, a week before that you said that you have opposed them
because they do not work. Senator Levin mentioned in his
statement he disagrees that. He believes they do work. You gave
him an answer to that statement, and we have it on the record.
But let me just suggest to you, Senator, that if words have
meaning, there is no two ways about it. The statement that you
gave in the Omaha paper and that you gave to me the following
day is substantially and substantively different from what you
wrote to Senator Boxer a week later.
The Office of Secretary of Defense is one of the most
powerful positions in the country, and arguably in the world.
This official, whoever he or she is, must lead with clarity and
precision, and people around the world need to rely on the
clear meaning of the words of the Secretary of Defense.
Now, the other thing we discussed that gave me concern
during our conversation on January 8 was your statement about
the Jewish lobby. You told me that you have had apologized for
using that terminology, and you retracted the use of the term
``Jewish lobby''. What you said was the Jewish lobby
intimidates a lot of people up here. This was in an interview
that you gave to Aaron David Miller. You said, ``I've always
argued against some of the dumb things they do because I don't
think it's in the interest of Israel.''
Here is my problem with your position at this point. You
have corrected the term ``Jewish lobby,'' and I assume now the
correct term would be ``Israel lobby'' or ``Israeli lobby''. Do
you still stand by your statement that they succeed in this
town because of intimidation? That it amounts to causing us to
do dumb things, because I want to say this, Senator. You are
here today as the potential Secretary of Defense, and it would
seem to me that however you characterize them, you have
suggested that there is an effective lobby out there, whether
you call them the Jewish lobby, the Israeli lobby, or the
Israel lobby, and that they succeed in doing dumb things
through intimidation, and that U.S. policy has been the wrong
approach because the intimidation has worked.
So when you talked about the Jewish lobby, were you talking
about the American Israel Public Affairs Committee? Were you
talking about NORPAC? Were you talking about Christians United
or Israel? Do you still believe that their success in this town
is because of intimidation and that they are, as you stated,
urging upon our Government that we do dumb things?
Senator Hagel. First, I have never been accused of
political expediency. I do not do that. It probably has gotten
me in some trouble, Senator.
Second, to address the last comment, and then we will go
back sanctions. I have already said I regret referencing the
Jewish lobby. I should have said pro-Israel lobby. I think it
is the only time on the record that I have ever said that.
Now, you all have done a lot of work with my record, and,
yes, it is appropriate, by the way. Any nominee's record, what
he or she thinks, says, done, absolutely. I was on your side of
dais for 12 years, so I understand that and that
responsibility. So I do not have any problem with that. I have
already noted that I should have used another term, and I am
sorry, and I regret it.
On the use of intimidation. I should have used
``influence,'' I think would have been more appropriate. We
were talking about in that book, and you evidently read it,
Aaron David Miller's book, by the way, it is a book, ``The Much
Too Promised Land.'' He has spoken out directly over the last
few weeks, written an op-ed about my position because it has
gotten some attention as you have noted, and been quite
favorable to me, and said much of that was taken out of
context, and he was offended by it. Those were his words.
Those of you who know something about Aaron David Miller
know that he is Jewish. He is a highly respected individual who
has counseled Presidents and Secretaries of State. He also says
in that interview, which is a fairly short interview, he
mentioned that I am a strong supporter of Israel. That it is in
the interview. So I think that says something.
I should not have said ``dumb'' or ``stupid'' because I
understand, appreciate, there are different views on these
things. We were talking about Israel. We were talking about the
Middle East. We were not talking about Armenia, or Turkey, or
the banking influence, or chamber of commerce influence. That
was what the context of my comments were about.
Your point on the unilateral sanctions conversation and the
quote, a couple of points. Let us go back to the ILSA vote,
about the original ILSA vote during the Clinton administration
and connect that to a comment I made in the World Herald about
they do not work. They are ineffective. By the way, I have
already noted for the record here that I have supported and
voted for some unilateral sanctions, and I think I noted three
specific ones that I recall.
But on your specific question about the specific comment.
Just to give you an example of partly what I was talking about.
You were not in the Senate at the time. Some were. But those
who were here in the Senate might recall the EU's reaction to
that ILSA Act. I was not in the Senate when that was voted on
originally, so I did not have a vote.
But in 1998, the EU passed a resolution against the United
States and threatened to take the United States to the World
Trade Organization. As a consequence, Secretary Albright had to
get into this, and as a consequence of that, President Clinton
had to sign a waiver to allow a French oil company not to be
part of that U.S. unilateral waiver.
Now I am not suggesting United States action should be
hostage to the EU or any other country. But what I am
suggesting is many times there are consequences to these
actions. Now, every Senator has their own position on these,
exercise their own judgment as they should, and cast their own
vote. So I don't think necessarily that there was a disconnect
from what I said in The World Herald to where I have been on
international sanctions.
As to your specific point about supporting unilateral
sanctions as well as international sanctions in the letter to
Senator Boxer, it is a different situation to start with. We
already have very effective international sanctions on Iran.
Senator Wicker. Are you saying that those two statements do
not contradict each other, the one to the Omaha paper and the
one to Senator Boxer?
Senator Hagel. There are two points to it. Let me finish if
I could, Senator, thank you, my second point.
My second point is this. Where we are with Iran today, the
international sanctions that have been placed on Iran, that
puts Iran and the United States in a far different place than
where we were in 2000, or 1998, or 2001 when I did not support
the reimposition. By the way, the Bush administration did not
either. They did not want a 5-year reimposition for some of the
same reasons that I questioned that reimposition of 5 years on
ILSA.
But my point in making where we are today, connecting that
to unilateral sanctions, then we have a different situation.
Unilateral sanctions, because we have already got strong
international sanctions, should be considered. I think the
President is right to consider those. I would support that
because it is different than it was in 2001 or 1998.
Senator Wicker. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Wicker.
Senator Hagan.
Senator Hagan. Thank you. Senator Hagel, thank you for
being here. Thank you for your service to our country and the
military and your service in the U.S. Senate. I also want to
thank your wife and your family for standing with you today.
You played an important role in supporting Vietnam veterans
impacted by the exposure to Agent Orange. I have been involved
in a similar set of issues facing veterans stationed at Camp
Lejeune. They continue to search for answers about the effects
of water contamination there. As many as a million marines and
their families stationed at the base between the early 1950s
and the 1980s may have been exposed to harmful chemicals that
led to the development of cancer and other ailments.
The quest for answers in looking into this has been long.
It has been drawn out, and the recognition that men, women, and
children were dying or going broke paying out of pocket for
their treatment while they were waiting for these various
studies to be completed on the water contamination. We in
Congress took action last year. The House and the Senate passed
a bill that will provide for the treatment of veterans and
their family members through the VA.
I continue to believe that the families of those stationed
at Camp Lejeune during this time period, they deserve answers
from the U.S. Government about who was exposed to the harmful
chemicals, what impact that might have had on their health, and
what the Government knew about this exposure.
I have been fighting for answers with a group of other
committed Senators on a bipartisan basis. Along the way
progress has been held up by endless bureaucratic delays and
obstacles.
My question to you is, do you agree that these marines and
their families deserve complete answers about the water
contamination that occurred at Camp Lejeune? If confirmed, will
you pledge to work with us to overcome any bureaucratic hurdles
that may halt or delay the pursuit of answers for the affected
marines and their family members?
Senator Hagel. Thank you. You noted that we had a long
conversation about this. I committed to you in your office. I
will make that commitment in front of this committee. I will do
that.
There should never, ever be a question about the health,
and the safety, and the environment that we put our men and
women and their families in when we ask them to make sacrifices
to serve this country. I am committed to that, and we will have
further conversations.
Senator Hagan. Thank you. I know you have answered a number
of questions about Israel already today, but I do have one I
want to ask you also. There is a special and historic bond
between the United States and Israel, and I am personally
committed to Israel's security and identity as a Jewish state.
When we met earlier this week, I was pleased to hear you
say you agree and that you also support a two-state solution
and oppose any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.
We also discussed the need for a strong military and
intelligence engagement between the United States and Israel.
Just last fall I was in Israel, and I have spoken with senior
military officials from both countries, and I have continually
heard that the ties between our military and our intelligence
organizations have never been stronger.
If confirmed, do you intend to maintain this close
relationship, and do you have any ideas for how we can further
strengthen this coordination?
Senator Hagel. I would once again reaffirm the commitment
that I made to you to this committee. I absolutely support the
continuation and the strengthening of our relationship with
Israel. As been noted before, in my book, a chapter I have on
Israel, I talk about the special and historic relationship
between the United States and Israel.
It is critically important that the qualitative military
edge that we have assured Israel since 1948 be maintained and
be enhanced. The Iron Dome is I think but one example. The
latest military exercise we had with the Israelis last fall,
Austere Challenge, it was the largest military exercise between
our two countries in the history of our two countries. I think
our intelligence agencies are working closer, and are stronger
and more coordinated than ever before.
I think this President has done as much to support Israel
as any president, as I mentioned earlier, since Harry Truman,
and I would look forward to continuing to follow those policies
and enhance those policies.
Senator Hagan. Thank you. I wanted to ask a question on
sequestration. Stopping sequestration from occurring is very
important to me. In North Carolina, we have 7 military
installations, and we have over 100,000 Active Duty
servicemembers in my State. I believe that these cuts are going
to harm our national security, will impair our readiness, will
defer necessary maintenance that will help keep our troops safe
and delay important investments in research and procurement, as
well as stunt our economic recovery at this time.
I do not believe we can allow these cuts to move forward.
Congress needs to work on a bipartisan basis on a balanced plan
that will help eliminate this threat of sequestration. Also we
have to reduce our deficit and protect the critical investments
and areas in our national defense.
When we spoke earlier this week, I was pleased to hear you
say that you did not support these indiscriminate,
unprioritized cuts that sequestration would cause. If allowed
to take effect, how will sequestration impact the Department's
ability to meet the future threats and challenges?
As I shared with you, I chair the subcommittee of this
committee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities, so I am
particularly interested in your thoughts. You were commenting
earlier to Senator Udall's questions on cyber security issues,
which is obviously being considered in the Emerging Threats and
Capabilities Subcommittee.
My question is, what impact do you believe that these cuts
would have on our servicemembers and their families at home and
abroad, and in particular the cuts--the sequestration, how
would this impact areas such as cyber security and the other
areas?
Senator Hagel. First, as we have said this morning and you
know, the Chiefs have made very clear and Secretary Panetta,
there will be consequences, significant consequences to the
management of our Defense Department and our ability to have
the flexibility to make the decisions not just for the
immediate, but for the future.
When you hang that kind of uncertainty over any
institution, but especially the institution charged with
national security in our country, it is very dangerous.
Readiness is obviously the number one priority, and we will
continue to do that. The Chiefs have already started to work
through this, and I think in some of the public statements they
have made, we are preparing for that. They will be prepared. If
in the event the sequestration does take effect, we will be
ready to deal with it. But this is going to be very difficult.
We talked a little earlier here this morning about how we
are going to have to reduce training, steaming time, flying
time. But I think the American people do need to be reassured,
as I think Secretary Panetta and the Chiefs have, that the
security of this country is not going to be in jeopardy. But it
is going to be difficult, and it is going to affect longer-term
kinds of planning.
But make no mistake, if this happens, this is going to be a
severe problem.
Senator Hagan. My time is up. Thank you for your comments.
Chairman Levin. Senator Hagan, thank you so much. Now we
were going to work right through the vote that is going on now,
but we are going to take a 10-minute recess right now and come
right back. Then we are going to call on Senator Ayotte and
then Senator Manchin. They are next in line, and I urge them to
go vote and come right back.
We will now recess for 10 minutes. [Recessed.]
Chairman Levin. We will come back to order.
Senator Ayotte.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank you, Senator Hagel, for your service to our
country and for being here today in this important hearing, and
I want to thank your family as well.
Senator Hagel, I think we have established, as I understand
it from the prior questions you have been asked, in July 2001,
you were one of only two Senators to vote against extending the
Iran Sanctions Act, the sanctions in that act. That is a vote
that you have agreed that you have taken. Correct?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. Yes or no? Yes. That was when you were only
one of two Senators in the entire Senate to vote against that.
Also, in 2008, I believe you were asked you were again one
of two Senators within the Senate Banking Committee, though,
not the entire Senate, to vote against the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions Accountability Act of 2008. Is that right?
Senator Hagel. That is right.
Senator Ayotte. Okay. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Yes. I am sorry. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. Yes, thank you, Senator.
As I understand it, on October 2, 2008, Majority Leader
Harry Reid brought a similar bill to the floor. In fact, it was
called the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability Act of
2008, and he brought it to the floor on October 2, 2008. There
have been media reports that you blocked unanimous consent for
the consideration of that bill. Are those true or not?
Senator Hagel. I was one of some Republican Senators who
did not want that vote to go forward. I voted against it in the
subcommittee, and the reason I did was because the Bush
administration did not want that bill to go forward.
The reason that they didn't is because they were involved
in negotiations with the Russians in the U.N. and Security
Council members to put multilateral sanctions on Iran.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you.
But just to be clear, you did block unanimous consent of
that bill in 2008?
Senator Hagel. I was part of an effort, yes. That is right.
Senator Ayotte. Okay. Thank you.
Also, would it surprise you that an earlier version of that
sanctions bill was actually cosponsored by Secretary Kerry,
Secretary Clinton, and President Obama at the time? You were
not a cosponsor. Would that surprise you?
Senator Hagel. Well, no, not necessarily. I didn't ever
base my votes, Senator, on what everybody else thought or did.
I voted based on what I thought was right.
Senator Ayotte. Also, we, of course, the sanctions that are
in place now, that bill or its next generation passed the U.S.
Senate after you left in a vote of 99 to 0, and no one in the
Senate, in fact, voted against that. So that has been our clear
policy of the bill, really the next generation of the bill that
you blocked in the Senate.
I want to ask you also about your position with respect to
involvement in the Global Zero report. I know many people have
asked you questions about this.
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. Here is what is troubling me. You have
testified before this committee today that you have never been
for unilateral nuclear disarmament. In other words, unilateral
actions by the United States of America. Yet this report
itself, which you call an illustration, its illustration or
recommendation or however you want to frame it, is to
actually--there are many recommendations in it.
One of them is to eliminate a leg of our triad, which is
the land-based ICBMs. You would agree with that? That is the
illustration that is contained in this report, or you call it
an illustration. Is that right?
Senator Hagel. I call it an illustration, Senator, because
that is the term it used at the front end of the report.
Senator Ayotte. Well, let us----
Senator Hagel. Not a recommendation.
Senator Ayotte. Let me talk about the other terms that this
report uses because this report twice, as Senator Sessions
asked you, on page 1 and on page 16 says that the illustrations
or this example given in this report, one of which is
eliminating a leg of our nuclear triad could be implemented
unilaterally.
So here is what I am struggling with. Why would you ever
put your name on a report that is inherently inconsistent with
what you are telling us today is that you have never been for
unilateral disarmament as a possibility?
Senator Hagel. It is not inconsistent, I don't believe,
Senator. But you used the term ``could''. That is a pretty
important operative word in the report.
The report does not recommend we do these things. The
report says ``could,'' ``illustrative,'' ``scenarios,''
``possibilities''. You probably know the four other individuals
who were involved in that report, mainly General Cartwright,
former strategic commander and----
Senator Ayotte. Senator Hagel, I know we don't have a lot
of time here. I don't dispute the qualifications or the service
of the other individuals that are involved in this report. But
of all the illustrations and of all the ``coulds'' you could
pick, this report says that the President could implement these
unilaterally, although that is inconsistent with what you say
is your position. Yet you signed off on this.
This report also says of all the illustrations you could
have picked, the illustration is eliminating a leg of our
nuclear triad. One thing that troubles me is that of all the
things that this group could have picked as what you call an
illustration is a significant reduction in our nuclear
deterrent.
To me, I view that as troubling and inconsistent. One thing
I would hope you wouldn't do as Secretary of Defense is to sign
off on a report that would say something like unilateral, like
this one does, that could be implemented unilaterally that is
different than your philosophy or our policy.
Senator Hagel. As Secretary of Defense, I won't be signing
off on reports in the same way as a private citizen. Obviously,
I will have a different kind of responsibility if I am
confirmed by the Senate.
But I don't think that there is anything that also changes
my position in that report because it was a letter sent, which
you may have, to the President of the United States----
Senator Ayotte. Just so we are clear, and I am not--I don't
want to interrupt you, but we just don't have a lot of time.
Just so we are clear, you don't view what you are telling us
today and the language in this report as inconsistent?
Senator Hagel. I do not because it wasn't a recommendation.
The report also says and the authors of it says, have always
said, none of this can be any reductions unilateral, just like
any strategic arms reduction treaty that we have signed, both
Republican and Democrats have led on that, has to be bilateral,
has to be verifiable, has to be negotiated.
I have always been there, and that is where we have been on
this report.
Senator Ayotte. Okay. Thank you.
May I follow up on the discussion about containment,
nuclear containment with Iran? The first question I would have,
as you said very clearly to Senator Levin, that you believe
that a military option should be on the table with respect to
Iran. In fact, I think you said, ``I do, I have, and I strongly
agree'' in terms of that being one of the options the President
of the United States would have in addressing Iran is the
language that you said.
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Ayotte. Can you help me understand when you went to
Islamabad, Pakistan, in 2006, you said at that time that a
military strike against Iran, a military option is not a
viable, feasible, or responsible option. It strikes me as what
you are saying about the military option now seems inconsistent
with that statement.
Why would you make that statement in Pakistan that it is
not a viable, feasible, or responsible option in light of your
statement today that you do, ``I have, and I strongly agree''
that a military option should be on the table?
Senator Hagel. That statement was made in the context of
all options regarding Iran, and Pakistan was where I was at the
time. The larger context of that was nuclear powers, which
certainly Pakistan is part of that club.
Not unlike what Secretary Gates said about a strike on
Iran, my point was that this would not be a preferable option.
There would be consequences to this option. Things would happen
as a result of it.
If we could find a better option, a better way to deal with
Iran to assure they do not get nuclear weapons, then we are far
better off. That was the context of that statement.
Senator Ayotte. Senator Hagel, I know that my time is up,
and I know we will have an opportunity for a second round of
questions. But as I see your quote, it didn't say preferable
option. It said it was not a responsible option. I view those
words as having a very different meaning.
So I look forward to following up in the subsequent round
of questioning. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, thank you so much and your family for your
service and for putting your services on the line for us. I
appreciate it very much.
I would like to say this. You and I have not known each
other before. I never had the pleasure of serving with you,
which I wish I would have. We had a great conversation. You
bring a breath of fresh air, truly a breath of fresh air to
this process in a bipartisan way. Having two great Senators
sitting by your side--one a Democrat, one a Republican--that
basically support you wholeheartedly speaks volumes in the
toxic process that we have today.
With that being said, also everyone has been so fixated on
your past, what you have said, and I think I have come to learn
in the very short time I have been a Senator that this town and
this process and this body has become almost a guilt by
conversation. With that being said, I respect you being the
person being able to say what you thought needed to be said.
You voted the way you thought you should be voting for your
constituents and your country, and you weren't really driven by
your party or by any pressure groups.
I can't tell you how much I wish I would have served with
you. Sometimes I feel very lonely.
With all that being said, sir, we are asked to consider you
as a part of the Cabinet. Is there anything that would lead us
to believe that you wouldn't follow the orders that were given?
Senator Hagel. No. I understand clearly the
responsibilities of the Secretary of Defense. As I said in my
opening statement, those responsibilities are very serious. I
don't know of many jobs that are more serious, and I would
obviously always make every decision for the Defense Department
and my advice to the President based on only one thing, and
that is the security of this country.
Senator Manchin. I looked back at your record. You and I
come from the same era. We are very close in age, and I
remember the Vietnam era very well. That, I think, shaped all
of us to a certain extent of how we looked after, post-Vietnam,
of how we would have looked at it if we would have known what
we knew before.
I am sure that kind of guided you as you looked at this,
Iraq, and I saw the information that we were given. If I had
been a Senator, probably I might have voted also, like many
people that were misled.
But after having seen 5 or 6 years of that unfortunate
scenario play out, the surge, and I know where you are coming
from, would you say that your experiences in Vietnam and
looking at basically what sometimes our misguided mission had
been shaped a lot of your positions today?
Senator Hagel. There is no question that as I have said
this morning, that my experience in Vietnam very much guided
the questions. I think I noted a couple of times in my opening
statement that it was one fundamental question that I always
asked, was the policy worthy of the men and women that we are
asking to make the sacrifices?
I know there are differences of opinion. You mentioned
Iraq. You mentioned the surge. My positions there were very
much guided by, well, what is the political purpose of the
surge?
Senator Manchin. Right.
Senator Hagel. Where do we go from here? Yes, you put
35,000 more American troops in an area for a sustained period
of time or more on top of more than 100,000 we already had
there, you will have a tactical victory. But there will be a
cost for that victory.
That is what always guided me. Do we understand the costs?
Are we prepared to make those costs in lives? Then where was
the bigger answer here? Where were we going with the surge? How
was this going to take us, advance us to where we needed to go,
and where did we think we needed to go?
So, yes, those experiences did shape my questions.
Senator Manchin. I appreciate that. Let me just say that as
speaking of now, what we deal with and the concerns that people
had with your nomination, the support of Israel, I have no
doubt in my mind your support of Israel as our greatest ally
and would always be there. I think you have answered that. I
think we all feel very comfortable with that.
Also your commitment that Iran should not under any
circumstance have the ability to have a nuclear weapon, and I
appreciate that position very much.
Where we go with the strength of our Army if we have our
military might in DOD, the National Guard, how does the
National Guard play in your role of thinking of what they
should be doing and what they could be doing?
Senator Hagel. The National Guard now has a chair at the
table with the Joint Chiefs. General Grass represents the
National Guard effectively, a new chief. But their role will
continue to be important, as will the Reserves.
I think we saw over the last 12 years of war how important
our National Guard is and the Reserves. We could not have
conducted those two wars without the National Guard and
Reserves. I think that has professionalized both Services. They
are going to continue to be necessary. They are important.
Their training, their credibility, their leadership, that
is obviously why the decision was made to assure their
representation with the Joint Chiefs, and I strongly support
the National Guard and Reserves.
Senator Manchin. Personnel, I think that Senator McCaskill
touched on things I am very concerned about. Every time I hear
about the sequestering and people tell me that if we do a
sequestering it could destroy our ability to defend ourselves
and have the military might that we do.
Now I don't see that whatsoever, and I followed the
statistics. I followed all the post-war eras from starting with
Korea and Vietnam, Cold War, and where we are today. This will
be the least amount of money that we have asked to draw down
under any post-war time. But yet everyone is hollering that it
will be devastating.
I know there is a way to do that, but the contracting. We
are having a hard time getting our hands around the
contracting, the cost of contracting, the ability for people in
the contracting world to be reimbursed by over $700,000, almost
twice what the President gets paid. Some of these things, would
you embrace working with us and sitting down and looking and
embracing an audit?
Myself and Senator Tom Coburn have had legislation asking
for a complete audit of DOD. Your thoughts on those two things,
sir?
Senator Hagel. Of course, I will, and as I have noted this
morning, I am committed to do that. I will do it.
Accountability is a primary responsibility of any
institution or organization. That is clearly in the purview of
Congress. We have to do it. We have to improve on the process.
We talked a little bit this morning about the astounding
amount of waste, fraud, and abuse the Inspector General,
Special Inspectors General both in Iraq and Afghanistan have
found. I am committed, as I have said, to assure that we make
that deadline of 2017 on the audits, and I will work with you
closely on that.
Senator Manchin. My time is up, and one thing I want to
state that we talked about in my office is the commitment to
help our returning veterans get jobs. The Jobs Caucus, ``I Hire
a Vet,'' it is so important. I appreciate your support for
that. I look forward to working with you that we can put more
of our vets back to work when they come home and get them back
into mainstream America.
Thank you, sir. I look forward to voting for you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Inhofe.
Good afternoon, Senator. It is good to see you again.
Senator Hagel. Thanks.
Senator Fischer. I want to begin by thanking you for your
service to our country and to the State of Nebraska. I do
appreciate your continued willingness to serve the United
States.
But I need to be honest with you. After our meeting last
week, I still have some concerns about your nomination. Many of
my colleagues are concerned that you have changed your views,
and I share that concern. But I must admit that I am more
worried that your views have not changed.
From your meeting with me last week, it was clear that you
maintain the views that have led to so much scrutiny of your
nomination. Despite these recent claims to the contrary, you
continue to hold, I believe, extreme views far to the left of
even this administration.
In particular, your clear statement to me during our
meeting that if given the opportunity to recast your vote on
the Iranian sanctions, you would still oppose those sanctions.
I believe that indicates that you hold these concerning views.
Our Nation faces many challenges, perhaps none greater or
more immediate than Iran's continued progress towards obtaining
nuclear weapons. At the same time, DOD is entering a period of
transformation that will likely define its role for many
decades to come. The future of our nuclear deterrent could
depend on our choices made by the next Secretary of Defense.
I am going to bring up the report that we have heard about
quite a bit. You are listed as a coauthor of that May 2012
Global Zero report on our nuclear posture. I believe there is a
recommendation in there, and I believe that the recommendation
is to drastically reduce the U.S. nuclear forces.
When we spoke last week, you described this report as being
authored by General Cartwright. I had the impression, and I
believe you implied to me, that you weren't closely affiliated
with it. But you are listed as a coauthor of that report, as
one of the five coauthors.
Moreover, you told me at that time that this report
discussed options. You have reiterated that stance today. But
after I have reexamined it once again, the only options that I
have found in the report are related to how best achieve those
drastic reductions that I believe it advises. There are no
alternative views or dissenting opinions that are presented or
discussed in the report.
It states many controversial opinions. It states them as
facts in support of its conclusion, and I believe it is
important to determine whether or not you agree with those
positions. As it has been said before, my time here is limited,
and so I would like to quickly go through and review some of
those more concerning proclamations that it makes with you. I
would appreciate if we could kind of go through this quickly.
For example, the U.S. ICBM force has lost its central
utility. That is stated in the report. Do you agree with that?
Senator Hagel. Senator, that report was not a
recommendation. That report, as we have said, was a series of
scenarios. Again, I use the term ``illustrative'' because that
was the beginning of the report as possible ways we could
continue to reduce our warheads. Not unilaterally, but
bilaterally.
Every treaty we have ever signed to reduce warheads and the
thrust capability with the Russians has been about reduction.
So that is not new. That is where it has always been.
But ICMBs, your specific question, it is a 25-page report.
I assume you have read it. It talked about one of the reasons
ICBMs may well eventually be insignificant because of the
overflight over Russia and so on. Now those aren't fictional
analyses. Those are facts.
Now no one is recommending in that report--and you probably
know General Cartwright. When he was in Omaha, you probably got
acquainted with him. These are serious people who understand
this business, and no one is recommending that we unilaterally
do away with our ICBMs.
What that report was about was looking at where this is all
going. Again, the title of the report was ``Modernizing Our
Nuclear Strategy,'' not eliminating it.
Senator Fischer. Correct. But do you agree with the
statement made in the report that the ICBMs, that force has
lost its central utility?
Senator Hagel. That is not what the report said.
Senator Fischer. I have it--I have it cited, Senator. With
respect, I can enter that into the record. But it is cited in
the report.
Senator Hagel. The report, in the overall context, ICBMs
and all of the parts of that report were about the utilities of
our triad, where is this going, and the money that we are
investing in it, and we have to look at it. I think those kinds
of reports are valuable to assess our needs, to assess our
nuclear capability, to assess our nuclear deterrent.
I mean, we do studies all the time. This was not an
official report from an official government. Think tanks do
this all the time. I think that is valuable.
Now whether policymakers----
Senator Fischer. Excuse me. I, too, think that reports from
various organizations--think tanks, individuals, groups--I
think those are all very important in getting information and
opinions out there. But when you coauthor a report, I think you
should be able to answer if you agree with statements that are
made in the report.
Senator Hagel. I do not agree with any recommendation that
would unilaterally take any action to further reduce our
nuclear warheads on our capability. But again, that is not what
the report said.
But I do not agree with that. Every option that we must
look at, every action we must take to reduce warheads or
anything should be bilateral. It should be verifiable. It
should be negotiated.
Senator Fischer. Every action that this country takes needs
to be bilateral?
Senator Hagel. I didn't say that. I said in nuclear
capabilities in our warheads. When we are talking about
reducing warheads, as every treaty we have signed with the
Russians has been bilateral. It has been verifiable.
Ronald Reagan said it best, ``Trust, but verify''. I think
that is the key word. He also said, as I said this morning, we
should wipe nuclear weapons from the face of the Earth.
I think almost every President has agreed with that,
including, by the way, this President, who has seen this
report. World leaders do agree with the continued reduction,
and this is not a report that is out of the mainstream at all.
President Obama has said in his Prague speech in 2009 that that
was his goal, as Ronald Reagan did, as many Presidents did.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
If I could continue on this vein of questioning, please?
Also, as I read the report, it calls for all U.S. tactical
nuclear weapons to be eliminated over the next 10 years and
asserts that their military utility is practically nil.
Do you agree with that statement?
Senator Hagel. Senator, I don't believe it calls for that.
These are scenarios and schedules and possibilities and
options. But none of this could ever, ever happen unless it
would be negotiated, bilateral, and verifiable. That was part
of a letter that the Global Zero growth group sent to the
President in 2009 specifically stating that.
If I might give you a more recent example of that. Senator
Feinstein's subcommittee----
Senator Fischer. Just a quick one, please.
Senator Hagel.--had a hearing on this last year. In that
hearing, and the committee can get the transcript if it doesn't
have it, General Cartwright and Ambassador Pickering testified.
They went into this, that this is all, everything with any
action we would take would have to be negotiated. It would have
to be bilateral. No unilateral action.
They made that point again on the record in front of
Senator Feinstein's subcommittee. I support that. I agree with
that.
Senator Fischer. I have another statement from the report.
The U.S. ICBM rapid reaction posture remains in operation and
runs a real risk of accidental or mistaken launch.
I think that statement is pretty clear. Do you agree with
that?
Senator Hagel. Yes. I mean, I think accidental launches and
those kinds of things are always to be concerned about. We need
to assure, as we have over the years, that that doesn't happen,
both on the Russian side----
Senator Fischer. That we run a real risk of accidental or
mistaken launch?
Senator Hagel. Well, you take ``real'' out. You could just
put risk. But there is always a risk. I mean, when we are
talking about nuclear weapons and the consequences, you don't
get a lot of second chances. We need to be very sure about
these things, and I think that was the whole point.
Chairman Levin. I think you need to save any additional
questions for the second round, if you would today.
Senator Fischer. Oh, I am sorry. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. You may not have gotten a card. I am sorry
if you didn't.
Senator Fischer. Oh, thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer.
Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Hagel, for testifying today.
I appreciate that you have brought your family with you. I
appreciate the support of your wife.
I am going to submit several questions for the record
because they are important to me as the Senator from New York,
particularly about New York bases, cybersecurity, and children
of military families with disabilities. But today, I want to
focus on the most urgent issues from my perspective. I want to
talk more about your thoughts on Israel and Israel's security.
I want to talk about Afghanistan, and I want to talk about
personnel issues.
On Israel. Obviously, our relationship with Israel is
tremendously important to Israel, and we are fundamentally tied
to them because of being such a strong democracy in the Middle
East and having our national securities very much being tied in
many ways.
We talked quite a bit about Iran, and you have clarified
your position that containment is not an option. I am concerned
about a statement you said with regard to Iran. A nuclear Iran
is an existential threat to the United States, as well as
Israel. The Iranian Government has been responsible for the
deaths of U.S. servicemembers, an attempted attack on U.S.
soil, and the funding, training of terrorist groups.
Their latest in a long list of direct threats to Israel
came just today. I want to make sure that in your statement
earlier today with regard to whether Iran is legitimate, I can
understand if you meant it is a legal entity that has
international relations and has diplomatic relations and is a
member of the U.N. But I do not see Iran or the Iranian
Government as a legitimate government, and I would like your
thoughts on that.
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Senator.
What I meant to say, should have said, it is recognizable.
It has been recognized, is recognized at the United Nations.
Most of our allies have embassies there. That is what I should
have said, and thank you.
Senator Gillibrand. You are welcome.
With regard to Israel, Israel's security is very important,
and I have been one of the strongest advocates for our
alliance, fighting for more increases in missile defense
cooperation as well as coordination on a number of the
technology programs that are fundamental to Israel's security.
Last year, Iron Dome more than proved itself as missiles
from Gaza continually headed towards Israel. In December,
Ranking Member Inhofe and I successfully pushed for full
funding of the U.S.-Israel cooperative missile defense systems.
Will you personally support robust funding for Iron Dome,
David's Sling, and other programs? If we have to have a
Continuing Resolution, the funding for Iron Dome will be well
below the authorized amount for fiscal year 2013. In such a
case, will you recommend either reprogramming other funds or
sending forth an anomaly budget requesting to fully cover our
commitment to this program?
Senator Hagel. First, I fully support and will continue to
fully support Iron Dome and Arrow and David's Sling. As to a
commitment to the second part of your question, I would have to
better understand what our restrictions are going to be in our
budgets before I could make any decisions like that, and I
would have to talk with our Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and
each of the chiefs and want to better understand, depending on
how bad and deep this sequestration might get.
But make no mistake. It is clearly a priority program. I
believe we will continue to fund it. We should. I will support
the continuing funding.
Senator Gillibrand. I hope you will also be a strong
advocate because our budget is, even under sequestration,
significant. This is a very high priority certainly for me.
Senator Hagel. If I am confirmed, we will work together, as
I will with this committee, on this and other issues.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
A number of members were just in Egypt, and we met with
President Morsi. Obviously, we are very concerned about the
Sinai becoming a route for arms coming straight from Libya
going to terrorist groups. We, obviously, are very concerned
about we give $1.2 billion to Egypt in aid, and we want to
figure out if there is a way to put some of those funds towards
more anti-terrorism missions as opposed to the typical
technology.
Do you have any thoughts on that and what we can do to
really try to assist in cracking down on the weapons trade?
Senator Hagel. It is a huge challenge and part of obviously
what allows terrorists, extremists to advance their cause.
Maritime security, piracy issues, I mentioned in my opening
statement that is all part of why we need to rebalance
resources and why we need the kind of flexible, agile resource
base--in particular our Navy--to be able to do this.
It also is going to continue to take cooperation with our
allies. We can't do this alone. As good as our intelligence is,
the best in the world, best military in the world, we are the
largest, wealthiest country in the world. But we have to work
with allies, and we have to find that through intelligence
before it gets beyond the capacity to be used to do damage
against the interests of this country and our allies.
Senator Gillibrand. As Israel is one of our most important
allies, one of the growing risks we have now is Syria,
particularly chemical weapons being not properly locked down.
There is concern, and obviously with what happened yesterday, I
suspect that there has been very close cooperation between our
militaries on contingency plans with respect to Syria's
chemical weapons. But will this be something that you can focus
your concern on because of your past statements about the
Israel-Hezbollah war in 2006?
Is this something that you will also commit to and keeping
this alliance strong and making sure we have a strong
contingency plan with regard to any chemical weapons coming out
of Syria?
Senator Hagel. Yes. By the way, I have said on the record
many times that Hezbollah and Hamas are terrorist groups, and I
have said many times on the record that Iran is a state sponsor
of terrorism. So, yes, I am committed to do that and will do
that.
Senator Gillibrand. Okay. For my last minute, with regard
to Afghanistan, we have heard your views, and you didn't give a
specific statement about how many troops when. But will you, in
your capacity as Secretary of Defense, advise the President
that we should be drawing down troops sooner rather than later?
Senator Hagel. I think he has made that pretty clear that
he wants to do that. If I am confirmed, I will need to better
understand all the dimensions of this. I don't know all those
dimensions. I think that there is little question that--and I
support completely where the President wants to go in
Afghanistan and his commitment to unwind that war.
As we have said, there should be, there will be. He has
noted that he will, in fact, enforce a new policy and new
relationship based on a limited objective for our troops there,
and I support that.
Senator Gillibrand. My last question that I will submit
more for the record, but you and I talked at length about it.
Obviously, the personnel of our military is our most important
asset, and when we hear reports that there are upwards of
19,000 sexual assaults in the military against women, it is
unacceptable.
We also have finally repealed ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''.
But it is difficult for a military spouse to even go to the
commissary and be on base or be notified if a spouse is killed
in action. I will need a strong commitment from you that you
will treat our military families and look after them in the way
you would look after your own.
I want you to be concerned about every man and woman in the
military, that their well-being is being looked after, and see
real advocacy and leadership. Not status quo. Not implementing
whatever we put forward. But actually fighting for them every
single day.
Senator Hagel. You have my complete commitment on that. I
have made that commitment to, I think, all members of the
committee that I have spoken to directly and privately.
Again, I mentioned that point in my opening statement, you
will recall. I think I have a pretty clear record on that in my
life. I will continue to do that, will do that, and I agree it
is not good enough just to say zero tolerance. The whole chain
of command needs to be accountable for this, all the way down
to the bottom. So I will.
Senator Gillibrand. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Gillibrand.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, congratulations on your appointment. You are
a good, honest man, and I really appreciate your willingness to
serve the country in the past and be willing to do so in the
future.
What percentage of the gross domestic product do we spend
on defense?
Senator Hagel. We are, I think, it is probably 5 percent
now in that area in our budget, our discretionary budget----
Senator Graham. Is that historically high or low?
Senator Hagel. I think generally depends on real dollars
and wars, but--
Senator Graham. Are we at war?
Senator Hagel. We are at war in Afghanistan. We are at war
around the world with active threat----
Senator Graham. So you agree with me we are at war in
Afghanistan? We are at war around the world. So when you look
at spending on defense, every Senator should be aware of the
fact we are still at war. Do you agree with that?
Senator Hagel. I am sorry. What is your question?
Senator Graham. Do you agree that every Senator, every
Member of Congress should be wide-eyed and understanding that
when you vote on a defense budget we are at war?
Senator Hagel. Yes, I do.
Senator Graham. Okay. Thank you.
Now let us talk a little bit about statements you made. You
have explained this a bit. You said, ``The Jewish lobby
intimidates a lot of people up here. I am not an Israeli
senator. I am a U.S. Senator. This pressure makes us do dumb
things at times.''
You have said the Jewish lobby should not have been--that
term shouldn't have been used. It should have been some other
term. Name one person, in your opinion, who is intimidated by
the Israeli lobby in the U.S. Senate.
Senator Hagel. Well, first----
Senator Graham. Name one.
Senator Hagel. I don't know.
Senator Graham. Well, why would you say it?
Senator Hagel. I didn't have in mind a specific----
Senator Graham. First, do you agree it is a provocative
statement? That I can't think of a more provocative thing to
say about the relationship between the United States and Israel
and the Senate or Congress than what you said.
Name one dumb thing we have been goaded into doing because
of the pressure from the Israeli or Jewish lobby.
Senator Hagel. I have already stated that I regret the
terminology I used.
Senator Graham. But you said back then it makes us do dumb
things. You can't name one Senator intimidated. Now give me one
example of the dumb things that we are pressured to do up here.
Senator Hagel. We were talking in that interview about the
Middle East, about positions, about Israel. That is what I was
referring to.
Senator Graham. So give me an example of where we have been
intimidated by the Israeli/Jewish lobby to do something dumb
regarding the Mideast, Israel, or anywhere else.
Senator Hagel. Well, I can't give you an example.
Senator Graham. Thank you.
Do you agree with me you shouldn't have said something like
that?
Senator Hagel. Yes, I do. I have already said that.
Senator Graham. Now do you agree with me that Hezbollah is
a terrorist organization?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Graham. Now, in 2006, you were 1 of 12 Senators who
refused to sign the letter to the EU asking them to designate
Hezbollah as a terrorist organization for the purposes of the
EU sanctioning Hezbollah. Why were you 1 of 12 who refused to
sign that letter?
Senator Hagel. Because I have generally had a policy during
my time in the Senate that I didn't think it was the right
approach for the Congress of the United States to be sending
leaders any instructions or any documents versus letting our
President do that. As I have already stated----
Senator Graham. Why did you sign the letter to Bill
Clinton, urging him to deal with the Russians when it comes to
their policy against Jewish people?
Senator Hagel. Because I think that is the appropriate
approach because I think it is our President who conducts
foreign policy.
Senator Graham. All I could suggest to you is that when a
letter is presented to a U.S. Senator about the times in which
we live in, you can't write one letter and not write the other
and, in my view, be consistent.
The letter was urging the EU to impose sanctions on
Hezbollah, and you have been a big believer that we shouldn't
go it alone. We shouldn't do it unilaterally. Why in the world
wouldn't you take this chance to urge the EU to go ahead and
sanction Hezbollah because it may help the world at large deal
with this terrorist organization? Your answer is you just don't
think we should be writing letters?
Senator Hagel. That wasn't my answer. My answer was I think
the President of the United States is the appropriate
official----
Senator Graham. So Congress has no interest at all in
whether or not the EU would designate Hezbollah as a terrorist
organization? Do you think that is our role up here, that we
should just stay out of those things?
Senator Hagel. Congress has an interest and responsibility
in all things. But I----
Senator Graham. Okay. I got you. Apparently not there.
Now let me ask you this about the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard. You said just a minute ago you think they are a
terrorist organization. Do you agree with that?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Graham. Okay. You voted against the amendment
designating them a terrorist organization because you thought
we would be going down the wrong road by doing that because
they are a recognized state. Iran, you wouldn't want to
designate the army of a recognized state as a terrorist
organization?
Senator Hagel. I said that Iran is a state sponsor of
terrorism. I also just clarified a statement on Iran being a
recognized nation by the United Nations, by most world bodies.
The reason again, I will explain it again, why I did not vote,
as 22 other members did----
Senator Graham. Right.
Senator Hagel.--because I think Jim Webb's argument was a
strong argument, and that was we have never--this is what he
said on the floor--designated part of a government as a
terrorist organization. Thereby what his concern was, as was
mine and other Senators who voted against it, would this be
then tantamount to giving the President of the United States
authority from Congress to take military action against Iran?
Senator Graham. I got you. Now let me just ask you this. Do
you believe that the sum total of all of your votes--refusing
to sign a letter to the EU asking Hezbollah to be designated a
terrorist organization, being 1 of 22 to not vote to designate
the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, being
one of two on two occasions to vote against sanctions that this
body was trying to impose on Iran, the statements you have made
about Palestinians and about the Jewish lobby--all that
together, that the image you have created is one of sending the
worst possible signal to our enemies and friends at one of the
most critical times in world history?
Senator Hagel. No, I would not agree with that because I
have taken actions and made statements very clear as to what I
believed Hezbollah and Hamas are as terrorist organizations. In
fact, Senator----
Senator Graham. If you there was a vote on the floor of the
Senate this afternoon to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard,
the people who have killed our soldiers in Iraq, some of the
most vicious people to the people of Iran themselves, if there
were a vote tomorrow or this afternoon or after lunch, would
you still vote no?
Senator Hagel. Well, I would want to know from the
President what they were doing, but again----
Senator Graham. I mean, you read the paper. You watch TV.
You have any doubt what they are doing? They are expanding
terrorism. They are trying to intimidate their own people. They
are the instrument of the theocracy to oppress their own
people, and they are the biggest supporter of the regime
keeping them in power so then they can get a nuclear weapon.
If you had a chance tomorrow, today, after lunch to vote to
say that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard was a terrorist
organization, would you still vote no?
Senator Hagel. Well, the reason I voted no to start with
began with the same----
Senator Graham. Well, I know why. You told me that. My
question is----
Senator Hagel. That hasn't changed.
Senator Graham.--would you reconsider, and would you vote
yes this time, or would you still vote no?
Senator Hagel. Well, times change. I recognize that, and
yes, I would reconsider. But the whole theory----
Senator Graham. Well, thank you. That is encouraging.
My time is up, but we will have another round.
Senator Inhofe said that you were one of four Senators who
refused to sign a letter in October. The first paragraph says,
``We write to you to express our solidarity with the State of
Israel at this moment of crisis and our profound disappointment
and frustration with Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman
Arafat and the Palestinian Authority. We are dismayed that they
would allow violence by Palestinians to be carried out without
restraint or comment.''
This was when the Intifada was being raging, and Senator
Inhofe, led by Daschle and Lott, wanted a letter from every
member of this body to clearly put us on record that we believe
Arafat and the Intifada is undercutting the agreements they had
reached and that they had resorted to violence to intimidate
the Israeli Government and people in a way that was just
absolutely unacceptable.
If you had a chance to do it over, would you sign this
letter now? I am going to give it to you during whatever break
we have and ask you to reconsider. I would ask you, Senator
Hagel, to tell the country, the world at large, particularly
the State of Israel, you made a mistake by not signing that
letter.
Senator Hagel. Who is the letter to?
Senator Graham. I think it goes to the President. Is that
who it was to? It was the President.
Senator Hagel. I will look at it. I don't recall the
letter, and I will look at it and give you an answer.
Senator Graham. All I can say, it was a very big deal at a
very important time. The lack of signature by you runs chills
up my spine because I can't imagine not signing a letter like
that at a time when it really mattered.
We will continue this conversation. Thank you.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

The four Senators who did not sign this letter are:

Spencer Abraham, R-MI
Robert Byrd, D-WV
Judd Gregg, R-NH
Chuck Hagel, R-NE

Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
We now will go to Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to join, Senator Hagel, in thanking you for your
service, thanking your family, and expressing appreciation not
only to you for your service in uniform, but also afterward to
our veterans, which people may not appreciate as much as they
do your military service, but I think is every bit as important
to our Nation.
I just want to say about that letter, I wasn't here when
the letter was circulated. I would have signed it, but I would
certainly join in urging that you reconsider and commit to the
statement of support in the letter for the State of Israel. If
it is appropriate now and applicable to today's events, I hope
you will consider expressing your support for it.
I noted in your opening statement that no single quote and
no single vote define you in the entirety, and perhaps not as a
whole, but votes and quotes do matter. I think that the
questions about what you have said and what you have done in
the past are entirely appropriate, and I think also
reconsidering or your views evolving is also appropriate.
I am going to be submitting questions on some of the topics
that you have heard. You and I have discussed some of these
questions. I might say your private meetings with members of
this body have been very productive and effective, as you have
seen in some of the comments that have been expressed here. So,
the more we hear from you, I think the better you do on many of
these issues.
I want to begin by talking about one issue that concerns
our veterans, and particularly our Vietnam veterans. Many
Vietnam veterans in Connecticut and around the country received
less than honorable discharge as a result of conduct that was a
direct consequence of post-traumatic stress (PTS), at a time
PTS was not a term, not diagnosed, not treated.
But they have to live with the consequences of a less than
honorable discharge. They have to live with fewer benefits
often. I would like a commitment from you that DOD will
reevaluate and revisit perhaps some of those individual cases
as well as its general policies to take account of the fact
that we now know that many of those veterans during the Vietnam
era suffered from PTS or related kinds of injuries.
Senator Hagel. You have my commitment to do everything I
can about that. I understand the issue pretty well, been
working on this issue long before I actually ever got to the
Senate. So I will.
Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
I would like the same kind of commitment that you have
expressed very persuasively on the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't
Tell'' on the issue of sexual assaults. This issue bedevils the
military. I don't know whether you have seen an excellent
documentary called ``The Invisible War''?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Blumenthal. I know you are familiar with this
issue. I commend you for what you have said to me privately,
and I would ask that your commitment not only to the
prosecution and holding accountable people who are involved in
this criminal conduct, but also to the victims so that they
receive the kind of services that in the civilian world many of
them do through victim's advocates in the courts and similar
kinds of roles played.
So both to prosecution--effective, vigorous, zealous--but
also to protection of the victims. Can you commit to that?
Senator Hagel. Absolutely, I will commit to that, yes.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. On the strategic issues, I wonder if I
could talk to you for a moment about submarines, which you and
I discussed privately briefly. DOD, the Joint Chiefs, and the
President have all committed to an Ohio-class replacement
program that consists of a fleet of 12, starting no later than
2031.
The Global Zero report settled on a lower number, 10. I
strongly believe that the cost will increase, the cost per
submarine, and that we will be at severe risk, for reasons that
you may well understand, although we can't really discuss them
in detail here because I think they may be classified. I would
like a commitment that you are committed as well to a fleet of
12 Ohio-class replacement submarines.
Senator Hagel. On that issue, I would want to talk with our
Chief of Naval Operations to get a better understanding of our
budget. I can tell you this. I am committed completely to
modernizing our Navy and everything it includes and will
require. I will give you that commitment.
Senator Blumenthal. I am sure you know that the Ohio-class
replacement program is really the cornerstone of our nuclear
deterrence.
Senator Hagel. I do.
Senator Blumenthal. Vital to our national security, but it
requires clear leadership and support from the next Secretary
of Defense. I hope you will perhaps come back to us on that
issue.
Senator Hagel. I will. You and I will be discussing this, I
am sure, many times if I am confirmed. So thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Going to the Virginia-class submarines, the next multiyear
purchase, known as Block IV, envisions 10 submarines. There is
a threat that it could be reduced to nine. For reasons related
to both cost and national security, I think that number should
be 10.
The intent and spirit of the last NDAA was that it should
be 10, and I would like to ask you, similarly, for your
commitment that there will be 2 submarines for 2014 and that
the program continues to be viable at the level of 10.
Senator Hagel. Senator, I will commit to what we have
committed to carry out what we need to fund and develop and
build in order to maintain the kind of modern Navy we are going
to require. Those submarines, as you note, are cornerstones to
that security.
Senator Blumenthal. They are absolutely vital cornerstones,
essential building blocks to our national security as we move
to the Pacific-Asia theater and seek to advance our interests
there. They have the intelligence, reconnaissance, and
surveillance capability as well as, as you well know,
counterterrorism, the importance. I hope that that effort will
continue, and I appreciate your commitment.
Let me just finish with a question that I think goes back
to the contracting area where you were asked questions before.
Senator Ayotte and I, in a trip led by Senator McCain, recently
visited Afghanistan and were briefed--and I am going to try to
make this question brief--about the continuing corruption in
the Afghanistan Government. Deeply troubling and even shocking.
But equally so is the waste of American taxpayer dollars in
part because of the procedural roadblock to enforcement of
section 841. I am not going to quiz you on 841. So you can take
a deep breath there. But 841 is designed to protect American
tax dollars from corrupt contracts that, in fact, go to benefit
the enemy.
We are working revisions that will make more effective the
procedures for terminating those contracts, getting back
American dollars, extending those protections to nondefense
dollars, and I hope that we can have your commitment as well to
work with us on that area.
Senator Hagel. You have my commitment, and I will
enthusiastically work with you on this area.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. I appreciate your frank and forthright
answers, and I don't know whether I will be here for the second
round of questioning, but I want to express my sincere
gratitude to you for your willingness to serve and your
patience and forthrightness in answering all our questions.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Hagel, thank you for being here today. Thank you
for your service to the country in so many ways and your
willingness to serve again. To see your wife and your brothers
there behind you is an indication of the family commitment as
well as your personal commitment.
There are several things that I may get to in a second
round on Iran and sanctions. I was very involved in that
unilateral sanctions effort when I was in the House of
Representatives. We drafted some of that legislation in my
office when I was in the House.
Our relationship with Israel is of great concern to me, and
it is a priority to our efforts in the Middle East. I think
that is largely exhausted in this first round, at least from my
point of view. I may want to come back to some of it later.
I want to talk a little bit about the ongoing structure of
the force. The Wall Street Journal in an editorial today said
that the current American military was the smallest, least
modern, and least battle-ready in recent memory.
I don't think that means we are not maybe more modern than
anybody else in the world or more battle ready than anybody
else in the world. But I think that is a recognition that our
investment and the way we have used those resources has gotten
them in a position where we maybe need to be more focused on
rebuilding than we do building down.
Secretary Panetta has been very forthcoming in his comments
about the sort of across-the-board cutting approach of
sequestration. What do we do to get our worn-out equipment and
our worn-out personnel in a better position a year from now
than they are right now? Your brief strategic view of that
because I don't have very much time here.
Senator Hagel. Yes. Senator, you have just identified one
of the priorities of the next few years at DOD. Resetting
equipment and essentially reshaping our force structure, but
also renewing our force structure.
The fact is we have been at war for 12 years. Every Senator
here knows and you have constituents that we keep sending these
kids back and back and back to two wars. Of course, there is
going to be a consequence. Something is going to break down,
not only your equipment, but your manpower. You can't keep
doing that.
So that is going to be an overall challenge, Senator, that
is going to take as much of my time, if I am confirmed, as
anything, as it will our Chiefs. Our Chiefs know this better
than anyone, as we structure, rebalance, renew, and re-outfit.
We have, I believe, a force structure that is as capable as
ever. I don't accept that our force structure is somehow behind
or not modern or not capable. I don't think that is true.
Senator Blunt. I think the point that the editorial was
making was not that we were behind, but we are not at the quite
as far on the cutting edge as we may have been. I would hope
you and I would both want to see us get there.
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Blunt. Let me ask a question about that. Secretary
Gates said recently that one of his big concerns was that we
repeat the mistakes of what I think he referred to as a
``procurement holiday'' that we took in the 1970s and then, to
some extent, again in the 1990s. We spent a lot of time in the
10 years after that trying to get built back up to where we had
hoped to be.
How, in these discussions of cutting, do we keep the lines
open, do we keep our effort ongoing? One of the things that I
know quite a bit about is the F-18 line because it is in St.
Louis, MO, where Boeing Military is. I do know that if you ever
close that line down, we are always talking about, well, what
other country needs some version of this, and how do we keep
our capacity at a time when there is this talk about cutting
and not just cutting, but sort of cutting everything a little
bit, which means that some of the things that get cut a little
bit I think disappear because they can't survive if they are
only partly there.
Senator Hagel. Senator, you have just again identified one
of the great challenges that lies ahead, and that is
maintaining our industrial base. You use the F-18.
Senator Blunt. There are lots of other lines. That just
happens to be the one I have been on the most times.
Senator Hagel. No, I understand. But that is a good example
of what we are going to have to continue to keep strong.
The reality is, as you say, because we know what we have to
deal with, what our budgets are as a result of the Budget Act
of 2011. What we don't know brings us back to the uncertainty
of sequestration. Some of the examples you are using are good
examples of areas that will and can be, could be cut
arbitrarily in order to fulfill budget requirements.
I think what you have just noted again is going to be a
huge part of keeping our technological superiority, our edge.
Senator Blumenthal mentioned submarines. That is another
component of this. All the superior technical edge this country
has possessed since World War II has kept us, along with other
things and for other reasons, the strongest military power in
the history of man. That must be maintained.
Threats change. Cyber is a good example. I mean, 10 years
ago, nobody had any idea what we were talking about, cyber.
Even 5 years ago. We have to adjust to that challenge, that
reality.
Senator Blunt. Let me see if I can----
Senator Hagel. The core base, though, Senator, is exactly
right, and we have to protect that.
Senator Blunt. We do. We have made efforts with our allies
and friends to give them some other version of equipment we
had, maybe not quite as good as we had, but something that
keeps our defense procurement lines in place so that when we do
need them, they are still there. That is critically important.
Before you were designated Secretary of Defense, as the
potential nominee for this job, in talking about sequestration,
you made a comment about there is lots of bloat--I am sure you
have talked about this comment quite a bit and are very
familiar with it, more than you were before you made it
probably--in the Pentagon. What do you have in mind there?
What is being done at the Pentagon that could maybe better
be done somewhere else or is being duplicated somewhere else? I
think in some of the follow-up of that, I saw you mentioned
things that should be in the State Department have gotten over
to the Pentagon. Are there examples of that that we can work on
and you will want to lead on?
Senator Hagel. Two things. First, that comment came in a
large, extended interview about budgets about everything, and
that interview was done in 2011 prior to the Budget Control
Act, just to get the timeframe right on that. I never supported
sequestration, by the way.
Now, to your question about what we could do. Obviously,
much of the conversation here in the last few hours has been
about acquisition, about waste, fraud, and abuse, billions of
dollars. Why aren't we auditing these programs? Where is the
accountability? That is certainly an area that we are going to
have to take a look at.
My reference to State Department programs, some of the
general areas, I mentioned this this morning--where we have
pushed down on the military the last 12 years to do things that
usually are done out of State Department, aid type programs and
exchange programs, helping civilian type programs in areas.
That was all given to the--not all, but a great deal of it was
given to the military at the time we were at war in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
So the military has taken on a tremendous volume of
assignments and funding that goes with that. That needs to be
sorted through, I think. Those are areas where I think we----
Senator Blunt. One of your commitments will be to help us
sort through that?
Senator Hagel. It has to be, Senator. It has to be.
Senator Blunt. I am out of time, Senator. I will be here
for the second round.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Donnelly.
Senator Donnelly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Ranking
Member. It is an honor to be part of this committee. I look
forward to working with my colleagues, and I am proud to serve
the people of Indiana.
We are the heartland of America, and Senator Hagel, we have
over 14,000 members of the National Guard. In our State, we
have the fourth-largest contingent of National Guard members in
the entire country. I want to thank you for your service to the
country, you along with all Vietnam veterans and other
veterans, for what you have done for our Nation. I appreciate
your taking the time to meet with me.
We had an extensive discussion, and your understanding of
the complex challenges we face in the Middle East and the
importance of our alliance with Israel. It is a special and
historic relationship. I believe it is a special and historic
relationship. The people of my State believe that as well.
I think it was important for you to let everyone know that
there can be no nuclear Iran, that there are lines that cannot
be crossed, and we will stand up and defend our friends and the
entire world in that area.
When we were together, I mentioned to you about my visit to
Crane Naval Warfare Systems in Indiana. What they do is they
work to create the technologies to control the spectrum, in
effect, try to win the battlefield before the battle ever
starts on the ground.
We were wondering what can be done in this time of
challenging budgets to ensure that in the area of technology,
in the area of spectrum, we can maintain our budget so that, as
I said, before the war is ever started on the ground, we have
won it on the spectrum level? How critical is that in terms of
your planning in the Defense Department?
Senator Hagel. Senator, I think that focus is on as much
the core challenge that the Pentagon has in front of it as any
one thing. This committee is going to be particularly important
to help the leaders of the Pentagon sort through that because,
as evidenced in the whole series of questions that have been
asked today, Senator Blunt's most recent questions, this is a
time of priorities.
Budgets drive that, but missions should always drive
everything. What are going to be our missions in the Defense
Department over the next few years? How are we going to
resource those missions? What are the priorities going to be?
It is the entire universe of what the responsibilities are and
how do we carry those responsibilities out to secure this
Nation?
Your general questions and most of the questions asked here
today have been about this. Until I would get over to the
Pentagon, if I am confirmed, and understand more of the
specifics and work with the Chiefs and get a better grasp of
exactly what we have, I won't be in a position to be able to
say this or this or we will do this or we won't.
Obviously, that is why I say this committee, the
authorizing committees are going to be particularly important.
Senator Donnelly. My next question probably ties into that
as well, which is, as I mentioned, we have over 14,000 members
of the Guard in our State, Army Reserves. They have done tour
after tour after tour in Iraq and in Afghanistan. As we wind
down, I think it is critical to make sure that we have a
strategic plan for the Guard in the future so that the Guard we
have today, equipment-wise, it is struggling on equipment. We
have to upgrade not only our vehicles, but in other areas as
well.
I guess the question is, how do you view the mission of the
Guard in the years ahead?
Senator Hagel. During our conversation and a couple of the
questions I have had here today on the Guard, I have said I am
committed to a strong National Guard. It is an essential part
of our force structure going into the future. I think it was
proven quite clearly and effectively the last 12 years.
That will be maintained. I think further evidence of that,
putting a Chief of the National Guard into the Joint Chiefs.
You have my commitment that I will be continually focused on
that integration and the upgrading in every way.
Senator Donnelly. I have had the privilege of working with
General Shinseki in recent years on veterans issues, but I
think back to when he testified regarding Iraq and talked about
how many troops he thought were needed and all the
repercussions that came out of that not only for the general,
but in so many ways.
I think it is critical that the generals and the people in
the Pentagon provide you with the most unvarnished information
possible. They tell you exactly what they think. You tell them
exactly what you think, and that nobody at any time has their
career affected for telling you the truth. I want to make sure
that is the way that you are approaching this as well.
Senator Hagel. That is the way I would approach it. I value
that. There is no other way to assure that we are getting the
best, the most honest advice from our most capable leaders than
to say it like that.
The General Shinseki episode was a very unfortunate episode
in this country, what happened to him for telling the truth. I
will assure this committee that if I am Secretary of Defense
that kind of thing will never happen, for a general officer, a
senior commander to be handled and treated that way when he
told the truth to the Congress of the United States.
Senator Donnelly. I will say, and I know you know this, the
job he has done for veterans as the VA Secretary has been
extraordinary.
Another area in regards to not only our veterans, which we
are challenged with right now, but also on Active Duty, is the
suicide rate. It has been heartbreaking. In 2012, we lost more
Active Duty members to suicide than we did in fighting in
Afghanistan.
I know General Chiarelli has at this point basically
dedicated his life to trying to solve this problem. I want to
make sure that the Defense Department is going to lean all in
to try to fix this and provide the care and help and answers so
that that number goes to zero in the years ahead.
Senator Hagel. You have my complete commitment on this
issue.
Senator Donnelly. It is something that our veterans then
face as well. It is also a transition issue that as much as you
can work with the VA, as our Active Duties transition out and
our National Guard when they go home, that they have somebody
to talk to, somebody to tell how they feel, and somebody who
understands what they are going through because if we can help
with that, they have borne the burden of battle, and we owe
them. We owe them everything.
Another question I wanted to ask you about is Pakistan. As
we know, the incredible challenges we have in Afghanistan, so
much of it is caused by Pakistan. We spent about or provided
about $2.5 billion in aid. Do you think those were dollars well
spent?
Senator Hagel. Pakistan is a complicated relationship. It
is a nuclear power. They cooperate with the United States on
some things. We have difficulties with them on others.
As to your question on investment in Pakistan, we condition
that assistance. We must continue to condition that assistance.
I think Pakistan is too dangerous and that area of the world is
so clearly in the national security interest of this country
that we just can't walk away from it and not deal with them.
It is complicated. It is imperfect. But this is where all
the levers of influence and relationships and diplomacy and
economics and power come into play. How we wisely use all of
those resources is going to determine some of the outcomes.
We have to be honest as well. We are dealing with factors
there that we don't agree with, that we have difficulties with.
But again, we have to continue to work at it, and I believe
that we will and we should.
Senator Donnelly. Senator, thank you very much.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Donnelly.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, I want to thank you for being here, and I
want to begin by thanking you for your honorable service to our
Nation, for your personal sacrifice that you have put into
standing and fighting for this country.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Cruz. I would like to begin by addressing a
question of process. In your prepared statements today, you
describe that you have given hundreds of speeches and
interviews.
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Senator Cruz. This committee asked you in this process to
submit those speeches in the last 5 years, and in response to
that, you handed over a total of four speeches. In my view,
that submission was facially insufficient for this committee to
assess your record.
Indeed, your financial disclosure revealed you had received
paid honoraria in the past year for 12 speeches, and yet you
did not even hand over those speeches for which you were paid
substantial sums of money. Beyond that, 2 days ago, 6 Senators,
including Ranking Member Inhofe, sent you a letter asking for
financial disclosure. You have not chosen to respond to that
letter.
That letter in particular asked about the private
organizations that have paid you over the past 5 years and the
degree to which any of those funding sources have come from
foreign countries, foreign nationals, foreign sovereign debt
funds. You chose not to respond to that letter.
In my view, unless and until you respond to the requests of
members of this committee, this committee does not have a
proper record on which to assess your confirmation, and I think
we need full disclosure and adequate time to assess that.
Now I would like to ask initially a point of clarification.
With respect to the International Criminal Court, do you
believe the United States should become a party to the
International Criminal Court?
Senator Hagel. Senator, may I quickly respond to your first
comment?
Senator Cruz. I would like you to answer my question. My
time is limited.
Senator Hagel. That question is one that I am most likely
not going to be dealing with, as Secretary of Defense.
Senator Cruz. It is a simple question. Do you think we
should be a member of the International Criminal Court? I am
asking for your judgment on whether the United States should be
a party.
Senator Hagel. I support where the United States is today.
Senator Cruz. We are not a party today. You think we should
not be a party. Is that a correct statement of your position?
Senator Hagel. That is correct, yes.
Senator Cruz. Okay. Thank you.
I would like to draw your attention to an interview you did
in 2009 with Al Jazeera. With the chairman's indulgence, if we
can play an excerpt of that interview?
[Video excerpt shown.]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Senator Cruz. Now in that excerpt, Senator Hagel, the
caller suggests that the Nation of Israel has committed war
crimes, and your response to that was not to dispute that
characterization, but indeed to describe what he said as,
``Well, I think that is exactly right.''
I would like to ask you, do you think the Nation of Israel
has committed war crimes?
Senator Hagel. No, I do not, Senator. I would want to look
at the full context of the interview. But to answer your
question, no.
Senator Cruz. The context of that question, we played the
entirety of it, and I wanted to give you that context so you
could hear the question and you can hear your response. I would
suggest that a suggestion that Israel has committed war crimes
is particularly offensive, given that the Jewish people
suffered under the most horrific war crimes in the Holocaust.
I would also suggest that for the Secretary of Defense or
prospective Secretary of Defense not to take issue with that
claim is highly troubling. I would also point out in 2006 your
characterization of the Nation of Israel's action, and that was
in a speech on the floor of the Senate, you referred to
Israel's military campaign against the terrorist group
Hezbollah as a ``sickening slaughter''.
Now I would suggest the characterizations, do you think it
is right that Israel was committing a ``sickening slaughter,''
as you said on the floor of the Senate?
Senator Hagel. Again, I would want to read all of it, what
I said. First, I have said many, many times, Senator, every
nation has a right to defend itself.
Senator Cruz. Do you think a ``sickening slaughter'' would
constitute a war crime?
Senator Hagel. No. Depends on were they attacked, depends
on many factors. If Israel was defending itself, there was
slaughter going on on both sides.
Senator Cruz. Does one typically characterize defending
yourself against terrorism as a ``sickening slaughter''?
Senator Hagel. No, but again, Senator, I would want to look
at everything because----
Senator Cruz. Okay. Let us look at another excerpt from the
same interview, if we can play the second excerpt?
[Video excerpt shown.]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Senator Cruz. Senator Hagel, do you think it is appropriate
for the chief civilian leader of the U.S. military forces to
agree with the statement that both the perception ``and the
reality'' is that the United States is ``the world's bully''?
Senator Hagel. I didn't hear her say that, by the way, of
the United States, and I think my comment was it is a relevant
and good observation. I don't think I said that I agree with
it.
Senator Cruz. With respect, I think the record speaks for
itself. It was in writing that she said the United States is
``the world's bully,'' that it is the reality, and your
response, you did say you agree with it. You said, ``Her
observation is a good one. It is relevant. Uh, yes, to her
question.''
You explicitly agreed with the characterization of the
United States as the world's bully, and I would suggest that is
not a characterization. I think the United States has spilled
more blood, more treasure standing for freedom, liberating
people across the world. To go on Al Jazeera, a foreign
network, broadcasting propaganda to nations that are hostile to
us and to explicitly agree with the characterization of the
United States as the world's bully, I would suggest is not the
conduct one would expect of a Secretary of Defense.
Senator Hagel. Senator, she said that was an observation.
Senator Cruz. I will point out that her quote was ``the
perception and the reality''. With that, my time is expired. I
look forward to a second round of questioning.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
Now what we are going to do, given the fact that some of
those tapes there are--they need to be transcribed to be made
part of the record so that people can judge exactly what was
said and what was asked. I heard that first question, by the
way, as a response to the need for moral leadership. I didn't
hear it the way Senator Cruz did.
But in any event, it is important that the words be
transcribed so they can be made part of the record. It is a
rather unusual thing. I told Senator Cruz that I preferred that
we have a transcript and that you be asked questions from a
transcript, but that I didn't want to stop him from offering
the tape of it, and he went ahead and did it.
In any event, the fair thing now is that the transcript of
each of those segments be made part of the record and that we
give also Senator Hagel an opportunity, should he want either
on this question or, by the way, on other questions, an
opportunity to answer for the record in any way he might
proceed as though he were answering questions for the record.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We will be happy to provide a transcript, and we will also
be making public a link both to these excerpts and to the
entire transcript so that anyone who wants can view it in its
entirety and assess it in context.
Chairman Levin. That would be very helpful. Thank you,
Senator Cruz.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Chairman Levin. Senator Hirono.
Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member
Inhofe.
I join my colleagues in welcoming you, Senator Hagel.
We live in a complex world, and any Secretary of Defense
should ask tough questions, maybe not particularly politically
popular questions. I see you, Senator Hagel, as that kind of
person, based on your service to our country, your conduct and
responses to the questions asked of you today, and the
conversation that you and I had.
Turning to your statement this morning, you talked about
looking at our future threats and challenges and why DOD is
rebalancing its resources toward the Asia-Pacific region. Of
course, this kind of rebalance is critically important to
Hawaii in our forward position in the Pacific.
Would you expand as to why and what particular economic or
national security factors come into play as we rebalance to the
Asia-Pacific region?
Senator Hagel. Senator, you know better than most your
region and its importance and why it will continue to be
important to the world, but certainly to the United States. As
I noted in my opening statement and you know, we have always
been a Pacific power. We have been a Pacific power because we
have clear economic interests there. We have diplomatic
security interests there. We have strong allies there. I
mentioned some of them in my opening statement.
When we look at the growth of economies, we look at trade
growth, we look at population growth, the rise of China. But
not just China, but that entire Asia-Pacific region, we need to
stay relevant to opportunities as well as challenges in all
areas, but in particular the areas that we see as emerging as
to the largest, most significant economic security issues and
challenges and opportunities.
It is appropriate that any nation rebalance assets. You
have to be relevant to the times, to the shifts, the changes.
Our world today is totally different than it was 12 years ago.
Our force structure is being refit, and we are looking at a far
more agile, flexible force structure as our economies are
becoming more agile and flexible.
For all those reasons and more, that is why we are doing
what I think is exactly the right thing to do. Doesn't mean, as
I said in my opening statement, that we are abandoning anybody
or any part of the world. We can't.
Senator Hirono. Senator, as we live in times of budget
constraints, will you commit to keeping me and this committee
informed as you develop the strategies and contemplate force
posture adjustments that go along with this kind of
rebalancing?
Senator Hagel. Yes. I look forward to it.
Senator Hirono. I am very heartened by your perspective,
turning to another question, that you always ask the question,
is the policy working--worthy of the men and women that we send
into battle and possibly to their deaths? I am very heartened
by that kind of a perspective from someone who served our
country.
What will be your top priorities as you look to care for
the men and women in uniform and their families?
Senator Hagel. As I said in my opening statement, the
welfare, the safety, the success of our men and women in
uniform is my top priority, has been and will continue to be,
and their families.
Senator Hirono. Do you have any specific programmatic ways
that you will reflect that?
Senator Hagel. First, to implement the law. We have a
number of new laws, policies that are in the process of being
implemented. We have spoken about some here today. I will
assure, if confirmed, that we do that.
As I said in my opening statement, we will assure that
every military man and woman and their families are given
exactly the same opportunities and rights as each other and all
members of the Armed Forces.
Senator Hirono. I also take to heart your belief in the
importance of the core nation and the work between DOD and the
VA, and I understand that you have a strong relationship with
Secretary Shinseki. With your experience as a veteran and
having been a senior leader in the Veterans Administration,
what will be your primary challenges and goals as you look to
collaborate with Secretary Shinseki and the VA?
Senator Hagel. It will be the same that Secretary Panetta
and, before him, Secretary Gates initiated in closer
collaboration between the two agencies, and that means the
integration of our systems. As our men and women transition out
from Active Duty into civilian life or retired life and are
going to require the assistance of some veterans assistance
programs, a closer integration.
We know that the backlogs now are still far, far too long
to get evaluations of whether it is post-traumatic stress
disorder (PTSD) or whatever the health issue is. I think
continuing to work with Secretary Shinseki, as Secretaries
Panetta and Gates did, but strengthening that integration of
those systems, of leadership, of our people understanding each
other better, and maximizing the resources that each agency has
and making those resources more value-added and count more.
Senator Hirono. I had an opportunity to meet with Secretary
Shinseki recently, and those kinds of collaborative efforts are
not happening as expeditiously as we would like. I certainly
hope that you will have a renewed sense of urgency about the
outcomes of these collaborative efforts because, of course, the
bottom line is it is to help our men and women who are
transitioning out of uniform into civilian life.
I hope that we have that kind of commitment, strong
commitment from you for outcomes.
Senator Hagel. You have my strong commitment.
Senator Hirono. DOD is the United States' largest consumer
of energy, and we talked about that briefly when you came to
see me. It is clear that the military will benefit greatly from
cheaper, more stable fuel costs over the long term. Promising
work is being done in this area to commercialize alternative
fuels that can be produced abundantly in the United States.
Of course, this kind of collaboration is very important for
Hawaii as being the most oil-dependent State in the entire
country. If confirmed, will you continue to emphasize and
prioritize research, development, and, where possible,
deployment of renewable fuels as well as enhanced energy
efficiency efforts to reduce DOD's energy costs over the long
term?
Senator Hagel. Senator, as you have noted, DOD is the
largest user of certainly liquid fuels. But I think our energy
budget, I don't know the exact number, but it's probably around
$18 billion a year.
Anything we can do to make any aspect of securing our
country more cost effective fuel, we need to look at, and I
would make that a high priority, if I am confirmed and go over
to the Defense Department, to see if we could--how we do that,
how we can continue to do that, because in the end, for all the
reasons you know, it is just clearly in the interest of our
country, our resources, and our people.
Senator Hirono. Certainly, continuing to fund research and
development efforts in these areas will accrue to us in the
long term in terms of huge, huge cost savings for DOD.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Hirono. Thank you. My time is up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Hirono.
Now here is the situation we have. This first vote is a 10-
minute vote apparently, and all the subsequent votes are 10
minutes.
Senator Lee, I am happy to call upon you now, but you would
have to kind of keep track of this yourself and have your staff
keep track of it. If you want to take the risk, there may be
some risk if you took your full 8 minutes.
I would be happy to recess now instead of after your
questions. We are going to recess for the five votes. It will
be about an hour.
Would you like to start now and then take a chance that you
might not finish? Or would you rather start at the beginning
after an hour recess?
Senator Lee. Thank you for that offer, Mr. Chairman.
I better not risk the possibility of missing a vote. I
would prefer that you recess now.
Chairman Levin. We are now going to recess for about an
hour. But I want you all to follow this.
At the last vote--and it may not be the fifth vote. There
may be four votes. We don't know. It is up to five votes. The
final vote, though, we know will be called final passage of the
debt limit bill. We will start, we will begin about 5 minutes
after the beginning of that vote.
We will stand in recess. [Recessed.]
Chairman Levin. The committee will come back to order.
Senator Lee.
Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Hagel, for joining us today and for
answering the questions that have been asked to you so far. I'd
like to talk to you for a few minutes about Israel. Israel is,
I believe, America's most important ally, certainly in the
Middle East and in many respects in the entire world. A lot of
people in this body are concerned, quite appropriately, about
making sure that alliance remains strong, about making sure
that our interests as Americans are protected abroad. A lot of
us feel like one of the best ways of protecting American
national security is through that alliance in the Middle East.
On April 12, 2002, there was a Palestinian terrorist who
detonated a bomb in downtown Jerusalem, killing 6 Israelis and
wounding I believe about 100 others. On that day, while you
were still serving in the U.S. Senate, you gave a speech on the
Senate floor. You made a couple of comments that I'd like to
discuss with you and ask you a little bit about.
In one segment of the speech you said: ``We understand
Israel's right to defend itself. We're committed to that. We've
helped Israel defend that right. We will continue to do so. But
it should not be at the expense of the Palestinian people,
innocent Palestinian people, and innocent Israelis who are
paying a high price.''
Some who have read that have reacted with concern that this
may be indicative of a feeling on your part that there might be
some moral equivalency between on the one hand Israel's
exercise of its right to defend itself and on the other hand
Palestinian terrorism. Do you believe that there is a moral
equivalency between these two things?
Senator Hagel. Oh, absolutely not, Senator.
Senator Lee. Do you understand how others might read this
statement in such a way that could leave them with that
impression?
Senator Hagel. I do.
Senator Lee. How do you respond to it? In other words, do
Palestinians, let's say those Palestinians who have engaged in
acts of terrorism, perhaps in retaliation against Israel for
Israel defending itself, do they have a legitimate gripe?
Senator Hagel. Terrorism can never be justified under any
circumstances.
Senator Lee. Is their grievance legitimate?
Senator Hagel. The Palestinians?
Senator Lee. Yes, the Palestinians who decide to strap a
bomb onto themselves and detonate it or otherwise engage in
acts of terror; do they have a legitimate grievance that
they're expressing?
Senator Hagel. They have grievances. A lot of people have
grievances----
Senator Lee. Are those grievances legitimate?
Senator Hagel.--but not a justification for terrorism and
killing innocent people, never.
Senator Lee. Are they on par with the grievances that
innocent Israelis have when they become the victims of violent
acts?
Senator Hagel. I don't think you can judge whether it's
Israelis or Palestinians or anybody in the world in separating
innocent victims of terrorism.
Senator Lee. I think you can in some circumstances, can't
you? I mean----
Senator Hagel. Not victims.
Senator Lee. For heaven's sakes, though--oh, okay, maybe
not victims. Can you, and indeed must you not, judge when it
comes to one group of people who may at least be willing to
recognize the other group of people's right to exist?
Senator Hagel. Absolutely. In fact, I'm clearly on the
record on that point. In fact, in 2006 there was the Anti-
Palestinian Terrorist Act that I voted for, and there are a
number of other resolutions, acts, votes, speeches I've made.
In my book I have said unequivocally Hezbollah, Hamas
specifically, they must renounce terrorism, and first they must
accept Israel's right to exist as a Jewish homeland, respect
the borders, protect the borders. Absolutely, I've made that
very clear.
Senator Lee. Okay. Now, later on in the same speech you
asked a question. You referred to the fact, that we really need
to develop peace in the Middle East, and you asked the
question: ``Who guarantees this peace?'' You then continue by
asking another question: ``If in fact we expect Israel to pull
back to their pre-1967 borders, who guarantees that peace?''
Does this, Senator Hagel, reflect sentiment on your part
that that is a legitimate way of solving the peace process, of
bringing about peace in Israel, in the Middle East, is by
asking Israel to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders?
Senator Hagel. No, not at all. What I said was, as you just
quoted me, who guarantees the security of Israel's borders?
Israel's borders must be secure. That's part of the
fundamentals of the Quartet Principles of 2006, in fact, the
U.N. Resolutions 242 and 337 and other resolutions. That's
paramount, the guarantee of the security of Israel and its
borders.
Senator Lee. I understand that part of the question related
to how we bring about that peace, and I want to get back to
that in a minute. But another part of the question started from
the premise that Israel would be withdrawing to its pre-1967
borders. Do you view that as a tenable solution? Do you believe
such borders are militarily defensible?
Senator Hagel. I think that's all negotiable. The Quartet
Principles of 2006, which President Bush laid down, and a two-
state solution, all those issues have to be resolved. Land for
peace, trading land, all those issues are final status issues
that are absolutely key to the future of Israel or before
Israel can agree to anything.
Senator Lee. So you're saying that you might describe a
resolution of this crisis involving withdrawal to the pre-1967
borders as perhaps one among several tenable solutions?
Senator Hagel. It's part of what's been talked about and
defined in, as I said, the 2006 Quartet Principles and U.N.
resolutions that that is part of a final status set of issues
that have to be resolved. The United States and no other
country can impose that on Israel. That is a negotiable issue,
but it's been out there, and that remains to be dealt with in
negotiations.
Senator Lee. Is it one that you think the United States
should encourage?
Senator Hagel. I would encourage peace and a secure, safe
Israel. That's what I think most of us would want to see.
Senator Lee. Okay. Now, in 2009 you made a statement
suggesting that U.S. ground troops should be sent to that part
of the world and installed as U.N. peacekeepers in a ``non-
militarized Palestinian state''. Is this something you stand
behind today? Is this an approach that you think is
appropriate?
Senator Hagel. Senator, I don't have the facts behind me,
in front of me, but I don't think that was a recommendation I
was making. If I recall, my comments--and you may be able to
give me exactly the comments--were in the context of how do you
secure Israel's border, who secures Israel's border? For
example, General Brent Scowcroft has suggested at times maybe
this is a peacekeeping role for NATO. That was what that was
all about.
Senator Lee. Senator, my time has expired. I need to ask
you one more question. I understand that you have made a
statement indicating that there is no justification for
Palestinian suicide bombers, but that there is also no
justification for Israel to ``keep Palestinians caged up like
animals''. Did you say that, and if so do you stand by that
statement today?
Senator Hagel. I said it, and I don't remember the context
or when I said it. But----
Senator Lee. Do you believe today that Israel keeps
Palestinians caged up like animals?
Senator Hagel. No. If I had an opportunity to edit that,
like many things I've said, I would like to go back and change
the words and the meaning. No, it was I think in a larger
context. I've said many, many things over many years. It was a
larger context of the frustration and what's happening, which
is not in Israel's interest, to find ways that we can help
bring peace and security to Israel.
If I had a chance to go back and edit it, I would. I regret
that I used those words.
Senator Lee. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Lee.
Senator Kaine.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Ranking Member.
Welcome, Senator Hagel. It was good to see you with my dear
friend Senator Warner, decorated Navy and Marine Corps veteran
from World War II and the Korean War, Secretary of the Navy,
long-time member of this committee. You couldn't have a better
ally than Senator Warner and it was good to see him here.
He exemplifies--and forgive my Virginia-centrism for a
minute. He exemplifies something that's very important about
our Commonwealth. Our map is a map of the military history of
this country: Yorktown, Appomattox, the Pentagon, where
Setptember 11 occurred. There's a ceremony in Arlington tonight
for the commissioning of a new amphib, the USS Arlington, that
will be commissioned in Norfolk in April.
We care very deeply about these events. One in nine
Virginians is a veteran. Not one in nine voters, not one in
nine adults, but birth to death, one in nine is a veteran. When
you add in Active Duty, Guard, Reserve, DOD civilian, DOD
contractor, and their families, now you're talking about
probably one in three of us. We care very, very deeply about
all that's within DOD.
Virginians talk all the time about national security
concerns and threats. Let me be plain, the threat and the
concern that Virginians are now talking about more than any
other is the inability of Congress to find a way forward on
reasonable budget compromise. That's what's in the newspapers,
that's what's in the headlines.
At the direction of Deputy Secretary Ash Carter, DOD is now
cutting expenditures and planning for future cuts. We have a
looming sequester on March 1 and then a CR expiration on March
27. I'm very worried at the macro level about DOD's ability to
pursue and execute appropriate national security objectives in
this time of congressional inability to find budget compromise.
The current CR limits flexibility, for example, of the
military to appropriately tailor resources to the appropriate
ends under a CR. The Navy has no flexibility to meet a $3.7
billion operations and maintenance shortfall.
I'm new here. To me it seems like funding the military
through CR is poor business, poor budgeting, poor governance.
I'm worried about its effect upon the morale of all of our men
and women in service.
My first question is a really simple one: Do you agree that
we, Congress, must finish an fiscal year 2013 appropriations
process as soon as possible to allow DOD to move forward with
this year's funding decisions, rather than continuing to be
bound by an fiscal year 2012 CR?
Senator Hagel. Yes, I do. I think I've been very clear on
that point all day today. You have described it accurately.
Senator Kaine. My second question is related, is about
sequestration. To me, again the new guy, allowing budget
sequestration--the cavalier discussions I've seen in some
newspapers recently by Members of Congress about the fact that
it's reality and we probably can't change it makes absolutely
no sense.
I'm kind of curious and interested to see whether it might
be more sensible to sort of even realign the deadlines, the
sequester deadline. We are now, based on the vote we just had
on the floor of the Senate, in a budgetary process where
there's a strong likelihood that we'll be able to produce
budgets together with the House. Why would we be making short-
term one-off decisions that are holdovers from a previous
Congress that couldn't get it right when we are embarking upon
a budget process? To my way of thinking, that's the way you
ought to make revenue and spending decisions, in accord with a
budget, rather than through gimmicks like sequester.
I think we're going to get out of this budget uncertainty,
but when we do you will have the task, if confirmed, of being
the Secretary of Defense in a resource-constrained environment
and you're going to have to deal, hopefully in a more
thoughtful budgetary process with Congress, on how to make
priorities about spending. I'd like to have you talk a little
bit about how you would approach that administrative task in a
resource-constrained world, how you're going to approach that
task of dealing with these fiscal realities.
Senator Hagel. First, as I noted this morning in my opening
statement, if I am confirmed I would intend to make this
relationship between the Secretary of Defense and Congress a
partnership, much as Secretary Panetta has done. I think it's
critically important for many reasons. Let's start with the
budget. You authorize, you appropriate. The Federal Government
is captive to that authorization and appropriation, and each
Department must work within the budgetary framework of those
resources.
I have said that, like all of these big issues, it is a
matter of, first of all, clearly defining the mission in its
entirety as to what is the mission of DOD, then what are our
priorities as they fit into our strategic interests around the
world, and the how do you do it? How do you manage it? How do
you lead?
That includes working closely with the Chiefs. That
includes working with all the leadership within DOD. It's about
teams, it's about people, and it's about building consensus in
Congress as well as within the military.
Each Military Chief has a responsibility for his or her
areas and Service, and that's as it should be. Obviously,
Goldwater-Nichols integrated our Services, which was the right
thing. I think most people agree with that. But also, the
Commandant of the Marine Corps and each Chief has a
responsibility to look out for the interests of their Service.
The coordination of those efforts and the understanding the
bigger picture are critically important. Those are all
different elements, not unlike you as a governor at one time,
would bring to the job.
Senator Kaine. Senator, switching gears for a minute, it is
still kind of hard to contemplate that if confirmed you would
be the first enlisted person to hold the position of Secretary
of Defense, and I want to ask a question about especially our
enlisteds. Senator Manchin touched upon it earlier, the
unacceptably high rate of unemployment of folks exiting
military service. I think officers have a little bit easier
time, but when we see an unemployment rate among enlisteds that
is higher than the national average, when they've sacrificed,
when they've given, and when they have leadership and technical
skills that could benefit a civilian workforce, we know
something is wrong.
There have been some pilot projects through the NDAAs in
2012 and 2013 to focus on an issue that matters a lot to me,
and we talked about it, how to credential Active Duty military
while they are in their military occupational specialties,
while they are gaining technical skills, with credentials that
mean something in the civilian workforce, so that when they
leave they're not just an E-5 or a gunny sergeant, which people
in the civilian workforce may not understand, but they actually
have the credentials that the civilian-hiring workforce does
understand.
Are you committed to pushing forward on those pilot
programs and expanding them so that we can get at this
unemployment issue?
Senator Hagel. Absolutely. Again, I noted that in my
opening statement, Senator. I think I have some experience in
that area over the years. I'm committed to that. As I said,
nothing is more important than our men and women and their
families. That doesn't mean just throughout their time in our
service to our country, but afterward. What this country
commits to them, we must fulfill that commitment.
Senator Kaine. One last comment, Senator Hagel, not a
question. As the topics have come up today, when we talked
about Iran and the threat of a nuclear Iran, we've often talked
about it as linked with Israel's security, which it is. They're
Holocaust deniers and they've threatened the security of the
State of Israel. But I want to make sure that everybody in this
chamber understands it's not just about the security of Israel.
The Iranian nuclear threat is a much bigger one. It is very
clear that if Iran gets nuclear weapons that other nations will
start to do the same thing, and that would cut completely
counter to I know principles that you hold, principles the
President holds. It's not just on Israel's shoulders to be
worried about a nuclear Iran. It is a threat that we all need
to worry about.
Senator Hagel. Thank you. I agree. I think, just to add one
point on that, you all know, of course, and many have been
involved in this over the years, the current P5 Plus 1
engagement to get all five members of the U.N. Security Council
together on this one issue. Now, we have variations of exactly
what should be done. But I think that gives the world some
indication of how Russia, China, the United States, and
essentially all nations of the world view the threat of a
nuclear Iran.
Senator Kaine. Thank you, Senator.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Kaine.
Senator Vitter.
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator, for being here, and thank you very much
for your military service.
My single biggest concern, Senator, about the nomination is
the dramatic flip-flops between your past statements and record
and what you're saying as the nominee. They're about key core
issues, and we've discussed some of those today. I wanted to
focus on that, and I apologize if I go over some of the things
that have come up before. I couldn't be here for most of the
hearing.
In 2006, when Israel was responding to attacks by Hezbollah
from Lebanon, you called that response a ``sickening
slaughter'' and you accused Israel of ``the systematic
destruction of an American friend, the country and people of
Lebanon''. What do you say about those quotes today?
Senator Hagel. Well, first, I said them. I've been asked
about them. I have said I regret saying that. It was in the
larger context of a speech I made about what was going on, the
30-some days of war going on. I also included in that speech
the responsibility of Hezbollah, who started the war. So it
wasn't exactly the way you just noted it. The language is
exact, what you just said, but it was a larger context.
Yes, I regret that language. But I think the bigger point
is, Senator--and I have noted this all morning--my unequivocal
support of Israel over the years. There's been no flip-flop on
that. How I've voted, I've never voted against anything but
Israel's interests in every vote I've cast in the U.S. Senate.
I've said it in my book. They're a special, historic ally. We
will always support them and defend them. I've said it in my
speeches.
There's no flip-flop on my support for Israel.
Senator Vitter. Is there a flip-flop on your calling their
response to Hezbollah ``the systematic destruction of an
American friend, the country and people of Lebanon''? Do you
stand by that today?
Senator Hagel. I just said I said that, and I said that I
regretted saying that. But that's not----
Senator Vitter. Do you stand by those words, or is that a
flip-flop?
Senator Hagel. No. If I had a chance to edit those words
out, I would.
Senator Vitter. That's what I'm talking about in terms of
flip-flop.
Senator Hagel. I suppose if I had a chance to edit a lot of
things in my life, Senator, I'd probably be fairly busy.
Senator Vitter. Let me move on because I have a number of
these concerns. In 1998, in a Senate hearing, you said that
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright had ``tilted way too far
toward Israel in the Middle East peace process''. Do you still
think that of that peace process in 1998?
Senator Hagel. I don't recall the event. I don't recall the
words. I don't know where it comes from. I don't know the
context. Again, Senator, I go back for years and years and
years on different things I've said, but I don't recall that or
what the context was, so I don't know.
Secretary Albright has endorsed me, by the way, to be the
next Secretary of Defense. I worked very closely with Secretary
Albright, as I did with President Clinton and his
administration, in support of Israel.
Senator Vitter. In general, at that time under the Clinton
administration, do you think that they were going ``way too far
toward Israel in the Middle East peace process''?
Senator Hagel. No, I don't, because I was very supportive
of what the President did at the end of his term in December-
January, December 2000, January 2001. As a matter of fact, I
recount that episode in my book, when I was in Israel.
Senator Vitter. Just to clarify, that's the sort of flip-
flop I'm talking about, because that's what you said then and
you're changing your mind now.
Senator Hagel. Senator, that's not a flip-flop. I don't
recall everything I've said in the last 20 years or 25 years.
If I could go back and change some of it, I would. But that
still doesn't discount the support that I've always given
Israel and continue to give Israel.
Senator Vitter. Let me go to a third thing, is actually
what you said today, talking about Iran as a ``legitimate
elected government''. Do you think the election that had to do
with this Iranian Government coming to power was free and fair
and legitimate?
Senator Hagel. I noted that the term ``legitimate'' was not
the term I should have used. I should have used ``recognized''.
That's the more appropriate term. I was referring to the fact
that it's a nation that is a member of the United Nations, it
has embassies from all our allies.
Senator Vitter. What about the----
Senator Hagel. It's a recognized nation.
Senator Vitter. What about the word ``elected,'' because
you said ``legitimate elected government''?
Senator Hagel. There was an election in Iran.
Senator Vitter. So my question specifically was, you
apparently think that was a free and fair and legitimate
election?
Senator Hagel. That's not what I said.
Senator Vitter. That's why I'm asking what you meant,
because you said ``legitimate elected government''.
Senator Hagel. I just explained I should have said
``recognized'' instead of ``legitimate,'' which I did earlier
today. There was an election. There will be another
presidential election in June of this year for President of
Iran. Whether it's free and fair, I don't know.
Senator Vitter. Do you expect it to be free and fair and
legitimate?
Senator Hagel. I don't know.
Senator Vitter. Okay. You have no expectations one way or
the other about that?
Senator Hagel. I do know that Iran is not exactly a model
democracy and it has not been. I don't have any expectations
for a free, fair election.
Senator Vitter. Okay. In 2008, you wrote that a nuclear
Iran might be tolerable because ``sovereign nation states
possessing nuclear weapons capability, as opposed to stateless
terrorist groups, will often respond with some degree of
responsible, or at least sane, behavior''. Is that still your
hope or expectation about this Government of Iran?
Senator Hagel. Again, I'm not sure where the reference came
from or the context. But what I obviously was referring to were
different options that people will look at in regard to Iran
getting nuclear weapons. I've always said that Iran must not
get weapons of mass destruction. I've always said it's a
sponsor of terrorists, of terrorism, and I've always said the
military option should remain on the table to assure that Iran
does not get nuclear weapons.
Senator Vitter. Again, this quote, you suggest that Iran
would maybe or hopefully respond in a ``responsible, or at
least sane,'' way. Those were the words. Is that still your
expectation or hope?
Senator Hagel. I always have hope that people respond in a
sane way. But that doesn't at all change the facts that it is a
dangerous, dangerous country that's a threat to the United
States, Israel, and the entire world.
Senator Vitter. Okay. After your nomination, the Iranian
Government press noted with satisfaction that the ``anti-
Israel'' Hagel--obviously, that's not your quote; that's
theirs--is known for ``his criticism of Washington's anti-Iran
policies,'' and that he ``has consistently opposed any plan to
launch a military strike against Iran''. Why do you think they
have that impression?
Senator Hagel. First of all, it's not an accurate quote.
I've never opposed military action against Iran.
Senator Vitter. Let me just clarify. It's an accurate quote
of the Iranian Government press. Why do you think they have
that impression?
Senator Hagel. It's not an accurate statement about my
position.
Senator Vitter. Right. But why do you think they have that
impression?
Senator Hagel. As I said in answer to that question
earlier, I have enough difficulty understanding American
politics, Senator. I surely don't understand Iranian politics.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. But if I might add, I also said that there
have been some rather significant Israeli Government leaders
recently that have said some pretty nice things about me,
current Israeli leaders.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Vitter.
Senator King.
Senator King. Like all the other inquisitors today,
Senator, I want to thank you for your service, and particularly
for your willingness to put yourself through this process to
serve your country once again. It's one of my life principles
never to take a job where I would have to be confirmed by a
legislative body, and you're doing it.
I also want to comment, I read one commentator that said
the fact that this guy was an enlisted man in Vietnam is nice,
but not really significant. I think it's very significant. I'm
a bit of a student of the Cuban missile crisis, the most
dangerous moment this country has ever experienced, and anybody
that studies that period, it's hard to escape the conclusion
that President Kennedy's service on the front lines of World
War II and Chairman Khrushchev's service in his army during
World War II was a significant influence on their willingness
to back away from the nuclear precipice. I think it's very
important to have people with your experience in this position.
Most of the questions, probably 90 percent, today have been
about policy. But the reality is, as I think you would concede,
that the policy comes from the President of the United States.
You're certainly going to advise, but that's where the policy
comes from. I'd like to ask your thoughts about management,
because you're about to take on the world's most cumbersome
bureaucracy, with a lot of problems and headaches and budgetary
challenges.
Just share with me some thoughts about how you're going to
approach the management of DOD?
Senator Hagel. Senator, thank you. I note you were sitting
there during the exchange I had with Senator Kaine about some
of this, and I would, in answering your question, pick up on a
couple of those observations.
First--and you too, I know, you were a Governor. So you
both understand a lot of the pieces of this. No matter how big
an organization is, there are still some fundamentals to
leadership and management. Now, as you have noted, DOD is the
largest institution certainly in this country, maybe the world.
How then do you try to manage it? Well, it's not about me. The
Secretary of Defense, he leads, he advises the President. But
it's really about the people who have the accountability and
the responsibility to manage every aspect of our defense
apparatus. That includes all the officers. I think there are
over 50 presidential appointees in DOD. You have obviously the
military, uniformed military, 1.3 million there. So all of
these people are required to manage the Department.
I think a fundamental to me in answering your question is
accountability. We've had some discussions today about audits.
All institutions must be accountable. Elected officials are
accountable. We're all accountable. The emphasis on
accountability I don't think can ever be overstated. You give
managers flexibility, you give them resources, but you give
them direction and expectations, and they have to be very
clear, very direct, and very defined, but not to the point
where you don't want their input and their ability to be
flexible with their management. I think that's, in my opinion,
Senator, is the key to anything, but surely it is the key to
something as large as DOD.
A number of questions were asked of me today about specific
programs, submarine programs, different areas of technology and
acquisitions, and our superior technology. I've said I don't
know enough about it. I don't. There are a lot of things I
don't know about. I, if confirmed, intend to know a lot more
than I do. I will have to.
But at the same time, I would never think that this, as I
said earlier, is about me or I will be running anything. I will
be the leader, I'll be responsible, I'll be accountable. But I
have to rely on the right teams, the right people, bring those
people together. Again, it's accountability and responsibility.
I would stop there, if that gives you some sense of how I
would intend to do this business.
Senator King. My theory of leadership is hire good people
and take credit for what they do. That's my best advice.
You're a guy from Nebraska. You were in the Army. I'm
imaging that every morning you don't get up and think about the
Navy. I hope to correct that over the next few years.
Particularly of concern to us right now in Maine and in other
parts of the country is the multi-year procurement program
which is in jeopardy because of the budget situation.
Your feelings about multi-year procurement and maintaining
the industrial base, which we just have to do if we're going to
be able to maintain our force?
Senator Hagel. Governor, you probably know, and Governor
Kaine does as well, that there is such a thing as a Nebraska
navy. Our governors make these distinguished appointments
throughout their career. Our fleet is small but mighty. But
that has been my initial, early on experience with the Navy.
Industrial base, I referenced that in a couple of comments
I made earlier today in responding to questions. Absolutely
essential to our future that we maintain a strong, growing,
credible military industrial base, for all the reasons you
understand. Certainly Senator Kaine does, being from Virginia,
and other Senators here who have in their States these
facilities and, more importantly, private companies that
represent our industrial base.
How we then prioritize our needs, how we account for and
audit contracts, forward procurements, cost overruns, waste,
fraud, and abuse, all part of it. This is going to be more and
more essential as we are dealing with, as you have noted, a
restricted budget. It may be a very restricted budget,
depending on how things happen on sequestration.
The Navy is an indispensable part of our security
apparatus. First, it is the one visible projection of power
that we have in the world. Obviously, our rebalancing of
resources in the Asia-Pacific region are some indication of
that. The Persian Gulf; we have been talking all day about
Iran, about Israel, but specifically Iran in the Persian Gulf.
You know we have our Fifth Fleet there in Bahrain. We have two
carrier battle groups in and out of that small little area. The
flexibility, agility, missile defense, nuclear, all those
capabilities are within the Navy.
I am a strong supporter of advancing our Navy technology
and our efforts, and I will continue to do that if confirmed.
Senator King. Thank you, Senator. I'll have some more
questions at a later time. I appreciate it.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator King.
Senator Shaheen.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, thank you very much for the tremendous
service that you've already provided to this country and for
your willingness to consider taking on this challenge as
Secretary of Defense and for your stamina at this hearing all
day. You will certainly need it as Secretary of Defense.
I want to follow up on Senator King's question about the
Navy, because the Navy is obviously very important to us in New
Hampshire as well. Our four public shipyards are the backbone
of our naval power, but according to the Navy there's a huge
backlog of the restoration and modernization projects at our
shipyards. According to last year's numbers, that backlog was
around $3 billion.
At Portsmouth Naval Shipyard, which Senator King, Senator
Ayotte, and I are all very concerned about, that number was
$513 million. This backlog not only potentially affects our
readiness, but it's also not cost effective. For example, a
2010 Government Accountability Office report pointed out that a
pier project at Norfolk, which I'm sure Senator Kaine is
familiar with, if it had been addressed early it would have
cost $15 million. Because that didn't happen, the pier now is
going to cost about $85 million.
In fiscal year 2012, Senators Collins, Ayotte, and I
included an amendment in the NDAA bill that requires the
Pentagon to produce a shipyard modernization plan to address
these shortfalls. That report's late, but it was promised in
the upcoming budget submission for fiscal year 2014. Will you
commit to ensuring that this modernization plan is produced and
will you commit to pressing the Navy, within the fiscal
constraints that I appreciate, but to fully fund the
investments that are needed to save money in the long term and
ensure that we continue to be very effective and efficient at
our shipyards?
Senator Hagel. Yes, I will make that commitment to do
everything I can to first understand the specifics, which I
don't know all the details. But your request is preliminary to
effective, efficient use of our resources and planning and our
national security. So I will make that commitment. If I am
confirmed, I will get the details. I will assure that the Navy
responds.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you. I'm sure Senators King and
Ayotte join me in inviting you to come and visit the Portsmouth
Naval Shipyard. We hope that you will do that as soon as you're
confirmed.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator Shaheen. I know there's been a fair amount of
discussion earlier today about your involvement with the
organization Global Zero and what your position is on nuclear
weapons. I think it's worth requoting what Senator Reed said
about Ronald Reagan, who said that: ``We seek the total
elimination one day of nuclear weapons from the face of the
Earth.'' I think every President since Ronald Reagan has
supported that aspirational goal, recognizing that at this
point in time it is a goal.
Certainly that's what President Obama has said he supports,
is that some day, probably not in this lifetime, but some day,
we should hope for a world that would be free of nuclear
weapons.
I know I've heard you say that you agree with those two
statements, but do you also agree that as long as nuclear
weapons exist that we have to maintain a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear arsenal to deter any adversaries?
Senator Hagel. Yes, completely, absolutely. I have never
had any other position but that, as I have indicated this
morning and this afternoon, and will continue to take that
position. As I said in my opening statement and in answer to
other questions, our nuclear deterrent has probably been the
core of keeping world peace and avoiding a World War III, that
nuclear deterrent.
As long as there is the threat of nuclear weapons--and like
you noted and President Obama noted in his Prague speech in
2009--it probably will not happen in our lifetime. But, just as
you noted and Senator Reed's comments about what President
Reagan laid on the table in 1986, we need to keep working on
it. We need to keep moving forward, attempting to do it.
Quite frankly, if you look at the START agreements and you
look at the different treaties we've had, we have brought those
warheads down, under both Republican and Democratic
administrations, bipartisan. What Sam Nunn said this morning,
he and his former colleagues Secretary Kissinger, Secretary
Shultz, Secretary Perry, hundreds of national leaders in
Republican and Democratic administrations over the years have
supported the reduction of weapons of nuclear destruction--not
unilateral, but bilateral, negotiated and verifiable.
As I said this morning, as Ronald Reagan said, ``Trust but
verify''. Nothing unilateral.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Again, I know there's been a lot of discussion about your
comments relative to sanctions on Iran and various options that
we might pursue with respect to Iran and nuclear weapons. But I
wonder again if you would confirm what your position is on the
President's current strategy of strong diplomacy, tough
international sanctions, and keeping all the options on the
table?
Senator Hagel. You have just defined President Obama's
strategy on Iran, which I firmly support, strongly support. It
is the wise way to do it. I don't know if I mentioned this to
you in our meeting, but I wrote a book in 2008 and I have a
chapter on Iran, and I lay all that out in the chapter. As I've
said, I don't think President Obama went to my chapter and
developed his strategy based on my chapter, but there's nothing
in that chapter that I wrote in that book in 2008 or anything
I've ever said that deviates from where the President is.
The military option is always on the table, must be on the
table, always should be the last option, always the last
option. But aren't we wiser and smarter if we can figure this
out, accomplish our objectives, without having to go to war,
for everybody?
Senator Shaheen. I hope so.
You referenced the meeting that we had last week and I very
much appreciated your taking time to come in and sit down and
talk about some of the statements that have been represented
that you have addressed today. One of those had to do with
Israel's security. Again, I know this has been discussed at
length during the day today, but I wonder if again you could
reconfirm what your commitment is on Israel and the security of
Israel in the Middle East?
Senator Hagel. My support of Israel's security is and
always has been very clear. I strongly support Israel. The
security of Israel is a commitment that we made to Israel in
1948 when Israel was born under American leadership, President
Harry Truman. That commitment is a bond that is more than just
an ally to ally. It is special, it's historical, it's values-
driven.
I've never equivocated from that line. My votes in the
Senate have shown that. What I've said publicly has shown that.
I've said this in my book. Absolutely, and we'll continue to do
that.
Senator Shaheen. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Shaheen.
Okay, we're going to have a 5-minute second round, and if
we need a third round we will have a third round. I'm going to
try to take less than 5 minutes so I can yield a couple
minutes, if I still have them, to Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Earlier today, Senator Hagel, one of my
colleagues made a statement that you had not responded to
requests for copies of all your speeches and to requests about
contributions to certain organizations I believe that you
either served or had spoken to, and that you didn't have the
opportunity at that time to respond to that statement. I want
to give you the opportunity now, if you wish to, or if you
prefer to respond for the record.
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will respond for
the record. But I will take this opportunity to respond. First,
as far as I know--and I asked again at the break of our
counsel, Ethics Office lawyers, have we responded to all
requests or are we in the process of responding to every single
request? The answer is yes. Some of these requests didn't come
in until yesterday, specifically the financial documentation
request. Copies of my speeches came in late.
We have given the committee every copy of every speech that
I have that's out there, every video that I have that's out
there. On paid speeches, most every one of those paid speeches,
in the contract it says that they are private and not
videotaped. That wasn't my decision; that was the contract of
the group I spoke to. I believe every paid speech I gave I
didn't have a prepared text. I gave it extemporaneously, which
is something I've been doing for long before I left the Senate.
We are fulfilling every legal commitment I said and I am
obligated to, and I've complied with every ethical request. I
always have. I did when I was in the Senate. I'll continue to
do it now. We are doing it now.
Chairman Levin. There was one or two other times when you
did not have the opportunity to reply to a question and, in
order not to use up all my time, you should feel free to do
that for the record. We're going to keep this record open until
close of business tomorrow for questions and for your answers
until close of business Monday, which means 5 p.m. tomorrow for
questions for the record, 5 p.m. on Monday for your responses
to questions for the record.
At that time, would you give us the update on any
additional documents, speeches, or information that you have
been requested to provide which you have not yet been able to,
but is in the works, so you can give us an update?
Senator Hagel. I will. Again, I have committed and will
continue to commit to complying with every legal document,
legal requirement.
Chairman Levin. Thank you.
I hope I have a minute or 2 that I can then yield to
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that
courtesy very, very much. I'm going to have to hurry this up a
little bit because it's less time than I thought we had, I say
to my good friend.
It was mentioned that one of the members up here thought I
was being disrespectful during the time that I was questioning
you. It was at a time when I made the statement that you have
been endorsed by the ministry of Iran for your nomination to be
Secretary of Defense. Do you consider that to be a
disrespectful notion on my part?
Senator Hagel. No, it's a legitimate question.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much.
I have kind of been the leader on postponing any further
Abrams tanks or F-16s to Egypt until such time as that
government is under control. This is my own statement, only
representing my own thoughts. I think Morsi's an enemy. I think
their military is a friend.
There was a vote just a little while ago to do away
permanently with the sending of any of this equipment to Egypt.
I don't think that's a good idea. What I think is a good idea
is to continue to use that as leverage. If you do that, you
lose the leverage. I believe that right now, Morsi has already
distanced himself from the military. To me that's a first good
step, and I would like to think that we could reinstate a
friend in that area.
I would only ask you, would you agree with my statement
that I came out with a long time ago or my bill that I
introduced, I should say, and I re-introduced in a stronger way
today, saying that we would withhold sending this equipment to
Egypt until such time as these conditions are met? I mentioned
the conditions of keeping the accords from Camp David and that
type of thing. Would you consider that?
Senator Hagel. First, that's a policy decision that the
President of the United States would make. If he asks for my
advice I would certainly give it to him. But to the bigger
question, I think it is important that our assistance to Egypt
be conditional. They play an absolutely critical role in
fulfilling the commitments of Camp David for the security of
Israel and elsewhere.
Senator Inhofe. I'm sorry to interrupt you, but we're
almost out of time right now. I appreciate that answer.
You made one statement that I strongly disagreed with. You
said that President Obama has been the strongest Israeli
supporter since 1948. I have a hard time with that. I know that
he's not up for confirmation; you are. But when you see
statements coming out of the administration like, ``The United
States believes that negotiations should result in two states
with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel and Jordan and
Egypt,'' and they come out with the statements like, ``We
believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on
the 1967 borderlines,'' these are statements I think are very
damaging, and I can assure you that the leadership over in
Israel feel that those statements are damaging.
Do you still feel that President Obama has been the
strongest supporter of Israel since 1948?
Senator Hagel. I do, and I will tell you very quickly why.
First of all, the 2006 Quartet Principles that President Bush
laid down I think cover most of the points that you've made,
and I supported President Bush then and still do, what he did
in developing those principles.
But when you look at the assistance this administration has
given to Israel, the most significant and largest military-to-
military exercise, Austere Challenge, Israeli-U.S. forces last
fall, the additional moneys that we put into Iron Dome, the
President's position, we have your back----
Senator Inhofe. I've answered the question. That's fine. I
appreciate it.
Senator Hagel. I think it's hard to----
Senator Inhofe. But one other subject before we run out of
time here, and it's one that I know you're very interested in.
You actually were a co-sponsor of the Missile Defense Act of
1999 and I was, too. So we agreed. Times have changed since
that time. At that time people thought having the capabilities
was confined to the Soviet Union at that time, or Russia, and
the United States. A lot has happened since then.
I often say that one of the things I disagreed with most in
the first budget that this President had was when he did away
with the ground-based interceptor site in Poland. I think most
people are aware that was built for protection of Western
Europe and the Eastern United States. I'm satisfied that we
have, even with the reduction of ground-based interceptors on
the west coast, which I disagreed with, but I still think we
have adequate protection on the west coast. It's from the east
coast, and right now our intelligence still says today that
Iran will have the weapon capability and the delivery
capability by 2015. That's why it was supposed to be there.
Now there's a discussion saying to cover that void we need
to have a third site. Do you support a third site of ground-
based interceptor? It would be on the east coast somewhere.
Senator Hagel. I'm aware of the NDAA authorization and
instruction for a third site and an environmental impact
statement. I don't know enough of the details. If I am
confirmed and go over there, I will get into it. But to respond
to that, which I will for the record, I just don't know enough
about it.
Senator Inhofe. Okay, if you'd respond for the record. I
think it's very significant and I think that most people are
looking at this with this void. You have a period of time
between 2015--nobody disputes the capability that Iran will
have at that time. It's not even classified. But there is still
a void of about 6 years between that and when we would have the
capability to knock down what has to be knocked down unless we
have a third site in place. I am hoping that maybe for the
record you'll come back and say that you support the third
site.
[The information referred to follows:]

If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the analysis Congress
requested in section 221 of the National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2013 to evaluate additional missile defense locations in
the United States, including on the east coast, will be delivered on a
timely basis, and that Congress remains informed about the Department's
analysis about how to best protect the U.S. Homeland.

Senator Inhofe. The last thing I'll mention, if you'll
forgive me, Mr. Chairman, when Senator Hirono talked to you she
talked about your efforts and her expectations on your being
involved in using DOD for all these environmental things. I
would suggest to you that's why we have a Department of Energy.
When I asked you the question, will you refrain from doing some
of the things that have been done in the past in this
administration, such as forcing the Navy to pay $26 a gallon
for 450,000 gallons of fuel that you could buy for $3 and other
things, it's billions of dollars that we're paying which we
could be using for warfighting. I see an inconsistency in your
answer to me and your answer to the Senator from Hawaii.
Senator Hagel. My answer to the Senator from Hawaii was, I
believe--they can read it back--that I am committed to all
efficiencies that we can find in DOD which are in the interest
of our country. I didn't commit to any one program.
Senator Inhofe. Or any program that would be a costly
program on experimentation, such as the programs that I've just
mentioned, clearly are in the jurisdiction of the Department of
Energy and they're the ones supposed to be doing it. Don't you
agree that we should be confining ourselves to enhancing our
warfighter capabilities?
Senator Hagel. Well, of course. But I think within that
realm certainly the kind of money that we spend, as you've
noted, on fuel, that should include some not only sense of
that, but are there things that we can be doing with our
research and technology in DOD, why wouldn't we? It just seems
to make sense.
Senator Inhofe. Yes, we should as a government, but that's
what the Department of Energy is supposed to be doing. When you
said, as you suggest, the high cost of fuel, yes, it's a high
cost because we're paying 10 times as much as we would have to
pay, money that we could be putting toward our warfighting
efforts. That's my point.
Senator Hagel. Yes, I agree, but why wouldn't we be looking
at all options if we have the kind of sophisticated research
and technology that DOD does and has possession of? Why
wouldn't we be enlarging that? I don't know anything more
specific to or central to our security than energy.
Senator Inhofe. I know my time has expired. We're spending
literally millions, actually some billions of dollars, on some
of these experimentations that again are not in the purview of
this. Right now we're stalling 179 F-35s that we just recently
are putting off. I always say that if they put them off
indefinitely, that's just a cut; it's not a put-off. Those are
things that we should be doing right now.
We're looking at the Ohio-class sub. We should be doing
that right now, but we've postponed it. If we were to spend the
money that we're spending on the environmental causes on
warfighting, I think it would do us better good. Apparently you
don't agree with that.
Senator Hagel. I've said what I said, but I will commit
this to you, Senator, that, as I said to the Senator from
Hawaii, I will, if I'm confirmed, will obviously look at all
these programs. I'll have to.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Manchin.
Senator Manchin. Thank you.
Sir, I feel like I want to apologize for some of the tone
and demeanor today.
With that being said, if I could ask you this, since we're
so again talking about things you have done, things you have
said over the years. How did you get to Vietnam? I want to go
back there. Were you ordered to go to Vietnam? Were you sent
there? Or how was your orders?
Senator Hagel. Actually I got to Vietnam through kind of an
interesting route. I volunteered for the draft, as my brother
did a month after me. During that time in 1967 the draft was
coming down with pretty heavy levies. You recall.
Senator Manchin. I was there.
Senator Hagel. I know your story. They wouldn't take you,
not because you weren't smart enough, of course, but they
wouldn't take you because of your knees. I know you tried to
bribe your way in, but they still wouldn't let you. I admire
you for that effort and I know your story.
I went to basic training, advanced infantry training. My
brother followed me everywhere a month after me. After advanced
infantry training, I was selected to be one of nine first class
then-Top Secret shoulder-fired heat-seeking missile called the
Redeye gun. At the time it was classified, and it was built to
bring down low-flying Soviet MiGs coming over Germany, eastern
Germany, down the Fulda Gap.
We went to White Sands Missile Range and spent 2 months
training. It was all classified, couldn't get calls in or out.
We were then quietly, all nine of us, ordered to go to Germany
and be integrated into NATO units without any fanfare or
anybody knowing about it.
I got my orders to go to Germany. I went to Fort Dix, NJ,
in November 1967. My eight fellow soldiers and I were getting
packed up to get the bus to go out to the airport to take a
flight to Germany, and I just decided if I was going to be in
the military it didn't make much sense to go to Germany. I'd
never been to Germany. My great-grandparents were from Germany.
Probably a pretty good place, I thought, but I had to go where
there was a war.
So I took my orders down to the orderly, told him I was
Private Hagel, I had orders to go to Germany, here are my
orders, and I wanted to volunteer to go to Vietnam. The office
was a bit quiet. They put me in a holding room. They brought
priests, rabbis, ministers, psychiatrists. All came in to
examine me, thinking that something was wrong, I was running
away from something or I had killed somebody.
After 2 days of testing me to see if it was okay, they held
me, which--I scrubbed barracks for 5 days before they could cut
new orders. So they gave me new orders to go to Vietnam, sent
me home for 5 days, and then on to Travis Air Force Base in San
Francisco, and I got to Vietnam December 1967, got back to the
United States December----
Senator Manchin. There is no reason any one of us should
ever be concerned about your willing to do anything that you
possibly can to defend this country and making sure that we
defend against all foreign enemies, wherever they may be?
Senator Hagel. I hope not, Senator. I mean, we can disagree
on policies, but I think my life and my commitment to this
country is pretty clear, and I'm proud of it.
Senator Manchin. On that, sir, I would say that Israel, the
spokespeople for Israel, support you. They've come to me and
they tell me they support you. Have you gotten that?
Senator Hagel. There are a lot of pro-Israeli groups that
have formally come out and endorsed me, support me, which I'm
grateful for.
Senator Manchin. From what I've heard today, it sounds like
Iran has wishful thinking.
Senator Hagel. Evidently Iran supports me.
Senator Manchin. The President has asked you to serve at
this level, so he has confidence in you.
Senator Hagel. The President did ask me to serve. I said in
my opening statement I am grateful and honored by that trust
and confidence, and I will do everything in my power never to
do anything that would disabuse that confidence and trust for
this country.
Senator Manchin. One final question very quickly, if I may.
As you see the role of Secretary of Defense--and I know we've
talked about and you've been questioned on policy, and I know
you're not going to be in a policy position. You're going to be
basically following policy, not making policy. But if you could
just wrap it up, what we should expect from your position as
Secretary of Defense?
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Senator. If I am confirmed, as I
noted in my opening comments, I would see this relationship,
Senator, as a partnership. I'm going to need your help. I'm
going to need your advice. I'm going to need your
collaboration.
Many people on this authorization committee have a great
deal of experience in this business, many far more than I do,
as is the case in Congress, both the Senate and the House. I
will need that. I will call upon that.
I won't be in a policymaking position, as you note. I also
committed to all of you--and those of you who served with me
know this--I'll always be honest with you. You'll never have to
worry about that. I'll listen to you. I'm sure we won't always
agree, but I'll say it straight, and I'll give you and the
President my honest, most informed advice always.
Senator Manchin. Thank you. I'll say one more thing. Where
I come from there's an old saying: If you can't change your
mind, you can't change anything.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
Senator Sessions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Hagel. You're holding up well. But it's
an important office and you're asked to lead our Defense
Department. I know you know the seriousness of that and it's
exceedingly important.
You have to know, and particularly in recent years, there
has been tension in Congress between the executive branch and
Congress over a number of issues. One of them is national
missile defense, and that's a subcommittee I'm a member of and
we've wrestled with that over the years, and had pretty
consistently a bipartisan congressional vote on those issues.
We voted again this year a unanimous Armed Services Defense
Authorization Bill, unanimous out of committee, under Chairman
Levin's leadership and Senator McCain.
But I'm looking today, I believe in the National Journal,
the Obama administration is moving to begin new U.S.-Russian
talks on further drawdowns of the Nation's nuclear arsenal.
That's also been an issue of concern, but I believe we've been
staying fairly bipartisan and unified on that.
But your report is what causes a great deal of concern,
this study of the Global Zero group. But I just note that Vice
President Biden is set to meet with Russian Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov this weekend during the Munich security
conference. National Security Advisor Tom Donilon will then
head to Moscow in February. President Obama and then-President
Medvedev signed the bilateral New START Treaty in 2010 calling
for deployment of strategic nuclear arsenals involving 700
delivery systems.
Now, as I read the Global Zero report that you co-authored
just last year, less than a year ago, you call for the
elimination of all ICBMs, all tactical nuclear weapons, most of
the bombers, I think 76 B-52s eliminated, leaving only 18
bombers and 10 submarines. So instead of 700 delivery systems
that was part of the New START, it looks like you're down to
about 28 delivery systems. So this introduced dramatic concern.
There are worries on Capitol Hill, the National Journal
reports, that the administration could revise its missile
shield strategy or go ahead with cutbacks to the U.S. stockpile
as a means of drawing Russia into new negotiations. Foreign
Policy Magazine reported ahead of your unannounced discussions
with Lavrov, House committee chairman, subcommittee chairman,
Mike Rogers asked that they have assurance as to what's going
on there, essentially.
I would note that the last year's defense authorization
bill calls for briefings on these discussions to Congress, to
the Armed Services Committee and the Foreign Relations
Committee. It says ``Not later than 60 days after the date of
the enactment of this act and not less than twice each year
thereafter, the President or the President's designee shall
brief the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on
Armed Services of the Senate on the dialogue between the United
States and the Russian Federation on issues related to limits
or controls on nuclear arms, missile defense systems, and long-
range conventional strike systems.'' The deadline I believe for
that briefing would be March 2 this year.
So a first question to you: If you're confirmed in this
position, will you honor that request as part of the NDAA?
Senator Hagel. The request for the briefing?
Senator Sessions. Briefings, yes, the requirements for the
briefings. Will you keep Congress advised on any discussions
dealing with national missile defense and dialogue with Russia
on national missile defense and nuclear arms and long-range
conventional strike systems?
Senator Hagel. Yes, I commit to do that.
Senator Sessions. Also, there's a Sense of Congress on
certain agreements: ``It is the Sense of Congress that any
agreement between the United States and the Russian Federation
related to nuclear arms or missile defense systems or long-
range conventional strike systems, obligating the United States
to reduce or limit Armed Forces or armaments of the United
States in any militarily significant manner may be made only
pursuant to the treat-making power of the President as set
forth in Article II, Section 2, Clause 2, of the Constitution
of the United States.''
That is a Sense of our Congress that any significant
alteration of those deeply important relation between our two
nations, the two most powerful nuclear nations in the world,
would be done by treaty. Will you support that concept and
before making significant changes present those changes to
Congress pursuant to a treaty, and not as a either secret or
open bilateral agreement?
Senator Hagel. Your question is will I commit to a briefing
on all this?
Senator Sessions. No. Whether or not that any significant
changes that would occur in our relationship on those issues,
significant--``in any militarily significant manner may be made
only pursuant to the treaty-making power of the President''. We
would ask that that be presented to this Congress because we
have treaties already that impact so much of this and Congress
believes that any changes should also be made by treaty.
Senator Hagel. Without getting into specifics of it, let me
just commit to obviously consultation with Congress, with the
authorizing committee, yes.
Senator Sessions. It seems like we've not been consulted on
the Biden trip and the Donilon trip. We expect that to be done.
What's been going on is disturbing to us. The President said to
Mr. Medvedev that we'll have more flexibility after the
election, and he was clearly responding to these issues,
missile defense I think in particular and maybe nuclear issues
also. He wasn't consulting with the American people, wasn't
telling us or Congress what he planned to do, but he was
apparently willing to discuss it with the Russian leaders.
I guess I'm asking you, will you comply with the treaty-
making matters? If these agreements are significant militarily,
I believe they should be done by treaty and not by personal
agreements between our two leaders.
Senator Hagel. I would commit to fulfilling any treaty
obligations and any commitments to Congress and any
consultations that Congress needs to be part of, absolutely.
Senator Sessions. I'm not sure that answered the question,
because Congress is concerned about these kind of negotiations
that are going on. We do not have--the President also has made
it clear he believes in zero nuclear weapons. That is his
policy for America. I think it's utterly unrealistic. It's just
amazing to me, and that could lead us into unwise
decisionmaking.
Congress has a responsibility to the American people to
ensure the national defense. We need to know and have you share
those negotiations with us, and changes that impact our
security relationships between us and Russia should be done by
treaty, as they've been done in the past.
Senator Hagel. I've never discussed any of the specifics of
this with the President. I know he knows and believes and is
committed to treaties. That's the purview of the U.S. Senate,
as the Senate passed the New START treaty. All that goes into
that negotiation with, in this particular case, Russia
certainly Congress has to be involved in that.
Senator Sessions. That's very important, Senator Hagel, I
just have to tell you, because there's unease here that may not
be in the works. There's been some discussion for some time
about private unilateral or bilateral negotiations in which
Congress is not involved, that impacts the national security of
our country. That's why this was passed, just passed. So we
expect you to comply with that, and I take your testimony that
you would comply with that.
Senator Hagel. I will comply with all requirements and
laws, absolutely.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
Senator King.
Senator King. Senator Hagel, one of the first meetings I
had after I began running for this office last summer was with
a group of veterans, going all the way from World War II right
up through Iraq and Afghanistan. I want to share with you one
of the ideas that came out of that meeting because it's been
touched upon today, and that is the issue of employability and
employment of particularly recent veterans. The suggestion was
made that the Army and the military has recruiters, people who
help to bring people in, and perhaps it might make some sense
for them to have the reciprocal of recruiters, outplacement
people to deal with soldiers who are, men and women, who are
about to leave, because there's an information gap, is what the
veterans told me, between leaving the military Active Duty and
then going into the Veterans Administration jurisdiction.
There's a gap there.
You don't really need to respond, but that's a suggestion I
might make, where it would be tremendously helpful to provide
that kind of information--what the programs are, what's
available, what the scholarships are, how the GI Bill works,
all those things, to people. I'm sure it's done to some extent
now, but to really regularize that and increase it, to be
comparable to the effort that's put into recruiting.
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Senator. I will think about that.
I had not thought exactly about that potential, but I would say
that as we think through how do we accommodate and fulfill
commitments and assist our veterans, I think we have to open up
all vistas of new thinking and that is one that would deserve
some exploration and if I'm confirmed I look forward to
pursuing the idea with you.
Senator King. Thank you.
I'm also serving on the Intelligence Committee and one of
the issues--and you talked about this in your statement and
it's been touched upon some today--is the whole issue of
counterterrorism. Counterterrorism involves the actions of a
number of agencies and bodies of the U.S. Government. I would
commend to you that I think it deserves some real thought as to
where DOD ends, stops, and the CIA begins in terms of action
and counterterrorism action.
I think it would be worthwhile for you, if you are
confirmed, to meet with Mr. Brennan, if he's confirmed, to talk
about the coordination between the two agencies, so we don't
end up with similar, if not identical, functions in different
regions of the world with whole different command structures,
rules of engagement, and all of those kinds of things.
I think counterterrorism sort of spans, covers the gap or
the relationship between traditional defense and the
Intelligence Community.
Senator Hagel. That is an area that is becoming more and
more relevant, complicated, title 10 versus title 50 and all
those dynamics. If confirmed, yes, if Mr. Brennan is confirmed,
we'll be spending some time together.
Senator King. A final thought, and I know you've touched
upon this. I don't think we can adequately emphasize the
importance of the cyber threat. That may well be the war of the
future. My sense is that we're all talking about it, but I'm
not sure we have the sense of urgency. I know Secretary Panetta
has increased or proposed the increase of that capacity. But
people can die and our society could be brought to a standstill
without a rocket ever taking off or an airplane penetrating our
air space, and I hope that will be a point of emphasis because,
as I say, I think that may be the next war.
Senator Hagel. I agree. I noted it in my opening statement.
I agree with everything you've said. This is a huge issue that
continues to loom large over our future and our security, and
it will have, if confirmed, a lot of my attention.
Senator King. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you.
Senator King [presiding]. In the absence of the chairman,
Senator Ayotte, I believe it's your opportunity.
Senator Ayotte. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator King. Wow, that was fast.
Senator Ayotte. You've been promoted very quickly.
Senator King. Really, that's astounding. [Laughter.]
Senator Ayotte. First of all, we've all expressed our deep
respect for your service to our country, but also let me thank
you for your endurance. We appreciate it.
I wanted to ask you about a speech that you made in 2007.
It was at the Center for Strategic and International Studies
and it was a speech titled ``The United States and Iran at
Dangerous Crossroads''. In that speech you, in referring to
Iran, you said that ``the strategy of containment remains
relevant today''.
I wanted to ask you about that statement that you made in
2007 about ``the strategy of containment remains relevant''
with regard to Iran today. Now, that was in 2007, but why would
you say that, first of all? Then, isn't that inconsistent with
what you've been saying today with regard to containment?
Senator Hagel. I don't have the speech in front of me and I
think there was more to it than just that few words that you
quoted. If I recall, the entire speech was about how do we deal
with Iran. If I recall, what I was inventorying in specific
reference to containment was within that inventory what are the
options. I don't think that speech says that I support it.
Senator Ayotte. No, but you said that it was relevant to
the discussion with Iran, and I guess I would ask you to say
why do you think that that was a strategy that we should have
considered? It was obviously one of the things you mentioned.
Senator Hagel. I didn't say it was a strategy, I don't
think. As I said, in the context of how do we deal with----
Senator Ayotte. I don't want to be unfair, but I think,
just to be clear, the quote that you said was ``The strategy of
containment remains relevant.'' So why is it relevant with
regard to Iran?
Senator Hagel. The bigger point is what I was saying, I
think--I haven't looked at that speech since I gave it,
probably, but I do recall some of it. The point was, what is
the range of options that we would have to look at, the world
would look at. Again, I didn't advocate it, I didn't recommend
it, I didn't support it.
Senator Ayotte. Was it that containment was one of the
options?
Senator Hagel. Yes. I mean, of course. When you look at the
whole range of what your options are, that certainly would be
one of them.
Senator Ayotte. Do you think containment's one of the
options now?
Senator Hagel. No, I don't know. But it doesn't make any
difference what I think. It's when you look at range, it's like
the Global Zero report. That was not a recommendation report.
That was a range of goals, aspirations, possibilities. That
report never said we recommend the following. If I recall that
speech, I think that was the same kind of what's the range of
options.
Senator Ayotte. Senator, I want to be clear: It does matter
what you think, and obviously your understanding and thought
process on these issues is very important to us. So as a
follow-up, I know that Senator Vitter had asked you about a
portion of the book that you wrote, ``America, Our Next
Chapter,'' and it was in that book you had said that ``The
genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the bottle no
matter what Iran does.'' Obviously, North Korea, other powers.
``In this imperfect world, sovereign nation states possession
nuclear weapons capability, as opposed to stateless terrorist
groups, will often respond with some degree of responsible, or
at least sane, behavior.''
Do you believe that Iran responds or will respond with some
degree of responsible or sane behavior?
Senator Hagel. First of all, it's not what I suggested in
that quote.
Senator Ayotte. Well, it's in the context of Iran, but I'm
asking you just straightforwardly: Do you think that the
Iranian regime responds--you talked about the difference
between nation states versus, for example, stateless terrorist
organizations. Do you believe, in the context of Iran, do you
believe that the Iranian regime responds with some degree of
responsible, or at least sane, behavior, or will respond like
that?
Senator Hagel. So far they have not, and I have said and
I've said in that same book that you're quoting from, that Iran
is a state sponsor of terrorism. I've said that many times. So
no is the answer to your question.
Senator Ayotte. If they haven't been responding with a
level of, with a degree of responsible or sane behavior and, as
you say in your book, that it's a state sponsor of terrorism,
I'm also struggling with the question of why you would have
thought that it was appropriate for us to have direct,
unconditional talks with Iran, because here we have a regime
that doesn't respond in a responsible or sane behavior, is a
state sponsor of terrorism, and what we thought we could--why
that would be an appropriate manner for us to address them?
Senator Hagel. Well, first, I said ``engagement''. I think
we should talk. We actually are indirectly in the P5 Plus 1. We
have been. I think that's responsible. I think it's always
responsible to try to talk first.
North Korea, I don't consider North Korea a responsible,
sane administration, but we are talking to North Korea. We've
been talking bilaterally to North Korea. We're talking with the
Party of 6 to North Korea. I think that's wise. I think it's
always wise to try to talk to people before you get into war.
Senator Ayotte. But I think that you were beyond the P5.
You refer to direct discussions with our two countries, and
also for establishing diplomatic ties with our country.
Senator Hagel. Again, when I talked about the possibility
of diplomatic ties or even I said, I think, in 2002 encouraging
Iran to join the World Trade Organization, I've always thought
that that's smarter more wiser, if you can push, help push,
institutions like China into world bodies, because when they go
into world bodies they have to comply with some semblance of
international behavior. It doesn't mean they always will. They
won't. They cheat. But I think we're smarter to do that.
Senator, I've never thought engagement is weakness. I never
thought it was surrender. I never thought it was appeasement. I
think it's clearly in our interest. If that doesn't work, then
I think the President's position and his strategy has been
exactly right: Get the United Nations behind you, get the
international sanctions behind you, keep military options on
the table. If the military option is the only option, it's the
only option.
Senator Ayotte. Just to be clear, I don't think that all
engagement is weakness, either. But I think there's a huge
distinction when we're dealing with a regime that is the
largest state sponsor of terrorism, and given the fact that
they have a long history, including in Iraq, with assisting the
militias to murder our troops, including what they've done with
Hezbollah and Hamas, what they're doing now in Syria. I think
there's always a distinction in how we deal with different
players around the world, is my point.
I know that my time has expired and I will submit for the
record questions that I think are very important about the
Virginia-class submarine. I share the important work done at
the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard with my colleagues Senator Jeanne
Shaheen and also I know Senator King is very focused on that,
and maintaining our submarine fleet. I know that Senator
Blumenthal asked you about that as well.
I do have concerns that part of the Global Zero report does
recommend that the Ohio-class submarine would actually be
diminished down to 10. I'll follow up with those questions and
the record. I have to go now. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. I'd be glad to respond. Thank you.
Chairman Levin [presiding]. Thank you, Senator Ayotte.
Senator Donnelly?
Senator Donnelly. No.
Chairman Levin. Okay. Senator Fischer.
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Senator Hagel. It's been a long day and I do
appreciate your answers to these important questions.
When we spoke last week, we talked somewhat about the
sequester, also budget concerns, the modernization of our
nuclear forces. Especially being from Nebraska, you understand
the importance of STRATCOM and its mission as it deals with
deterrence that we use in this country and that we've used for
many, many years and I believe has been very, very successful
and it's a good point for us.
Today you also in your opening discussed the need to
modernize our defensive forces. You spoke to Senator Blunt,
also Senator Blumenthal, about the need to modernize our Navy.
I guess I would like to hear your thought process about how
we're going to do this. Where's the money coming from? How are
you going to advise the President in making these decisions?
Because we're looking at sequester, we're looking at budget
constraints. How is this all going to tie together, and what
would be your advice to the President on how the Pentagon is
going to address all of those budget constraints?
Senator Hagel. Let's start with where we are. The Pentagon
is adjusting, and I think responsibly, to our future based on
the Budget Control Act of 2011. You know the details of that.
The Chiefs have submitted plans. I think as we rebalance and
refit and unwind the second war and all the other dynamics that
are changing since the last decade, it gives us some new
opportunities: audits, all the acquisition focus,
accountability. We are being forced, DOD, to take a hard look
at its priorities.
But as I've said before, it begins with mission and then
the resources to fulfill that mission, and then what are the
priorities within that mission.
To your specific question, how do you finance it all, well,
if sequestration would take effect then all of this is going to
be affected. That's exactly right. We've deferred some
decisions. We've set back some of the schedules on some of our
ships, planes, decisions on a number of things.
It isn't just the dollars that affect this, but it's the
planning, it's the flexibility. It's the ability to bring all
this together and then project and plan.
So in no way--I hope I did not give any indication that we
were going to be able to continue to do everything for
everybody everywhere. That's just not a reality.
Senator Fischer. We can't.
Senator Hagel. We can't.
Senator Fischer. How do you decide, though? You've made
commitments to members here today on philosophy, on working
with this committee. Do we have a commitment to build up the
Navy? Do we have a commitment to STRATCOM so that they can
continue their mission of deterrence? Do we have those
commitments?
How do you decide what's going to be the priority? What
will your advice be? Is STRATCOM important? Should that be a
priority? Would it be a priority in your advice to the
President?
Senator Hagel. The Pentagon is working off the Defense
Authorization Act of 2013, which this committee passed. That is
the directive that frames the budgetary restraints, except if
sequestration takes effect. That prioritizes, to your point,
being what's important, what do you budget for, what do you
finance. We have to manage that.
If I am confirmed, then I'll be working closely with our
Chiefs and all of our managers and decisionmakers on how we do
this. On STRATCOM, I think STRATCOM is vitally important to the
future of this country. It's been my position when I was in the
Senate. It was my position long before I was in the Senate. Of
the nine combatant commands--STRATCOM is one of them--that's a
key command.
We have to continue to fund our commands and find ways to
do that. But that's going to require some tough choices and
hard decisions.
Senator Fischer. Right. Also, I believe we need to make
sure we don't have hollow forces out there as well.
My time's up. Once again, I thank you. I thank you for your
service. I thank you for being here today. I thank you for your
willingness to continue to serve the people of this country.
Senator Hagel. Senator, thank you.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Senator Hagel. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you very much, Senator Fischer.
Senator Blunt.
Senator Blunt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Again, I join everybody else, Senator Hagel, in thanking
you for staying today and the answers you've given.
One of the things we were frustrated about was the
difficulty of getting information on the groups you've spoken
to in the last year, and of course the hundreds of groups
you've spoken to in the course of your career would be too much
to ask. I do have three comments from groups that I'm going to
enter into the record, two comments you made before groups, one
the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee conference in
2002; another Arab-American audience in 2007; and then in 2006,
the one I'll put in the record right now and just enter the
others, the Council on American-Islamic Relations Forum.
``University of Chicago Professor John Mearsheimer praised
Hagel for not being pro-Israel. He said `Potential presidential
candidates for 2008, like Hillary Clinton, John McCain, Joe
Biden, and Newt Gingrich, were falling all over themselves to
express their support for Israel. The only exception to that
rule was Senator Chuck Hagel.' '' Unfortunately, I don't have
anything to go with that of what you might have said.
But some of the concerns of being--I used to say when I was
the Whip in the House that you could count on the House and the
Senate to be, among other things, always pro-Israel, and I
think that's been the mainstream of our views. I've seen a
number of times, in fairness to you, where you've said you're
pro-Israel, but that doesn't mean you have to be reflexively
for everything that Israel is for.
These statements are what they are. They're the things that
were reported from comments you made that are out of the
context of the other comments. But I'm going to put those all
in the record.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Senator Blunt. Also, earlier today I asked you about the
comment about the bloated Pentagon. I want to get this
straight. You said that that, those comments, were before the
sequestration bill passed, and they were after. Sequestration
passed on August 2. The Financial Times interview was on August
29. What you said on August 29 in that Financial Times
interview was you said ``I think''--August 29, 2011. The quote
out of the article was:
``The Defense Department I think''--this was your quote.
``The Defense Department I think in many ways has been bloated.
Let's look at the reality here. The Defense Department's gotten
everything it wanted the last 10 years and more. We've taken
priorities, we've taken dollars, we've taken programs, we've
taken policies out of the State Department, out of a number of
other Departments, and put them over in Defense.''
So that ``bloated'' comment was after sequestration. Of
course, this is the Department you now, 18 months later, if
this nomination is approved, would be running. Again, where do
we find that, those bloated things in the Defense Department,
and what are you prioritizing? Another way to ask what Ms.
Fischer was asking maybe is, are we going to let money drive
strategy here or strategy drive the money? As Secretary of
Defense, which of those positions are you going to take and how
are you going to advocate, here's the money we need for the
strategy we must have until we get to the reality of here's the
money you have, now do the best you can with it? I hope you're
an advocate for strategic-driven spending in the Pentagon,
rather than just the caretaker of the money that winds up
there.
Senator Hagel. Senator, thank you. There are a lot of
pieces and I know we have time issues, but let me start this
way. First, on the comments I made in the Financial Times
interview, again as I addressed that today, that was an
extensive interview about a lot of things. So I was 3 weeks
off.
Senator Blunt. Well, you were after the sequestration bill
had passed, though. So you were talking----
Senator Hagel. Not sequestration; the Budget Control Act.
Senator Blunt. But that's what included--they were talking
here about what would happen if you took these cuts.
Senator Hagel. That's what I was talking about. But the
Budget Control Act that was passed was implemented a few months
later, which I agreed with, and obviously the majority of
Congress did as well, to try to find $1 trillion overall in our
Government in savings and $490 billion is coming out of DOD for
the next 10 years.
But to your bigger point, you start there with the reality
of what Congress has passed, what Congress has decided to
appropriate for each Federal agency. In this current fiscal
year that we're living in, it's a $525 billion operating budget
and $88 billion for overseas contingencies. DOD works within
the framework of those numbers.
I've said a number of times here that I agree with you that
budget alone should not drive our national security, of course
not. What is the mission, as I've said? What are the
priorities, which you just brought up about different projects
that Senator Fischer and others have asked me about? How are
going to fund everything? Should you fund everything?
Do times change? Are there different threats? Ten years
ago, we put a lot of money in the Defense Department budget;
there was no such thing as a cyber warfare threat. Do we need
to do more there?
Do we need to change our force presence in Asia? We've
decided we're going to do that. That changes things. We're
moving marines around in the Pacific. That wasn't the case 10
years ago.
So things change. You manage and you direct your efforts
and you lead based on the security interests of your country
first. If I am confirmed, Senator, I will be a strong, have to
be a strong advocate for the Defense Department. That will be
part of my job. But that doesn't mean that I don't have some
responsibilities for efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars
and effective use of the taxpayers' dollars.
Senator Blunt. Just the opposite, you do have that
responsibility.
Senator Hagel. I do, that's right.
Senator Blunt. But I think the point is we want to be sure
that you're advocating for the money you think you need to
strategically accomplish what we can. Then obviously at the end
of the day you have to deal with the will of the process to
provide the money you have. But we ought to let the money as
much as possible be defined by the strategy rather than the
other way around, Senator.
Senator Hagel. I agree with that.
Senator Blunt. I'm once again out of time.
Senator Hagel. I agree with that, Senator. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Blunt.
Senator Reed.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, we have listened all afternoon to a series
of questions about what you said in 2002, in 2006, in 2007. I
expect, though, if you're confirmed as the Secretary of Defense
the President of the United States will not turn to you and ask
you about your floor speeches, as elegant as they were. He will
ask you if you're prepared to advise him on matters of
literally life and death, that you have prepared DOD to address
every contingency in a thoughtful way, knowing the costs and
the benefits; that he assumes, as I do and as you've stated
repeatedly, your staunch commitment to our allies, in
particular in the context today of the State of Israel; and
that you are fundamentally committed to the welfare of our
troops and families because you have seen as a soldier that
ultimately they are the difference in our military.
Looking not backwards to a series of individual quotes and
footnotes, but looking ahead, if you are there and the
President turns to you, can you give us--and I think you can;
I'm convinced of that--the confidence that you will be prepared
to give him the advice he needs to make life and death
decisions which he as Commander in Chief must make?
Senator Hagel. Senator, when the President asked me to
consider this job I didn't want another job. I was not looking
for another job. Lilibet and I had a pretty good life since I
left the Senate, nothing personal. But the friendships that
we've maintained here and valued here and the experiences we
had here we will treasure for always. Highest privilege of my
life, serving in this body.
I say that because I wasn't looking for another job. The
President asked me to come see him and we had a long
conversation one night, just the two of us, over an hour. We
talked about the job, the world, security, the future. Within
the context of that conversation, we got down into what about
this job.
I didn't try to sell him on the job, that I could do it. In
fact, when he asked me about why am I qualified or why would I
be uniquely qualified, I said I'm not. There are a lot of very
qualified Americans who could do this job. I don't think a lot
of them in the sense that they're out there everywhere. I think
there are some qualifications for this job. But I'm not the
only one.
I said: ``Mr. President, I'm not going to sit here and try
to convince you that I'm the right person. You know me, you
know my record, you know what I believe.'' I've had the
opportunity to work with him pretty closely over the last 4
years as I served as co-chairman with you and Senator Levin's
former colleague, Senator Dave Boren from Oklahoma, on the
President's Intelligence Advisory Board. That's allowed me to
stay pretty current with intelligence and make a contribution
maybe a little bit there. In the last 4 years I've served on
Secretary Gates', Secretary Panetta's Policy Advisory Boards.
I do have some understanding, as I told him, of this. But
why I think when Lilibet and I talked about it I agreed to go
forward with this is because of the tremendous opportunities
and the important time that we are living in and the
opportunities we now have to help make a better world. I think
the next few years are going to be as defining and as important
in this country truly as any few years post-World War II.
I told the President he was here at a very defining time,
and if I can help him do that, if I can help this country, I
want to do it. The experiences I'll bring to the job, Senator,
I think I have a pretty varied background on a lot of things. I
think always in the end, like any job, judgment is the ultimate
determinant of everything. I think experience is a factor,
varied experience, responsible experience. But that all adds up
to judgment. I hope, if I'm confirmed, I can do those things to
give the President and this country wise, informed, honest
advice, and I will do everything within my power to do that.
Senator Reed. Thank you very much.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Reed.
Senator Cruz.
Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Hagel, thank you for remaining through what has
been a very long hearing.
I'd like to ask some additional questions to further
explore your positions and your record, and begin with asking:
Are you familiar with an individual named Chas Freeman?
Senator Hagel. Yes, yes.
Senator Cruz. He was, if I understand correctly, a vice
chairman at the Atlantic Council; is that correct?
Senator Hagel. When I became Chairman of the Atlantic
Council after I left the Senate to replace General Jim Jones,
he was one of many board members and I think was a vice
chairman. But I never really worked with him in the Atlantic
Council, but I know him, yes.
Senator Cruz. You and he were part of a group that traveled
last year to China together; is that correct as well?
Senator Hagel. No, that's not correct.
Senator Cruz. Okay. There have been press reports to that
effect.
Senator Hagel. Those press reports are incorrect. I have
never been on any trip with Chas Freeman.
Senator Cruz. There have also been press reports that has
described Mr. Freeman as helping coordinate efforts to defend
your nomination. Is that an accurate characterization?
Senator Hagel. I haven't spoken with Chas Freeman in years.
I don't know of any activity that he's involved in to endorse
me. There are a lot of people I appreciate are endorsing me and
supporting me, but I haven't talked to Chas Freeman in years.
Senator Cruz. Is he someone whose judgment you respect?
Senator Hagel. I think Chas Freeman has been an important
public servant for this country. There are a lot of different
opinions that people have on different issues. I don't agree
with everybody and it's pretty clear everybody doesn't agree
with me. So that's okay.
Senator Cruz. Do you consider his views well within the
mainstream?
Senator Hagel. What views are you speaking about, Senator?
Senator Cruz. His views on the Middle East and on the
Nation of Israel?
Senator Hagel. I'm not actually that familiar with all of
his views. I can't speak for Chas Freeman.
Senator Cruz. All right. Let's move on to your record then.
You stated in your prepared remarks: ``My overall world view
has never changed.'' I have to admit I find that difficult to
reconcile with statements and positions you've taken for over a
decade and what seems to me a fairly significant shift since
you've been nominated for Secretary of Defense.
What I'd like to do is go through some past statements,
past positions of yours and just clarify if you agree with them
or not, beginning with number one. In 2001, you voted against
legislation sanctioning Iran. Now, am I correct you no longer
agree with that position; you think sanctions against Iran are
a good policy today?
[The information referred to follows:]

In 2001, Senator Hagel voted against legislation sanctioning Iran
for its pursuit of weapons of mass destruction and support for
international terrorism.

Senator Hagel. I have said on the record multilateral
international sanctions----
Senator Cruz. Do you agree with sanctions against Iran?
Senator Hagel. I'm sorry?
Senator Cruz. Do you think sanctions against Iran are a
good idea today?
Senator Hagel. Yes, yes. Yes, I always have.
Senator Cruz. So it's fair--I'm trying to characterize
your--I'm trying to understand your views and characterize them
fairly. It's fair to say you no longer agree with the position
in 2001 that we should not be sanctioning Iran?
Senator Hagel. That was a unilateral sanction and the Bush
administration--
Senator Cruz. Today do you think unilateral sanctions are a
bad idea?
Senator Hagel. It's a different time now because we now
have international sanctions on. I've supported the President's
position----
Senator Cruz. Senator Hagel, please answer the question I
asked. Today do you think unilateral sanctions would be a bad
idea?
Senator Hagel. Not today, 12 years later.
Senator Cruz. So that is not a view you'd agree with today?
Senator Hagel. Because times have changed. We now have
international sanctions on them.
Senator Cruz. The second slide: In 2007, you voted against
legislation designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a
terrorist group.
Senator Hagel. That's correct.
[The information referred to follows:]

In 2007, Senator Hagel voted against legislation designating the
Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group.

Senator Cruz. You no longer agree with that policy. Today
your position is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist
group; is that correct?
Senator Hagel. The Revolutionary Guard is part of the
Iranian Government. The reason I voted against----
Senator Cruz. Sir, I'm not asking the reason. I'm asking
for your views today. Do you believe the Iranian Revolutionary
Guard is a terrorist group, yes or no?
Senator Hagel. It is part of a state sponsor of terrorism,
so it's part of Iran, which I've said is a sponsor of state
terrorism.
Senator Cruz. Is that a yes?
Senator Hagel. That vote wasn't that question. That vote
gave----
Senator Cruz. I'm asking your views today. Do you believe
the Iranian Revolutionary National Guard is a terrorist group?
Senator Hagel. It is part of a terrorist--it is part of a
government that supports terrorism.
Senator Cruz. Is that a yes or a no?
Senator Hagel. It's the answer I just gave you.
Senator Cruz. All right, we'll move on to the next one. In
2008, you also voted against comprehensive Iran sanctions.
We've already discussed that today you agree with sanctions, so
that is another position----
[The information referred to follows:]

In 2008, Senator Hagel voted against the Comprehensive Iran
Sanctions, Accountability and Divestment Act in the Senate Banking
Committee.

Senator Hagel. That again was a unilateral sanction that
the Bush administration was opposed to, and the Secretary of
State of this country, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice,
wrote that.
Senator Cruz. Sir, my time is limited. I understand that
you want to give reasons for the past positions. We've
discussed the reasons. I'm simply trying to clarify your
positions today.
If you look at number four, in 2010 you stated you're not
sure it's necessary to keep all options on the table with
regard to Iran's nuclear program. Do you agree with that
position today or is that no longer your position?
[The information referred to follows:]

In 2010, Senator Hagel told the Atlantic Council he was ``not so
sure it is necessary to continue to say all options are on the table''
regarding Iran's nuclear program.

Senator Hagel. I don't recall that. I have always said that
all options remain on the table. I don't recall that speech.
Senator Cruz. So this is not your position today? I'm just
trying to understand.
Senator Hagel. No, it's not. I have said that all options
must remain on the table, including--in fact, in an op-ed I
wrote with two former CENTCOM commanders last year----
Senator Cruz. The final one I'm going to ask you: In a 1998
Senate hearing, you stated that the United States has ``tilted
too far towards Israel in the Middle East peace process''. Do
you continue to agree with this position or is that no longer
your position today?
[The information referred to follows:]

In a 1998 Senate hearing, Senator Hagel said that the United States
has ``tilted too far toward Israel in the Middle East peace process.''

Senator Hagel. I don't remember that, the context of the
hearing or the speech or all the things I said in it. No, I
don't think the United States has tilted too far to Israel. I
support the President's position on Israel. I've said in my
book and other speeches that I strongly support Israel.
Senator Cruz. So you do not agree with this policy? I will
point out that I have a list of 10 other statements in the past
which I'm pretty confident if I asked you you would say you do
not agree with, and they're all statements and quotes from you.
In my judgment, your record as a U.S. Senator--and you and
I don't know each other. We do not have a personal
relationship. But I think your record and your past statements
as a U.S. Senator demonstrate greater antagonism for the Nation
of Israel than any member of this body, and also demonstrate a
greater willingness to stand against sanctions, stand against
military action, stand against any strong position against
Iran, Hamas, Hezbollah, terrorists.
That ultimately is why the Washington Post described your
foreign policy views as ``near the fringe of the Senate''. That
raises, I think, very serious questions about your suitability
to serve as the Secretary of Defense. In my view, having a
Secretary of Defense who is not viewed as supporting credible,
strong military action makes it more likely the United States
will be drawn into military conflict, and I think that would be
a very unfortunate outcome.
Thank you.
Chairman Levin. Thank you, Senator Cruz.
That ends the second round. If you want an opportunity to
comment on that. If not, I will ask you some other questions.
By the way, Senator Ayotte, in reaction to one of the
things you said about it doesn't matter what I believe, I think
what you were--first of all, I think it does matter. We all
would agree it very much matters what you believe. But I think
what you were pointing out is that ultimately what matters is
what the President believes. I think that's what you were
aiming at.
Senator Hagel. That's exactly what I was aiming at, and
that's what I meant to say, that's right. Thank you.
Chairman Levin. I'm now going to ask you the standard
questions that I've delayed, and these are just the questions
we ask of every nominee.
Have you adhered to applicable laws and regulations
governing conflicts of interest?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Senator Hagel. I'm sorry? I didn't hear.
Chairman Levin. Have you assumed any duties or undertaken
any actions which would appear to presume the outcome of the
confirmation process?
Senator Hagel. No.
Chairman Levin. Will you ensure that your staff complies
with deadlines established for requested communications,
including questions for the record in hearings?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Chairman Levin. If you are confirmed, will you cooperate in
providing witnesses and briefers in response to congressional
requests?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Will those witnesses be protected from
reprisal for their testimony or their briefings?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear and
testify upon request before this committee?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Do you agree that you will provide
documents, including copies of electronic forms of
communication, in a timely manner when requested by a duly
constituted committee or to consult with the committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in
providing such documents?
Senator Hagel. Yes.
Chairman Levin. Now, we've completed our second round and
that means that if there's other questions remaining, we can
take a few minutes for them. Is there anybody that wants to?
Yes, Senator King.
Senator King. One very brief question. In watching
television over the last week or so, I've seen an ad
questioning your nomination, a television ad. I just wondered
if you or any of the people that have worked on preparing you
for this has any idea who's sponsoring that ad, because it's
not apparent from the ad itself? Have you gotten to the bottom
of that?
Senator Hagel. Senator, first, I have not seen any of those
ads. I know they're there. I long ago figured out the better
way to live life is not get drug down in the underbrush of
these kinds of things. So I don't pay attention to it. My focus
is on what's important about this assignment, this job, if I am
confirmed, and in particular this committee and this body, and
preparing myself hopefully for what matters with the
possibility that the U.S. Senate confirms me for this job.
I have not asked anybody that question. I don't know, have
never seen the ads.
Senator King. Thank you very much, and thank you for your
testimony today. You've been forthright and strong, and again I
appreciate your commitment to this country.
Senator Hagel. Thank you, Senator.
Chairman Levin. Another question?
Senator Cruz. Very briefly, I wanted to thank you for your
commitment to this committee, number one, to provide a complete
accounting and copies of the speeches you've given; and number
two, to respond to the letter that you received 2 days ago
requesting specific financial information. I appreciate your
commitment to do that.
I also would ask you--in our discussion about Chas Freeman
you said you were not particularly close with him, but that
your understanding was his views were within the mainstream, if
that's a fair characterization.
Senator Hagel. No, I didn't say in the mainstream. I said I
don't know.
Senator Cruz. Okay. What I would ask you to do also as a
follow-up is to review in particular a speech that Mr. Freeman
gave on March 4, 2011, at the Palestine Center in Washington,
DC, and give me your judgment in terms of whether you agree
with the views on the Middle East and the views of the Nation
of Israel that are expressed in that speech. In particular, I
would be interested in your views on the fifth paragraph of
that speech.
In my view, the views expressed in that speech are not
accurate and not within the mainstream, and I would be
interested if you concur in that assessment or if you have a
different assessment.
Chairman Levin. That's a question you're asking for the
record?
Senator Cruz. For the record, yes.
[The information referred to follows:]

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

Chairman Levin. Okay. Any other questions for the record
need to be submitted, as I said before, by tomorrow at 5 p.m.
I assume, Senator Cruz, that when you said that he's agreed
to provide all of the speeches, it would be all the speeches
that he has access to; is that fair?
Senator Cruz. That he has or that he can get copies of. I
would certainly hope and expect that he would engage in
reasonable efforts to get copies of speeches if he doesn't have
them in his immediate files.
Chairman Levin. We'll say that if you have easy access or
reasonable access to speeches you've given, even though you
don't have them, that we would expect that you could provide
this as well, as well as the other information you indicated
you're perfectly happy to submit, you just haven't had the time
to get it ready.
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, I will commit to that and
every request, as we have. As I said, some of this I didn't see
until yesterday. But everything that is out there that we can
find, we'll make every effort to get it and provide it.
Chairman Levin. We very much appreciate that, and your
openness in your responses today.
Again, the record will be open until tomorrow, as I said,
at 5 p.m. But your answers we would hope and expect would be in
by Monday at 5 p.m., because we would very much like to move
this nomination forward to a resolution, first on this
committee, and that timetable would help us move in an
expeditious way.
We thank you. We thank your family and your friends.
Unless there are other questions, we will now stand
adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the committee adjourned.]

[Prepared questions submitted to the Hon. Chuck Hagel by
Chairman Levin prior to the hearing with answers supplied
follow:]
Questions and Responses
defense reforms
Question. The Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense
Reorganization Act of 1986 and the Special Operations reforms have
strengthened the warfighting readiness of our Armed Forces. They have
enhanced civilian control and clearly delineated the operational chain
of command and the responsibilities and authorities of the combatant
commanders, and the role of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
They have also clarified the responsibility of the Military Departments
to recruit, organize, train, equip, and maintain forces for assignment
to the combatant commanders.
Do you see the need for modifications of any Goldwater-Nichols Act
provisions?
If so, what areas do you believe might be appropriate to address in
these modifications?
Answer. I believe that the success of our Armed Forces since the
enactment of the Goldwater-Nichols Act amply demonstrates that the act
has enhanced the ability of our Armed Forces to defend our Nation and
to operate successfully as joint forces under our combatant commanders.
If confirmed, I will evaluate the implementation of the act, and will
make recommendations for modifications if necessary. At present, I am
aware of no need to make changes to the act.
duties of the secretary of defense
Question. Section 113 of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
Secretary of Defense is the principal assistant to the President in all
matters relating to the Department of Defense (DOD). Subject to the
direction of the President, the Secretary of Defense, under section
113, has authority, direction, and control over DOD.
Do you believe there are actions you need to take to enhance your
ability to perform the duties of the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. I believe title 10 provides the Secretary of Defense
appropriate, sufficient, and clear authority to lead DOD and to serve
as the principal assistant to the President on all matters relating to
the Department. I do not foresee needing to take any actions to enhance
the ability of the Secretary of Defense to execute assigned duties.
Question. What changes to section 113, if any, would you recommend?
Answer. At present, I believe that section 113 provides sufficient
legal authority to the Secretary of Defense to allow him to perform his
two primary functions. I do not foresee needing to recommend changes to
section 113.
qualifications
Question. What background and experience do you have that you
believe qualifies you for this position?
Answer. I volunteered for the draft and then volunteered to go to
Vietnam after I received orders to go to Germany. I served a 12-month
tour which included the Tet Offensive in 1968. I rose to the rank of
infantry sergeant. For 10 of those months, I served alongside my
younger brother Tom. I understand what it is like to be a soldier in
war. I also understand what happens when there is poor morale and
discipline among the troops and a lack of clear objectives,
intelligence, and command and control from Washington. I believe that
experience will help me as Secretary of Defense to ensure we maintain
the best fighting force in the world, protect our men and women in
uniform, and ensure that we are cautious and certain when contemplating
the use of force.
When I returned from Vietnam, I graduated from the University of
Nebraska, using the G.I. Bill. Because of that benefit, I co-authored
with fellow Vietnam veteran Senator Jim Webb, the new G.I. Bill which
became law in 2008. I know the importance of providing our military
personnel and their families with the benefits they need, not only
while in the military, but once they return to civilian life, and I
will not forget that if I am confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
I was wounded twice during my tour in Vietnam. In 1981, I was
appointed by President Reagan and confirmed by the Senate to be Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans Administration. I later resigned because
of inadequate support for Vietnam veterans suffering from Agent Orange
and other Vietnam veterans programs that were being eliminated. I have
worked with, and on behalf of veterans' organizations my entire life. I
know when the system is working, and when it is failing. The past
decade of war has produced tens of thousands of wounded warriors. Many
are still on Active Duty. Others have or are transitioning to civilian
life. All need the best care we they can give them. Because of my own
experiences, I will honor that commitment to veterans and their
families if I become Secretary of Defense.
While I do not believe anyone can be fully prepared to manage an
organization as large and complex as DOD, I believe that I have
significant management experience that gives me a strong sense of what
needs to be done. Most important is building and working with teams.
This is always an essential foundational element of management and
leadership. In the 1970s, I was the Chief of Staff to a U.S.
Congressman and then later Manager of Government Affairs for Firestone
Tire and Rubber Company. In the early 1980s, I co-founded Vanguard
Cellular Systems, Inc., a publicly traded company, which became one of
the largest independent cellular systems in the country. I also served
as President and Chief Executive Officer of the World USO; the Chief
Operating Officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of Industrialized Nations
(G-7 Summit) in Houston, TX; Deputy Commissioner General of the United
States for the 1982 World's Fair; President of the Private Sector
Council and president of an investment bank. I have also served on
boards of some of the world's largest companies.
Finally as a U.S. Senator from Nebraska for 12 years, I have a
legislative record of continuing and unwavering support for our
military and our national security. I have voted to authorize the use
of military force and I have questioned the military and foreign policy
decisions of our leaders. I believe this experience has prepared me to
make the tough decisionsand to know that I am accountable for those
decisions.
priorities
Question. If confirmed, you will confront a range of critical
issues relating to threats to national security and ensuring that the
Armed Forces are prepared to deal with these threats.
In your view, what are the major challenges confronting the next
Secretary of Defense?
Answer. The next Secretary of Defense will be confronted with a
myriad of challenges stemming from an ever more complex global
environment. Some of the challenges we know today, but many will
continue to unfold as we conclude over 10 years at war and look to the
future of our military posture. In an ever changing world with both
state and non-state actors developing nontraditional tools of war, the
United States will be challenged by technological advancements that
bring the battlefield to both space and cyberspace. Terrorist
organizations continue to proliferate throughout the world and have a
significant presence in places such as Yemen, Somalia and North Africa,
areas that pose great risk for regional stability. With the ever
present threat of Iran, the next Secretary of Defense must be vigilant
in pursuing the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon, and must maintain our unshakeable commitment to Israel's
security. As the United States begins to rebalance to the Asia-Pacific
region, the Department will be faced by new challenges in this vital
part of the world. Piracy, maritime security, disaster relief efforts,
and, of course, continued vigilance to terrorism and proliferation of
nuclear weapons name just a few known challenges. All of these things
come while the United States is fighting its own battles at home to
take care of its service men and women returning from over ten decades
of war with rising medical costs and advanced medical conditions.
Keeping the faith with our military men and women must remain a high
priority to ensure the military itself stays as strong and faithful as
its parts. While these are some of the few challenges we know, there
are far too many that are not yet apparent. We must be prepared for any
contingency we may face in the coming years all while doing so in the
confines of this austere budget environment.
Question. Assuming you are confirmed, what plans do you have for
addressing these challenges?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to work with the President, Congress,
and with senior civilian and military leaders of DOD to come up with
comprehensive plans to address each issue. No single issue will have a
single simple answer. This will be an iterative process that will
employ the full force of Government. It will necessitate strong
relationships I plan to maintain and strengthen with our allies and
partners throughout the globe. We will define our post-2014 presence in
Afghanistan and create a new relationship and partnership with
Afghanistan. To counter terrorism, we will look into how we use our
special operations forces and the development of new technologies and
surveillance techniques. As long as nuclear weapons exist, we must
maintain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal to deter any
adversary. I am committed to considering all options to counter Iran
and its aggression, and to maintain U.S. support for missile defense
systems in Israel. With the rebalance to the Asia Pacific, our training
and specializations will change as the battlefield and necessary skills
of our servicemembers change. As our troops transition out of over 10
years of war, I will look at the services available for our men and
women, both those that continue to serve and those that transition to
civilian life. If confirmed, I plan to continue the work of Secretary
Panetta to address issues of the force, such as the unthinkable problem
of sexual assault within our ranks. I will continue the implementation
of the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and the opening of positions
to women. I will give great attention to all issues that confront our
country and our military to ensure the reputation and strength of the
United States.
Question. If confirmed, what broad priorities would you establish
in terms of issues which must be addressed by the Secretary of Defense?
Answer. If confirmed, it would be a priority to ensure the stable
transition out of Afghanistan in the next few years, to maintain U.S.
military and technological superiority against enemies both known and
unknown, and to keep the faith with our men and women in the military
standing guard to protect this great and vibrant country.
chain of command
Question. Section 162(b) of title 10, U.S.C., provides that the
chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense
and from the Secretary of Defense to the combatant commands. Section
163(a) of title 10 further provides that the President may direct
communications to combatant commanders be transmitted through the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and may assign duties to the
Chairman to assist the President and the Secretary of Defense in
performing their command function.
Do you believe that these provisions facilitate a clear and
effective chain of command?
Answer. I believe that having a clear and effective chain of
command is essential to successful military operations, and that these
provisions of law lay the foundation for such a chain of command.
Question. In your view, do these provisions enhance or degrade
civilian control of the military?
Answer. In my view, these provisions significantly enhance civilian
control by codifying the placement of the President, as Commander in
Chief, and his principal assistant for military matters, the Secretary
of Defense, where they can best exercise civilian control of the
military: in the top two positions of the military chain of command.
Question. Are there circumstances in which you believe it is
appropriate for U.S. military forces to be under the operational
command or control of an authority outside the chain of command
established under title 10, U.S.C.?
Answer. I believe that all military forces normally should operate
under the chain of command established under section 162 of title 10,
U.S.C. However, in certain sensitive operations a temporary exception
to that chain of command may be appropriate. I understand that only the
President may approve such an exception and the President retains
overall command responsibility, as also recognized in section 162. Any
military personnel supporting such sensitive operations remain
accountable to the military chain of command, including the Uniform
Code of Military Justice. If confirmed, I will provide the President
with my best advice regarding any operation where an exception to the
established chain of command may be appropriate.
advice of the service chiefs and the combatant commanders
Question. Section 151 of title 10, U.S.C., provides, in part, that
the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is the principal military
adviser to the President, the National Security Council, and the
Secretary of Defense and that if any member of the Joint Chiefs submits
to the Chairman advice or an opinion, in disagreement with, or advice
or an opinion in addition to, the advice presented by the Chairman, the
Chairman shall present that advice or opinion at the same time he
provides his own advice to the President, the National Security
Council, and the Secretary of Defense. Section 163 of title 10, U.S.C.,
provides that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff serves as the
spokesman for the combatant commanders, especially on the operational
requirements of their commands.
What changes in law, if any, do you think may be necessary to
ensure that the views of the individual Service Chiefs and of the
combatant commanders are presented and considered?
Answer. If confirmed, I will welcome and carefully consider the
advice of the individual members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the
combatant commanders. I believe that the current law provides ample
authority for such a close, advisory process. If I find in the future
that changes may enhance this process, I will work with the Department
and Congress to implement those changes.
Question. What is your view on the appropriate role of the Chief of
the National Guard Bureau as a member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Answer. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau brings an important
perspective to the Joint Chiefs and to the Department on matters
affecting the National Guard. In my view, the Chief of the National
Guard Bureau should fulfill his duty as a member of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff in a manner consistent with the laws governing the role of the
Chief of the National Guard Bureau and the role of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff.
use of military force
Question. The question as to whether and when U.S. forces should
participate in potentially dangerous situations is one of the most
important and difficult decisions that the national command authorities
have to make. Prior Secretaries of Defense and Chairmen of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff have proposed criteria to guide decisionmaking for such
situations.
What factors would you consider in making recommendations to the
President on the use of force?
Answer. Committing our troops to any military operation is a grave
decision, and one I, if confirmed, would make carefully and cautiously.
In making a recommendation to the President on the use of military
force, I would consider all the factors previous Secretaries of Defense
have identified. These would include: national interest and strategic
objectives; domestic and international legal basis for action; our
ability to achieve our objectives and achieve a successful outcome
through use of force; the unique need for military force and
alternative means, particularly non-military, for achieving our
interests; the risks to our other interests and our force; and the
sufficiency of sustained public support for use of force.
Question. What circumstances should pertain for you to recommend
that the President employ preemptive force?
Answer. The United States must reserve the right, consistent with
longstanding principles of self-defense, to use military force if
intelligence or other information clearly demonstrates that force is
necessary to prevent or blunt an imminent attack on the United States
or an ally. If confirmed, in advising the President regarding the use
of force to preempt an attack, I would consider such factors as: the
nature and immediacy of the threat; the probability of an attack;
whether a pattern of activity demonstrates the intent of an actor to
carry out an attack; the likely scale of the attack and the injury,
loss, or damage likely to result absent preemptive action; and the
likelihood that there will be other opportunities to undertake
effective action in self-defense. I would also ensure that, if force is
determined to be necessary, we adhere to standards that govern the use
of force and work to strengthen our legitimacy in taking action,
including seeking broader international support.
Question. What degree of certainty do you believe is necessary
before the United States would use preemptive force?
Answer. Any decision to use preemptive force must be informed by
the best available intelligence regarding the threat that is to be
countered. There should always be a sound factual basis for concluding
that force is necessary to protect the United States or an ally from
attack. If confirmed, I would examine the underlying intelligence
critically as such a decision must not be taken lightly. I do not
believe, however, that it is necessary that we know the precise timing,
location, or nature of the hostile attack as a prerequisite to using
force to counter or stop an attack on the United States or an ally.
national security budget reductions
Question. Part 1 of the Budget Control Act (BCA) enacted on August
2, 2011 established budget caps designed to realize $917 billion in
budget savings in Federal discretionary spending over the period from
fiscal year 2012 to fiscal year 2021. As a result, the administration's
DOD current budget plan for fiscal years 2012 to 2021 is $487 billion
lower than the $6.14 trillion it had projected a year earlier for the
same 10-year period. This reduction amounts to nearly 8 percent
compared to the previous plan.
Do you believe that defense spending reductions of this magnitude
(absent a sequester) can be accomplished without significant adverse
impact on our national security?
Answer. Based on my review to date, my answer is yes. I believe the
Department's strategy can be accomplished within the constraints of the
BCA. But only if the Department has to retain the flexibility to adjust
the size of its forces and infrastructure, and take steps to control
its costs, in accordance with the administration's present strategy and
budget.
Question. How would you assess the national military strategy to
deal with the changed budget environment?
Answer. I believe the Department has taken a hard look at the new
security environment and developed a strategy that appropriately
allocates reduced defense resources to the highest priority needs and
ensures our national security objectives are met. If confirmed, I will
further assess the strategy according to changes in the security
environment and continued fiscal pressure.
Question. What are the standards by which you will measure the
adequacy of DOD funding, if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I would measure the adequacy of DOD funding
by its ability to ensure that the Department is able to meet the
country's security challenges and preserve the strongest military in
the world.
Question. If confirmed, in this era of budget austerity, how will
you prioritize the objectives of completing the mission in Afghanistan,
resetting of the force, investing in the future force, and meeting
ongoing operational commitments around the world?
Answer. Right now, I believe the Department can implement the
administration's present strategy, which carefully balances the above
objectives. I understand that the immediate needs of completing the
mission in Afghanistan and ongoing operational commitments cannot
jeopardize resetting the force and investing in our future. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that budget decisions are made
carefully so that we maintain a healthy balance among those near-term
and longer-term objectives. I will continue to refine the Department's
spending in line with the priorities of the President's strategic
objectives. However, if multi-year reductions in funding take place
(such as those required by sequestration), the Department would need to
significantly revise the defense strategy and, in all probability,
would need to make some hard choices about which of our current
national defense capabilities we could afford to retain.
readiness of the armed forces
Question. The Joint Chiefs recently stated that ``the readiness of
our Armed Forces is at a tipping point. We are on the brink of creating
a hollow force due to an unprecedented convergence of budget conditions
and legislation that could require the Department to retain more forces
than requested while underfunding that force's readiness.''
How do you currently assess the readiness of the Armed Forces?
Answer. I am deeply impressed by the caliber and capabilities of
our military forces. It is vitally important that they be ready to
respond to the Nation's needs, and I am concerned that further budget
cuts will negatively affect readiness. If confirmed, I will closely
monitor the readiness of the force.
Question. Do you agree with the Joint Chiefs that readiness is at
tipping point?
Answer. Maintaining ready forces is a priority, and I am concerned
by the Joint Chiefs' assessment. If confirmed, I will work with the
Joint Chiefs to better understand the basis of their assessment and how
we can most effectively address the readiness challenges our military
faces.
Question. If confirmed, how would you assess the impact of budget
conditions on the issue expressed by the Joint Chiefs of a hollow
force?
Answer. My sense is that the concerns the Joint Chiefs have
expressed about readiness come from a variety of factors, including the
challenges of recovering from 10 years of operational stress, of
transitioning to a broader range of operations, and of doing all of
this in the face of fiscal austerity and budget uncertainty. If
confirmed, I will carefully monitor how all of these factors are posing
risks to readiness and will work closely with the military and civilian
leadership of the Department to mitigate those risks to the greatest
extent possible.
Question. How would you define a hollow force?
Answer. A hollow force is one that has been rendered incapable of
performing the mission that we expect it to conduct. With a hollow
force, units do not have the resources, personnel, equipment, and
training necessary to make them capable or ready to execute the defense
strategies that secure our country.
budget uncertainly and sequestration
Question. DOD is currently facing budget uncertainty due to the
fact that it is operating under a Continuing Resolution (CR) through at
least March 27, 2013 and due to the possibility that, absent a budget
deal, the BCA will require a sequester of security funding totaling
more than $40 billion starting on March 1, 2013. DOD officials have
noted that, if CR is extended through the end of the current fiscal
year, in its current form, readiness would suffer. They have also noted
that a sequester could seriously threaten our ability to implement our
current defense strategy. Secretary Panetta has stated that a sequester
would have a ``devastating'' impact on DOD.
What is your understanding of the impact a full-year Continuing
Resolution would have on DOD?
Answer. A year-long CR reduces the Department's funding flexibility
by putting it into a straightjacket, spending money on last year's
priorities not this year's. Continuing Resolutions force the Department
to operate inefficiently because it does not know what projects will be
funded or at what level of funding. The money provided in the
Continuing Resolution does not provide sufficient funding in the right
places, particularly critical operating accounts which could harm
military readiness. In addition, Continuing Resolutions generally push
the Department to use month-to-month contracts and prohibits doing
``new starts'' in military construction or acquisition programs, which
leads to inefficiency and backlogs in contracting.
Question. What do you believe would be the impact on DOD of a full
sequester in fiscal year 2013?
Answer. As Secretary Panetta has repeatedly stated, sequestration--
both the size and the arbitrary manner of these cuts--would be
devastating to the Department. It would harm military readiness and
disrupt each and every investment program. Based on my assessment to
date, I share his concerns. I urge Congress to eliminate the sequester
threat permanently and pass a balanced deficit-reduction plan. Impacts
of sequester could include the need to revise the defense strategy,
fewer day-to-day global activities reducing our presence and
partnerships, less training including cuts to flying and steaming hours
which would reduce readiness, near universal disruption of investment
including 2,500 procurement programs, research projects, and military
construction; reduced and delayed weapons system buys with resulting
price increases, furloughs and hiring freezes for civilian workers
resulting in reduced maintenance of weapons systems, oversight of
contracts and financial systems; negative effects on morale and welfare
of the force including recruiting and retention problems.
Question. What is your understanding of the impact that the
combination of a full-year Continuing Resolution and a sequester would
have on the readiness of the Armed Forces?
Answer. It is my understanding that under this scenario, the
Department would be forced to cut over $40 billion from our budget in a
little over half a year, using a mechanistic formula to do it. It would
result in 20 percent cuts in the Department's operating budgets. As the
Joint Chiefs have warned, such cuts, if allowed to occur, would damage
our readiness, our people, and our military families. It would result
in the grounding of aircraft and returning ships to port, reducing the
Department's global presence and ability to rapidly respond to
contingencies. Vital training would be reduced by half of current plans
and the Department would be unable to reset equipment from Afghanistan
in a timely manner. The Department would reduce training and
maintenance for nondeploying units and would be forced to reduce
procurement of vital weapons systems and suffer the subsequent schedule
delays and price increases. Civilian employees would be furloughed for
up to 22 days. All of these effects also negatively impact long-term
readiness. It would send a terrible signal to our military and civilian
workforce, to those we hope to recruit, and to both our allies and
adversaries around the world.
Question. If confirmed what role would you play toward enacting a
fiscal year 2013 Defense Appropriations Bill and avoiding a sequester?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to urge Congress to pass a
full-year appropriations bill for DOD and for other Federal agencies so
that the Department and other Federal agencies may be run efficiently,
with the ability to adapt to changing circumstances, as the taxpayers
expect and deserve.
financial management and business transformation
Question. DOD spends billions of dollars every year to acquire,
operate, and upgrade business systems needed to support the warfighter,
including systems related to the management of contracts, finances, the
supply chain, and support infrastructure. Despite these expenditures,
the Department's business systems are stovepiped, duplicative and non-
integrated. Also, the Department's ability to leverage these systems to
transform how it conducts its business missions has been frustrated by
its resistance to re-engineering its business processes effectively. As
a result, the Department remains unable to produce timely, accurate and
complete information to support management decisions. For this reason,
the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has identified defense
financial management and business transformation as exposing taxpayer
dollars to a ``high risk'' of waste, fraud, and abuse.
If confirmed, how would you ensure that the financial management
and business transformation problems of DOD receive priority attention
at the senior management level and throughout the defense enterprise?
Answer. Improving financial management capability is very
important, especially in light of the fiscal challenges facing the
Department and the country. I understand plans exist to continue the
improvement of the Department's business processes and, if confirmed, I
will ensure that senior leadership--including the Chief Financial
Officer, the Deputy Chief Management Officer, and the Chief Information
Officer--focus appropriate attention on this effort by holding them
accountable for progress against these plans.
Question. Do you support the objective of having the Department
achieve an auditable financial statement by the end of fiscal year
2017?
Answer. Yes. I support the effort and will maintain the
Department's commitment to producing audit-ready financial statements
by the congressional deadline of September 2017, with an audit
beginning by the end of calendar year 2017.
Question. What steps would you take if the Department fails to
reach this goal?
Answer. I would want to evaluate the nature of the problem, the
reasons the goal was not met, and the remediation options available to
get the Department back on track before determining the actions to be
taken.
Question. Do you support the objective of having the Department
achieve an auditable statement of budgetary resources by the end of
fiscal year 2014?
Answer. Yes, I agree with current priorities that focus first on
the budgetary information most useful in managing the Department. I
understand there is a plan to ensure the budgetary statement is ready
to be audited by September 2014.
Question. What steps would you take if the Department fails to
reach this goal?
Answer. I understand the plan to meet that deadline has received a
very high priority at all levels of the Department, and if confirmed, I
would sustain this as a high priority and hold senior leadership
accountable for reaching this goal. If problems are encountered that
would put this goal at risk, I would evaluate the nature of the
problem, the reasons the goal was not met, and the remediation options
available to get the Department back on track. I would also ensure that
Congress is kept apprise of the Department's progress.
department of defense and department of veterans affairs collaboration
Question. The Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs (VA) have
in recent years increased collaboration between the respective
departments to support servicemembers as they transition to veteran
status. This support includes access to health and mental health care,
improved disability evaluation, and coordination of compensation and
other benefits.
If confirmed, what role would you expect to play in ensuring that
the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs achieve the
administration's objectives in DOD and VA collaboration?
Answer. I have been working to improve the transition of our
servicemembers to civilian life for most of my life. If confirmed, I am
looking forward to taking a very active role in this area. The
Department of Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki is a longtime
friend and if confirmed, I will continue the close partnership with him
that has existed under Secretaries Gates and Panetta. I will continue
the practice of holding regular Secretarial-level meetings and will
closely monitor the progress of the many important joint initiatives
between the two Departments.
systems and support for wounded warriors
Question. Servicemembers who are wounded or injured in combat
operations deserve the highest priority from their Service for support
services, healing and recuperation, rehabilitation, evaluation for
return to duty, successful transition from active duty if required, and
continuing support beyond retirement or discharge. Yet, as the
revelations at Walter Reed Army Medical Center (WRAMC) in 2007
illustrated, the Services were not prepared to meet the needs of
significant numbers of returning wounded servicemembers. Despite the
enactment of legislation and renewed emphasis, many challenges remain,
including a growing population of servicemembers awaiting disability
evaluation.
What is your assessment of the progress made to date by DOD and the
Services to improve the care, management, and transition of seriously
ill and injured servicemembers and their families?
Answer. I believe that important progress in the care, management,
and transition of seriously ill and injured servicemembers has been
made in the years since the revelations at WRAMC, though there is more
work to be done. It will be a top priority to ensure the best quality
care for our seriously ill and injured servicemembers and their
families. My understanding is Secretary Panetta directed a detailed
review of the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES). If
confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to reviewing the details
of that effort. I will also work closely with the Secretary of Veterans
Affairs to ensure that the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
programs are fully complementary and that wounded servicemembers
experience a seamless system of care as they transition to veteran
status.
Question. What are the strengths upon which continued progress
should be based?
Answer. My understanding is that significant progress has been made
in linking an individual with their medical record in a central data
repository, and making this information available to any DOD medical
treatment facility or Veterans Affairs facility. This appears to
provide seamless health care to our members. If confirmed, I will
continue to partner with the VA in this area. Although I believe there
is more work to be done in improving the care of our seriously ill and
injured servicemembers and their families, this issue is a top priority
of the senior leadership of the Department and a strength that I will
continue to build on. I will also look to build on the close
collaboration between the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs
in caring for our servicemembers, veterans, and their families.
Question. What are the weaknesses that need to be corrected?
Answer. One weakness is the lack of sufficient mental health care
providers at both the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs.
While this is mostly a function of the overall shortage of people with
this specialty, I know DOD is working hard to address this problem,
through increased funding and recruitment. Another weakness that I am
aware of is that Veterans Affairs and DOD have multiple caregivers,
overwhelming patients and their families. I understand Secretary
Panetta and Secretary Shinseki signed an agreement to help wounded
warriors navigate through our systems, by naming a lead care
coordinator for each wounded warrior. If confirmed, I will closely
monitor the implementation of this agreement and work to improve upon
it. There is also duplication and overlap in the various services and
care programs provided by the Department, the Military Services, and
Veterans Affairs, and I would want to make sure that all such programs
are fully coordinated, easily accessible, and comprehensible for our
wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their families.
Question. If confirmed, are there additional strategies and
resources that you would pursue to increase support for wounded
servicemembers and their families, and to monitor their progress in
returning to duty or to civilian life?
Answer. If confirmed, I would look to build on innovative programs
and partnerships--both with other Federal agencies, as well as with
State and local governments and private and community organizations--
that support our wounded, ill, and injured servicemembers and their
families. For instance, the Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund has added
invaluably to the care and treatment of servicemembers and veterans
with traumatic brain injury (TBI) and psychological health issues
through the National Intrepid Center of Excellence, and they are in the
process of building state-of-the-art satellite treatment centers at
nine of DOD's largest installations. I am also heartened by cross-
agency efforts like the $100 million investment announced last year by
the Departments of Defense and Veterans Affairs to improve diagnosis
and treatment of mild TBI and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.
Question. What is your assessment of the adequacy of access to care
and care management for Federal civilian employees who are ill or
injured in theater, including evaluation and response to traumatic
brain injury and post-traumatic stress?
Answer. My understanding is that Federal civilian employees who are
injured or ill in theater have been treated by theater military
treatment facilities just as Active Duty members would be. Once
medically evacuated out of theater, depending on their medical needs,
they are transferred to an appropriate civilian institution. If
confirmed, I would seek to ensure that Federal civilian employees in
theater receive the quality care and care management befitting those
who put themselves in harm's way on behalf of the Nation.
Question. Studies conducted as a result of the revelations at WRAMC
pointed to the need to reform the disability evaluation system (DES).
The IDES was established to integrate the DOD and Department of
Veterans Affairs disability systems to improve and expedite processing
of servicemembers through the DES.
What is your assessment of the need to further streamline and
improve the IDES?
Answer. While the introduction of the joint IDES has on the whole
been an improvement over the separate Departments of Defense and
Veterans Affairs legacy systems, there is still much room for further
improvement, particularly with regard to timeliness. If confirmed, I
will ensure the Department continues to press forward, in close
collaboration with Veterans Affairs, with further improvements to the
IDES.
Question. If confirmed, how will you address any need for change,
particularly the Army's problem with an increasing number of soldiers
who are not medically fit for deployment, but who remain on Active Duty
while they process through the lengthy IDES process?
Answer. I am aware that this is an issue, particularly for the
Army. I do not have specific recommendations at this time, but if
confirmed, I will work with the leadership of the military services on
ways that we can better balance the need to provide servicemembers with
a timely and fair disability evaluation with the need to maintain
acceptable levels of deployable personnel.
homosexual conduct policy
Question. The law commonly referred to as ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''
was repealed effective September 20, 2011. As part of the
implementation of this repeal, the Secretary of Defense appointed a
benefits review group to conduct a review of all potential benefits
that could be made available to same-sex spouses. The report of this
review group is long overdue and has been repeatedly delayed.
What is your view of the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell?''
Answer. I fully support the repeal of ``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' and
value the service of all those who fight for our country. I fully
support gay and lesbian men and women serving openly in the U.S.
military and am committed to a full implementation of the repeal of
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell''.
Question. What is your assessment of the implementation of the
repeal of this law?
Answer. I understand that the senior military leadership have
engaged in a year-long monitoring process and found that repeal of
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell'' has not had any impacts on readiness,
effectiveness, unit cohesion, recruiting, and retention. At the same
time, I realize that there is still some work to be done to achieve the
full implementation of repeal, particularly with regard to the benefits
available to the families of gay and lesbian servicemembers.
Question. What is the status of the report of the benefits review
group? When is this group expected to issue its report?
Answer. I understand that this review is not taking the form of a
report, per se, but has involved assembling detailed information on
individual benefits (including whether each such benefit might be made
available under current law, and options for how to do so) to support
decision making by the senior civilian and military leadership of the
Department, and also that those decisions are currently under active
consideration. If confirmed, I will review the work that has been
undertaken during the course of the benefits review and will work
closely with the DOD civilian and military leadership to move forward
expeditiously on this issue.
Question. What is your view on the issue of providing military
benefits to same-sex partners?
Answer. As I have stated previously, I fully support the repeal of
``Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'' and value the service of all those who fight
for our country. If confirmed, I will do everything possible to the
extent permissible under current law to provide equal benefits to the
families of all our servicemembers.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that completion of the
report of the Benefits Review Group is expedited and provided to
Congress?
Answer. If confirmed, I will work closely with the DOD civilian and
military leadership to move forward expeditiously on this issue and
will inform the appropriate congressional committees of decisions as
they are made.
religious guidelines
Question. The Independent Review Related to the Tragedy at Fort
Hood observed that ``DOD policy regarding religious accommodation lacks
the clarity necessary to help commanders distinguish appropriate
religious practices from those that might indicate a potential for
violence or self-radicalization.'' Recommendation 2.7 of the Final
Recommendations urged the Department to update policy to clarify
guidelines for religious accommodation and Recommendation 2.8 urged the
Department to task the Defense Science Board to ``undertake a multi-
disciplinary study to identify behavioral indicators of violence and
self-radicalization. . . .''
What is your view of these recommendations?
Answer. Ensuring appropriate accommodations for the free exercise
of religions and protecting servicemembers from violence and harm are
both of vital importance. It is my understanding that, pursuant to
Recommendation 2.7, the Department updated its policy on religious
accommodation to ensure religious freedoms and practices are
accommodated to the fullest extent possible considering mission
readiness, discipline, and unit cohesion. Regarding Recommendation 2.8,
the Department did task the Defense Science Board (DSB) to undertake a
study. The DSB recently completed their study and found that it could
not determine a specific list of behaviors that would indicate risk of
violent/extremist behavior. If I am confirmed, I will review the
implementation of the recommendations of the Fort Hood Review.
Question. What is your understanding of current policies and
programs of DOD regarding religious practices in the military?
Answer. It is my understanding that policies and programs of DOD
regarding religious practices in the military seek to ensure
servicemembers' rights to observe the tenets of their respective
religions, as well as to hold no specific religious conviction or
affiliation.
Question. In your view, do these policies appropriately accommodate
the free exercise of religion and other beliefs without impinging on
those who have different beliefs, including no religious belief?
Answer. Yes, in my view, current policies appropriately accommodate
the free exercise of religion for all servicemembers in the pluralistic
environment that is the U.S. military. If confirmed, I will continue to
monitor and assess these policies.
Question. In your view, do existing policies and practices
regarding public prayers offered by military chaplains in a variety of
formal and informal settings strike the proper balance between a
chaplain's ability to pray in accordance with his or her religious
beliefs and the rights of other servicemembers with different beliefs,
including no religious beliefs?
Answer. It is my understanding that existing policies provide the
military chaplains with sufficient guidance that allows them to
balance, in both formal and informal settings, their own faith
practices with the rights of others who may hold different or no
religious beliefs. I recognize that this at times can be a difficult
balance to achieve, and if confirmed, I would work with the civilian
and military leadership of the Department and with Congress to ensure
DOD continues to do so.
Question. If confirmed, will you work to ensure that a scientific
factbased approach to understanding radicalization will drive the
Department's relevant policies on this topic?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I would review the Department's existing
policies and its plans to address these challenges and determine what,
if any, changes should be made. I agree that any changes to how the
Department approaches this issue should be based on a solid scientific
and factual foundation.
Question. Current policy in the Department gives discretion to
military leaders to decide whether requests to waive uniform and
appearance standards should be granted based on religious beliefs.
In your view, do DOD policies appropriately accommodate religious
practices that require adherents to wear items of religious apparel?
Answer. It is my understanding that current policies allow for
consideration of accommodations of religious apparel that do not
interfere with the performance of military duties. If confirmed, I
would work with the Military Services to ensure that they strike the
right balance between military uniform and appearance standards and
personal religious practices.
muslims in the u.s. military
Question. Are you concerned that the attack at Fort Hood could lead
to harassment or even violence against Muslims in the military?
Answer. The attack at Fort Hood was a tragedy. It is essential that
the circumstances surrounding the attack not compromise the military's
core values regarding the free exercise of religion and treating every
servicemember with dignity and respect. Each servicemember has the
right to practice his or her religious faith without fear of
persecution or retribution.
Question. If confirmed, what strategies would you advocate to
address the potential for harassment or violence against Muslims in the
U.S. military?
Answer. If confirmed, I will not tolerate harassment or
mistreatment against Muslims in the military, or against any
servicemember based on their religious faith. This sort of behavior or
any form of cruelty and maltreatment is inconsistent with the
military's core values, detracts from combat capability, and has no
place in the Armed Forces. I will expect commanders and leaders at all
levels to maintain an environment that promotes dignity and respect,
and will hold them accountable for preventing harassment or
mistreatment.
sexual assault prevention and response
Question. Sexual assaults continue to be a significant issue in the
military. Victims of sexual assault report that they are victimized
twice: first by attackers in their own ranks and then by unresponsive
or inadequate treatment for the victim and failure of the chain of
command to hold assailants accountable. The Annual Report on Sexual
Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies, released in
December 2012, documents that while the military academies are in
compliance with DOD policies, sexual assault and harassment remain a
problem in each academy. Sexual assaults continue to be persistent
problem in the Services, as evidenced by the ongoing prosecutions of
military training instructors for sexual misconduct with trainees at
Air Force basic training at Lackland Air Force Base. Secretary Panetta
has recently announced several new initiatives to address the sexual
assault problems in the military, including comprehensive assessments
of initial training of enlisted personnel and officers, creation of
special victim capabilities, and limiting initial disposition authority
to Special Court-Martial Convening Authorities in the grade of O-6 or
higher.
What is your assessment of the Department's policies for prevention
and response to sexual assaults in the military?
Answer. Sexual assault will absolutely not be tolerated in DOD. It
is a direct affront to the military's core value to protect all members
of the Armed Forces. Current levels of sexual assault are unacceptably
high. I know that the Department has put considerable effort into the
development and implementation of new policies and procedures to
prevent the crime of sexual assault, support victims, and hold
offenders appropriately accountable. But I also know that more needs to
be done. Secretary Panetta and the Joint Chiefs of Staff have made this
issue a top priority. If confirmed, will do the same, and ensure that
the Department continues its commitment to address sexual assault in a
comprehensive and persistent manner.
Question. What is your view of the steps the Services have taken to
prevent and respond to sexual assaults in combat zones, including
assaults against contractor personnel?
Answer. I do not have enough information to make a comprehensive
assessment of sexual assault prevention and response in deployed
environments at this time. It is my understanding that any deployed
personnel who are victims, whether servicemembers, civilians, or
contractors, receive appropriate emergency medical care and support. I
also firmly believe that there must be strict accountability for those
who perpetrate such assaults in deployed areas. If confirmed, I will
ensure the Department continues to address sexual assault in a
comprehensive manner--across all Services, in all locations, and for
all personnel.
Question. What is your view of the adequacy of the training and
resources the Services have in place to investigate and respond to
allegations of sexual assault?
Answer. It is my understanding that all Services have established
guidelines for a 24-hour, 7-day-a-week sexual assault response
capability for victims in all locations, including deployed areas. With
regard to investigations, I understand the Department has multiple
efforts underway to enhance its ability to investigate and respond to
sexual assault, child abuse, and domestic violence. If confirmed, I
will make it a priority to sustain and build on these enhanced
capabilities for the investigation of ``special victim'' crimes.
Question. What is your view of the willingness and ability of the
Services to hold assailants accountable for their acts?
Answer. I strongly believe that anyone who commits a sexual assault
in the military needs to be held accountable. The Department has a zero
tolerance policy, but that is not enough. Accountability is key. To
this end, I fully support Secretary Panetta's decision to elevate
initial disposition of sexual assault cases to the level of Colonel or
Navy Captain, or higher. This action helps ensures our more seasoned,
senior commanders determine what actions are appropriate in response to
allegations of sexual assault. It is my belief that military commanders
are essential to making sexual assault prevention and response efforts
successful. But in order to hold assailants accountable, we must have
victims who are willing to come forward and report these crimes. To do
that, victims need to have confidence in our system of military
justice. That is why I also look forward to hearing more about the
impact of the Air Force's pilot program assigning an attorney to each
victim of sexual assault who requests one to represent them. I believe
this could be a very good way to increase the number of victims who are
willing to come forward.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure senior
level direction and oversight of efforts to prevent and respond to
sexual assaults?
Answer. If confirmed, I will make sexual assault prevention and
response a personal priority and will work closely with the Secretaries
of the Military Departments and the Chiefs of the Military Services to
ensure that DOD maintains the current high level of senior leadership
focus on this issue.
increased use of national guard and reserves
Question. Over the last 2 decades, the National Guard and Reserves
have experienced their largest and most sustained employment since
World War II. Numerous problems have arisen over time in the planning
and procedures for mobilization and demobilization, e.g., inadequate
health screening and medical response to service-connected injuries or
illnesses, antiquated pay systems, limited transition assistance
programs upon demobilization, and inefficient policies regarding
members of the Individual Ready Reserve. Reserve Force management
policies and systems have been characterized in the past as
``inefficient and rigid'' and readiness levels have been adversely
affected by equipment shortages, cross-leveling, and reset policies.
The recently enacted section 12304b of title 10, U.S.C., authorizes
Service Secretaries to mobilize for up to 365 consecutive days Reserve
component units and individuals in support of pre-planned combatant
command missions. Current defense strategy provides for a reduction in
conventional ground forces, an increase in special forces, and the
establishment of a rotational presence in Europe, the Middle East, and
anywhere U.S. interests are threatened. Some in the press have called
this a ``lily pad'' approach, and it potentially dovetails with an
operational view of the Reserve components.
What is your assessment of the Reserve and how it will fit into
this new strategy of smaller, more lethal forces rotating into and out
of many locations of strategic interest?
Answer. The Reserves and National Guard have clearly proven the
ability to accomplish any assigned mission overseas or at home. They
will continue to play a vital role as we move out of the past decade of
war in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Department shapes the force to
implement the new defense strategy and to respond to the challenges of
a new era.
Question. What is your understanding of the appropriate size and
makeup of the Reserve components in light of the current defense
strategy?
Answer. I understand that questions about the size and makeup of
the Active and Reserve components are currently under consideration as
the Department continues to implement the new defense strategy and
respond to the current fiscal environment. If confirmed, I will work
closely with the Services and the Chief of the National Guard Bureau to
determine the most effective mix and makeup of Active, Reserve, and
Guard personnel to support the defense strategy.
Question. What is your assessment of advances made in improving
Reserve and Guard component mobilization and demobilization procedures,
and in what areas do problems still exist?
Answer. I understand that there have been many advances made in
policies and procedures governing the utilization of the Guard and
Reserves, as well as advancing the pre- and post-Active Duty benefits.
These have given Reserve component personnel the ability to plan for
periods of utilization followed by substantial time performing inactive
duty at home. This provides a predictable cycle of Active Duty and
increases readiness by utilizing the Reserve components on a more
regular basis. If confirmed, I will ensure these procedures are
continually assessed to ensure they are providing the Reserve
components the support they need and deserve.
Question. What do you consider to be the most significant enduring
changes to the enabling of an operational reserve aimed at ensuring
Reserve component and Guard readiness for future mobilization
requirements?
Answer. In my view, the most significant and enduring change in
this area has been the use of the Reserve component as a full partner
in the overall force at large. In particular, the experience and skills
that members of the Reserve component have gained from preparing and
deploying over the past decade have notably increased the overall
readiness of the Reserve component, and the Department will continue to
make use of these enhanced skills and readiness in the future.
Question. Do you see a need to modify current statutory authorities
for the mobilization of members of the National Guard and Reserves or
to further enhance their ability to perform various national security
missions?
Answer. I appreciate Congress' willingness in the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2012 to increase authorities to fully use the Reserves as a
rotational force. If confirmed, I will consider this question in light
of the new strategy, but at the present time I believe that appropriate
policies and procedures are in place and no laws need to be changed.
dwell time
Question. While dwell time is improving as our forces draw down in
Afghanistan, many Active Duty military members are still not
experiencing the dwell time goal of 2 years at home for every year
deployed.
In your view, when will the Active component dwell time goal be
met?
Answer. I understand that all of the Services, on average, are
meeting or exceeding the Department's dwell time goal of 2 years at
home for every year deployed, or 1:2, for the Active component. If
confirmed, I will continue to monitor this issue closely.
Question. When will dwell time objectives be met for the Reserve
components?
Answer. I understand Reserve component dwell time is improving, but
has not reached the Department's dwell time goal of 5 years at home for
every 1 year of active duty, or 1:5. If confirmed, I will continue to
work toward the goal of a 1:5 dwell time ratio for the Reserve
component for all of the Services.
active-duty and reserve component end strength
Question. The Department last year announced its 5-year plan to
reduce Active Duty end strengths by over 100,000 servicemembers by
2017, and the Reserve components by another 21,000 over the same
period. These cuts do not include any additional personnel reductions
that could result from sequestration or any agreement to avoid
sequestration.
Do you agree with this plan to reduce Active Duty and Reserve
component end strengths?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the plan, but I believe that we
must be able to balance end-strength, readiness, and modernization. The
end strength drawdown allows us to achieve the right size force and
keep it modern. The plan is designed to maintain capable and ready
military forces while managing reductions in a way that ``keeps faith''
with servicemembers who have been at war for the past 10 years. While
the plan will reduce Active Duty end strength by 100,000, I believe the
Department has scaled back the Reserve component cut to less than
21,000 (17,000). Preserving the Guard and Reserve reduces the risk of
reductions and hedges against uncertainty by providing capacity and
capability that can be called up if needed. As future national security
conditions change, the Department's planned drawdown could change
accordingly.
Question. What is your view of how these planned end-strength
reductions will affect dwell time ratios?
Answer. The Army and Marine Corps end strength reductions are
synchronized with plans for the drawdown in Afghanistan. The
Department's dwell time goal is 1:2 Active, 1:5 for Reserves. With some
exceptions, the current dwell is 1:1 Active, 1:5 Reserve. If the
Afghanistan force drawdown stays on track, the duty/dwell ratio goal
for components should be achieved. If confirmed, I will carefully
monitor the dwell time of our servicemembers since it is critical that
dwell times be sufficient to preserve the wellbeing of our force.
Question. What effect would inability to meet dwell time objectives
have on your decision to implement the planned end strength reductions?
Answer. Preserving the All-Volunteer Force is a top priority, so it
is important to avoid stressing the Active and Reserve components. If
confirmed, I would assess our ability to achieve our strategic missions
and dwell time objectives prior to and during implementation of the
planned Army and Marine Corps strength reductions.
Question. What additional military personnel reductions do you
envision if the Department were required to sequester funding as
outlined in the BCA?
Answer. The President notified Congress of his intent to exempt all
military personnel accounts from sequester for fiscal year 2013, if a
sequester is necessary. However, if the Department were required to
sequester funding, I believe that it would first require a revision of
the Defense Strategic Guidance announced by the President last January.
The current strategy could not be met with the significantly diminished
resources that sequester would impose. The revised strategy could very
well impact all components of our workforce--Government civilians and
contractors in the near-term as well as Active Duty and Reserve
component military if the sequester continues beyond fiscal year 2013.
Question. In your view, what tools do the Department and Services
need to get down to authorized strengths in the future, and which of
these require congressional authorization?
Answer. The workforce management tools that Congress provided in
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 will be useful for the drawdown. The
Department continues to examine whether other workforce management
authorities are needed and will submit those to Congress as necessary.
In addition, in the event that the Department has to sequester funding,
the Department would likely revisit the size of all components of the
workforce--Active Duty military, Reserve component military, Government
civilians, and contractors. After such a review, the Department might
require, and would then request, additional authorization for tools to
meet reduced end strength goals.
recruiting standards
Question. Recruiting highly qualified individuals for military
service during wartime in a cost-constrained environment presents
unique challenges.
What is your assessment of the adequacy of current standards
regarding qualifications for enlistment in the Armed Forces?
Answer. Today's enlistment qualification standards are well-
defined, supported by years of experience, and have stood the test of
time. They are driven by the need to provide the Services with men and
women who are prepared to adapt to the rigors of military life and meet
performance requirements. The adequacy of these standards is evidenced
by over 11 years of continuous armed conflict manned by a high quality
All-Volunteer Force.
Question. In your view, is there any way to increase the pool of
eligible enlistees without sacrificing quality?
Answer. My understanding is the Services are always exploring ways
to improve their ability to expand the recruiting market without
sacrificing quality. As an example, this year the Department expanded
its ability to enlist graduates with alternative diplomas while
minimizing first term attrition. The Services also may be able to
augment their screening procedures by incorporating other measures,
such as temperament, to identify applicants who are likely to adapt
well to the military. If confirmed, I will work with the Services to
continually find new ways to expand the recruit market.
women in the military
Question. The issue of the appropriate role of women in the Armed
Forces is a matter of continuing interest to Congress and the American
public. Last year, DOD released a report to Congress, required by
section 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2011 (Public Law 111-383), reviewing the laws
and policies restricting the service of female members of the Armed
Forces, and provided notice to Congress that the Department would open
positions in ground combat units at the battalion level to women in
occupational specialties for which they are already qualified to serve,
and would eliminate the so-called co-location policy. According to the
report, the changes resulted in over 14,000 positions being opened to
women that were previously denied. Since then, the Marine Corps opened
training positions at its Infantry Officer course to female marines,
and the Army recently announced opening some special operation aviation
positions to female servicemembers.
What is your view of the appropriate role for women in the Armed
Forces?
Answer. Women are indispensable to our military. They have served
ably alongside their male counterparts in Iraq and Afghanistan in a
variety of roles. I support the expansion of opportunities for women to
serve. If confirmed, I will ensure that the process of opening
previously closed positions takes place expeditiously and at the same
time that our readiness and ability to defend the Nation are not
compromised by these changes.
Question. Do you believe additional specialties should be opened up
for service by women? If so, which specialties?
Answer. On January 24, 2013, Secretary Panetta rescinded the 1994
Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and directed the
integration of women into previously closed positions by January 1,
2016. If confirmed, I will continue implementation of that new policy,
including its emphasis on the effectiveness of the fighting force and
the development of gender-neutral standards.
Question. Do you believe any changes in the current policy or
legislation regarding women in combat are needed or warranted?
Answer. I am not aware of further necessary changes at this time.
If confirmed, I will closely monitor the implementation of the January
24, 2013 policy and if I see that additional policies or legislation
are needed, I will make recommendations.
rising costs of medical care
Question. In testimony presented to Congress in February, 2009, the
Assistant Director of the Congressional Budget Office asserted that
``medical funding accounts for more than one-third of the growth
projected for operations and support funding between 2009 and 2026.''
In April 2009, Secretary Gates told an audience at Maxwell Air Force
Base that ``health care is eating the Department alive.'' In recent
years, the Department has attempted to address the growth in overall
health care costs through various fee increases on military retirees.
What reforms in infrastructure, benefits, or benefit management, if
any, do you think should be examined in order to control the costs of
military health care?
Answer. It is essential that the Department take steps to control
the costs of military healthcare while ensuring it continues to provide
for our military personnel, their families, and retirees. I understand
the Department included proposals in the fiscal year 2012 and 2013
President's budgets that would slow the growth of healthcare costs
while preserving the quality and range of health care. These proposals
include increasing enrollment fees and deductibles for retirees and
increasing pharmacy co-pays. Not many of these proposals were accepted
by Congress. If confirmed, I will review initiatives in this area and
look for further opportunities as we must continue to look for savings
in this area.
Question. What is your assessment of the long-term impact of rising
medical costs on future DOD plans?
Answer. As I understand the situation, health care consumes nearly
10 percent of the Department's budget and could grow considerably over
the next decade, taking an ever larger bite out of our ability to
invest in enhanced warfighting capability. However, I realize that the
healthcare benefit is a key component of retention for our men and
women in uniform so I will work closely with the military and civilian
leadership in the Department to find reasonable and responsible ways to
stem this growth without breaking faith with our servicemembers, their
families, and retirees.
Question. If confirmed, what actions would you initiate or
recommend to mitigate the effect of such costs on the DOD top-line?
Answer. I cannot make specific recommendations at this time. If
confirmed, I am committed to continuing to review military health care.
Any changes must keep the faith with our troops, be transparent,
preserve the quality and range of health care, and protect wounded
warriors, medically-retired, and the families of those who died on
Active Duty. Given today's budget environment, we must continue to look
for savings opportunities, and this should include military health
care.
personnel and entitlement costs
Question. In addition to health care costs, personnel and related
entitlement spending continues to grow and is becoming an ever
increasing portion of the DOD budget.
What actions do you believe can and should be taken, if any, to
control the rise in personnel costs and entitlement spending?
Answer. I understand personnel and entitlement costs make up a
significant portion of the Department's budget and have risen sharply
over the past 10 years. The Department has proposed several initiatives
in an attempt to slow the rate of growth while continuing to attract
and retain the right number and quality of personnel. If confirmed, I
am committed to exploring options to find savings and more efficient
alternatives to help control the rise in personnel and entitlement
costs while still fully supporting the All-Volunteer Force.
Question. In your view, can the Department and the Services
efficiently manage the use of bonuses and special pays to place high
quality recruits in the right jobs without paying more than the
Department needs to pay, or can afford to pay, for other elements of
the force?
Answer. I understand that targeted bonuses and special pays are
very effective tools for achieving the Department's personnel strength
and quality objectives and are generally much more cost-effective than
across-the-board pay increases. Like any compensation program, these
tools must be continually monitored to ensure they are used both
efficiently and effectively and that the Department is receiving best
value for its dollars.
military compensation and retirement commission
Question. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 establishes a commission to
review all elements of the military compensation and retirement systems
and to make recommendations to modernize those systems to ensure the
long-term viability of the All-Volunteer Force, enable a high quality
of life for military families, and to achieve fiscal sustainability for
the compensation and retirement systems.
Do you agree with the need for a comprehensive study of the
military compensation and retirement systems?
Answer. I believe it is appropriate to perform a comprehensive
review of the military compensation and retirement systems to ensure we
have the right mix of pay and benefits to support our members.
Question. Do you support the goals of the Commission?
Answer. Yes. I am committed to ensuring any proposed changes to the
mix of pay and benefits keep faith with those who are serving today and
with those who have served in the past.
dependent care and flexible spending accounts
Question. The 10th Quadrennial Review of Military Compensation
recommended providing dependent care and flexible spending benefits to
Active Duty servicemembers. Providing these benefits would seem
consistent with the initiatives of First Lady Michelle Obama and Dr.
Jill Biden on behalf of military families. It would appear that no new
legislative authority is needed for the Department to provide these
benefits to servicemembers and their families.
If confirmed, would you extend these benefits to the Active Duty
servicemembers and their families?
Answer. Taking care of our servicemembers and their families is a
top priority of DOD. If confirmed, I will examine the option of
flexible spending accounts for military families to determine if they
are an appropriate part of our extensive benefits package for
servicemembers and their families in this time of fiscal austerity.
suicide prevention and mental health resources
Question. The numbers of suicides in each of the Services continues
to concern the committee. The Army released a report in July 2010 that
analyzed the causes of its growing suicide rate and examined disturbing
trends in drug use, disciplinary offenses, and high risk behaviors. In
addition studies conducted by the Army, of soldiers and marines in
theater, showed declines in individual morale and increases in mental
health strain, especially among those who have experienced multiple
deployments.
In your view, what role should DOD play in shaping policies to help
prevent suicides both in garrison and in theater and to increase the
resiliency of all servicemembers and their families, including members
of the Reserve components?
Answer. Suicides by military members are tragic--every suicide is
one too many. It is a a complex problem that plagues our entire
society--there are no easy answers or quick solutions. I think
Secretary Panetta put it best when he said that suicide is perhaps the
most frustrating challenge he has come across as Secretary of Defense.
I believe that DOD must take a multi-faceted approach to preventing
suicides that involves leadership responsibility, access to quality
behavioral health care, efforts to improve mental fitness and
resiliency, and increased research on causes and means of preventing
suicide. If confirmed, I will push for enhancements to DOD's policies
and programs in each of these areas.
Question. What is your understanding of the action that the Office
of the Secretary of Defense and the Army are taking in response to the
July 2010 Army report, and the data in Chapter 3 in particular?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has taken multiple
actions to address the rise of suicides since the release of the Army's
July 2010 report as well as the report of the DOD Suicide Prevention
Task Force in September 2010. In particular, in November 2011, the DOD
established the Defense Suicide Prevention Office to serve as the
oversight authority for the implementation, standardization, and
evaluation of suicide and risk reduction programs and policies.
Question. If confirmed, what actions will you take to ensure that
sufficient mental health resources are available to servicemembers in
theater, and to the servicemembers and their families upon return to
home station?
Answer. I am firmly committed to implementing the President's
Executive Order on ``Improving Access to Mental Health Services for
Veterans, Servicemembers, and Military Families.'' I look forward to
reviewing the 12-month national suicide prevention campaign that DOD
and VA are developing as part of the implementation of this Executive
Order and will ensure that DOD does all it can to ensure that it is
providing sufficient, high-quality behavioral health care to
servicemembers and their families.
military quality of life
Question. The committee is concerned about the sustainment of key
quality of life programs for military families, such as family support,
child care, education, employment support, health care, and morale,
welfare and recreation services, especially as DOD faces budget
challenges.
How do you perceive the relationship between military recruitment
and retention and quality-of-life improvements and your own top
priorities for the Armed Forces?
Answer. Quality-of-life programs that address family readiness
needs must be available to families of our military members wherever
they may be located. Changes in our basing, deployment patterns, and
force structure, as we implement our new strategy and respond to the
current fiscal environment, will pose some additional challenges in
delivering these programs. If confirmed, I will closely monitor the
impacts of such changes to ensure the needs of our military families
continue to be met.
Question. If confirmed, what further enhancements to military
qualify of life would you consider a priority, and how do you envision
working with the Services, combatant commanders, family advocacy
groups, and Congress to achieve them?
Answer. I recognize that the well-being of the force, as well as
recruiting and retention efforts, are significantly impacted by quality
of life programs. I look forward to working with Congress, family
advocacy groups, the Services, and combatant commanders to ensure we
have a comprehensive, accessible, and affordable suite of programs.
family readiness and support
Question. Military members and their families in both the Active
and Reserve components have made, and continue to make, tremendous
sacrifices in support of operational deployments. Senior military
leaders have warned of growing concerns among military families as a
result of the stress of frequent deployments and the long separations
that go with them.
What do you consider to be the most important family readiness
issues for servicemembers and their families?
Answer. It is the Department's responsibility to help prepare
military families to cope with the challenges inherent with military
service. In order to build and sustain resilient military families, the
Department must continuing to focus on programs that enhance their
social, financial, educational, and psychological well-being.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure that family readiness
needs are addressed and adequately resourced?
Answer. Sustaining family programs in the current fiscally
constrained environment will be challenging, but it is of vital
importance. If confirmed, I will seek to protect funding for family
readiness programs to the greatest extent possible and will examine all
such programs to ensure that they are operating efficiently so that
available resources are going to their best and most effective uses.
Question. How would you address these family readiness needs in
light of global rebasing, deployments, and future reductions in end
strength?
Answer. Changes in our basing, deployment patterns, and force
structure, as we implement our new strategy and respond to the current
fiscal environment, will pose some additional challenges to maintaining
family readiness. If confirmed, I will closely monitor the impacts of
such changes to ensure the needs of our military families continue to
be met.
Question. If confirmed, how would you ensure support is provided to
Reserve component families related to mobilization, deployment and
family readiness, as well as to Active Duty families who do not reside
near a military installation?
Answer. I believe that DOD has a responsibility to ensure access to
quality programs, information and resources to families, regardless of
their location. Military OneSource is an excellent example of a
resource that is not tied to location, but allows families to access
information and referral by the internet or by phone with live
consultants available 24-hours-a-day, 7-days-a-week. Maintaining a
strong network of community-based providers, and partnerships with
State and local governments are also key in ensuring local resources
are readily available to servicemembers and their families,
particularly Reserve component families and Active component families
who do not live near a military installation. If confirmed, I will
evaluate these programs to ensure we are meeting the needs of these
military families.
Question. If confirmed, what additional steps will you take to
enhance family support?
Answer. I believe there are opportunities to improve the efficiency
and accessibility of the resources and programs that DOD, other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and community organizations
provide to support servicemembers and their families. If confirmed, I
will explore these opportunities and how we can better coordinate
efforts among the various entities providing family support.
detainee treatment policy
Question. Do you support the policy set forth in the July 7, 2006,
memorandum issued by the Deputy Secretary of Defense stating that all
relevant DOD directives, regulations, policies, practices, and
procedures must fully comply with Common Article 3 of the Geneva
Conventions?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you support the standards for detainee treatment
specified in the revised Army Field Manual on Interrogations, FM 2-
22.3, issued in September 2006, and in DOD Directive 2310.01E, the
Department of Defense Detainee Program, dated September 5, 2006?
Answer. Yes.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that all DOD policies
promulgated and plans implemented related to intelligence
interrogations, detainee debriefings, and tactical questioning comply
with the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and the Army Field
Manual on Interrogations?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you share the view that standards for detainee
treatment must be based on the principle of reciprocity, that is, that
we must always keep in mind the risk that the manner in which we treat
our own detainees may have a direct impact on the manner in which U.S.
soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines are treated, should they be
captured in future conflicts?
Answer. Yes. reciprocity is a critical component and underlying
value of our detainee treatment policies. As a Vietnam veteran, I also
view this principle of reciprocity as a way to protect our U.S.
soldiers, sailors, airmen, or marines, should they be captured in
future conflicts.
coordination with the department of homeland security
Question. After the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
Congress established the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and DOD
established the U.S. Northern Command and an Assistant Secretary of
Defense for Homeland Defense and Americas' Security Affairs.
What is your assessment of the current situation regarding
cooperation and coordination between DOD and DHS on homeland security
and civil support matters, and what will be your goals in this regard
if you are confirmed?
Answer. Recent disaster responses, including the Department's
efforts in response to Hurricane Sandy, show that DOD and DHS have a
strong relationship. This success is a result of active engagement the
Department has at all levels with DHS and many other of the
Department's domestic interagency partners. Elements of the Department
work very closely on a daily basis with the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), the U.S. Secret Service, the U.S. Coast
Guard, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection. The Department and DHS
have successfully exchanged liaison and coordination staff officers to
cement this collaborative approach at the working level. While a Member
of Congress I voted to establish the DHS and have been pleased to see
its success. If confirmed, my goal would be to continue to bolster the
strong relationship between the Departments of Defense and Homeland
Security.
Question. Do you believe the current mechanism for DOD to respond
to the needs of domestic government agencies for DOD support in the
event of a natural or manmade disaster is appropriate, or do you
believe it needs to be modified?
Answer. The mechanisms for the Department to respond to the needs
of domestic agencies appear to be working effectively. It is my
understanding that the Department acted on 60 requests for assistance
from FEMA during the Hurricane Sandy response last year, including
helping to restore power, providing millions of gallons of fuel for
first responders and residents, and removing water from the Brooklyn
Battery tunnel, the longest underwater tunnel in North America. I
understand that the Department also responded to some 21 other requests
for assistance from FEMA for a variety of other disasters in 2012, as
well as providing assistance to other Federal agencies, including the
U.S. Forest Service for wildland firefighting and the U.S. Secret
Service for protection of the President during special events such as
the recent Inauguration. If confirmed, I will work with the
Department's partner agencies to ensure that the current mechanisms
remain effective and, where opportunities arise, pursue improvements.
iraq lessons learned
Question. Did you agree with the President's decision on the
withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq? If so, why? If not, why
not?
Answer. Yes. I supported the withdrawal of all U.S. forces from
Iraq by December 2011 in accordance with the November 2008 U.S.-Iraq
Security Agreement. It was the right decision. Our military men and
women in uniform had completed their mission. We now have a strong
relationship with a sovereign Iraq. Our drawdown has allowed us to
advance our strategic partnership based on mutual interests and mutual
respect.
Question. In your view, what aspects, if any, of the departure/
drawdown of U.S. forces would you have modified?
Answer. I would not have modified the withdrawal of all U.S. combat
forces by December 2011. I believe that the deadline helped the Iraqi
Security Forces step up and take responsibility for the security of
their people. This has allowed us to deepen our partnership with a
sovereign Iraq, based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
Question. What do you believe are the major lessons learned from
the Iraq invasion and the follow-on efforts to stabilize the country
through 2011?
Answer. I believe we must think very carefully before we commit our
Armed Forces to battlefields abroad. Our forces deserve policies and
planning worthy of the sacrifices they make in combat. Our Nation
learned a number of lessons in Iraq--from the invasion, to the
stabilization, to the withdrawal of our forces. These lessons include
ensuring appropriate planning and preparation for a range of outcomes
and events, setting clear and realistic strategic objectives,
appreciating the limitations of military force and the necessity of
engaging all levels of national power (political, economic, cultural,
intelligence), recognizing the value and difficulty of building
partnership capacity, enhancing interagency coordination, and improving
our oversight of wartime spending and contracting. One of the most
important lessons is that the U.S. Government must prepare for combat,
post-combat, and securing the peace. The U.S. military must plan and
train with civilian counterparts, be prepared to operate effectively in
all phases of conflict, and improve cultural, linguistic, and
partnering and advising skills within our force.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment, if any, of the
Department's adaptations or changes in policy, programs, force
structure, or operational concepts based upon these lessons learned?
Answer. I understand the Department has taken a number of steps to
institutionalize the lessons from Iraq across policy, doctrine,
organization, and training. The Department is committed to maintaining
a focus on cultural and linguistic capabilities as well as the new
operational approaches in counterterrorism, counterinsurgency, and
security force assistance. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the
Department continues to evaluate and implement lessons learned.
Question. If confirmed, what additional changes, if any, would you
propose making to policy, programs, force structure, or operating
concepts based on the lessons of combat and stability operations in
Iraq?
Answer. I do not feel I know enough at this time to provide not
have additional recommendations. If confirmed, I will study and
evaluate the Department's efforts to retain and refine the lessons
learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities that have been
developed over the past 10 years of counterinsurgency and stability
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Question. You called for an international mediator under the
auspices of the U.N. Security Council to engage Iraq's political,
religious, ethnic, and tribal leaders. Would you advocate that same
course of action for Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely monitor the Afghan-led
reconciliation process and make recommendations on any changes I think
would be helpful. However, within the administration, the Afghanistan
reconciliation process is led by the Department of State. They are in a
better position to advise on the need for a U.N. Security Council role.
Question. Based on the lessons learned during the departure of
military forces from Iraq, if confirmed, how would you shape U.S.
enduring presence in Afghanistan in the post-2014 environment?
Answer. The U.S. presence post-2014 is an issue being discussed
between the President and the Government of Afghanistan. If confirmed,
I would work to ensure that the United States retains criminal and
civil jurisdiction over U.S. forces in the Bilateral Security Agreement
now under negotiation; if it does not, I will not support a continued
U.S. military presence.
stability and counterinsurgency operations
Question. The January 2012 DOD Strategic Guidance called for U.S.
forces to be ready to conduct limited counterinsurgency and other
stability operations if required, and to retain and continue to refine
the lessons learned, expertise, and specialized capabilities that have
been gained over the past 10 years of operations in Iraq and
Afghanistan. At the same time, the Strategic Guidance states that,
``U.S. forces will no longer be sized to conduct large-scale, prolonged
stability operations.''
In your view, how should strategic guidance for DOD manage risk and
articulate the types of missions or operations U.S. forces will or will
not be expected to execute or accomplish?
Answer. The Department's strategic guidance documents should set
clear priorities that enable senior Departmental leadership to
determine appropriate trade-offs in military missions and force
structure. Senior leadership deliberation on these trade-offs should be
informed by a comprehensive, strategic understanding of risk to our
defense and national security objectives. As strategy is implemented,
the Department should continue to test it to determine areas of risk
and develop mitigation options. If confirmed, I will aim to have any
risk the Department bears be both manageable and acceptable; although
budget uncertainty will make this a difficult task.
Question. In your view, what are the appropriate roles and
responsibilities, if any, between DOD and other departments and
agencies of the Federal Government in the planning and conduct of
stability operations?
Answer. Coordinated and integrated interagency efforts are
essential to the conduct of successful stability operations. The United
States should emphasize non-military means and military-to-military
cooperation to address instability and reduce the demand for
significant U.S. force commitments to stability operations. In general,
the Department should be in a support role to other U.S. Government
departments and agencies in the planning and execution of most
stability operations. However, if directed, the Department will lead
stability operations activities to establish security, to restore
essential services, to repair and protect critical infrastructure, and
to deliver humanitarian assistance. Once acceptable levels of security
and public order have been established, the Department should seek to
transition lead responsibility to other U.S. Government agencies,
foreign governments and security forces, or international governmental
organizations.
Question. In developing the capabilities necessary for stability
operations, what adjustments, if any, should be made to prepare U.S.
Armed Forces to conduct stability operations without detracting from
its ability to perform combat missions?
Answer. As our campaigns over the last 12 years have demonstrated,
it is no longer an either/or choice between stability operations and
combat. After almost 2 decades of hard-earned lessons in Afghanistan,
Iraq, the Balkans, and elsewhere, I understand the Services have made
great strides in their combined abilities to conduct stability
operations. If confirmed, I will seek to maintain the stability
operations expertise the Department has gained, and to ensure that the
Services have the mechanisms necessary to expand their capacities,
should our military forces be called upon to conduct comprehensive and
sustained stability operations.
Question. Do you believe that the U.S. Government needs to
establish new procedures to manage stability operations? If so, why?
Answer. Collaborative and coordinated planning with interagency and
international partners is fundamental to the successful management and
the effectiveness of U.S. Government stabilization and reconstruction
activities. We must have a strong combined ability to conduct effective
interagency planning. If confirmed, I will review the Department's
procedures to identify potential improvements in the current processes
and procedures used to manage stability operations across the U.S.
Government and, as necessary and possible, expand the Department's
support to other departments and agencies in their stability operations
planning and execution.
Question. With the drawdown of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan,
what is your view on the future disposition of foreign and security
force funding authorities including 1206 (Global Train and Equip), the
Global Security Contingency Fund (GSCF), and other security force
assistance authorities?
Answer. Today's security challenges cannot and should not be
addressed by the United States alone. We need partnerships that combine
our unique capabilities with the unique strengths of our allies and
partners. Future challenges will likely emphasize the importance of our
collaboration with capable partners. I understand that in order to meet
our counterterrorism challenges, the Department shares these two
authorities with the State Department to train and equip foreign
security forces in a more rapid fashion than traditional Foreign
Military Financing. Section 1206 is an important part of the
Department's ``toolbox'' for responding to urgent and emerging
counterterrorism challenges and stability operations, and that the GSCF
is in its initial pilot phase. If confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department effectively and efficiently leverages authorities that
enable our security force assistance efforts. These efforts are
important to the Department's ability to build the capacity of foreign
partners to help them develop effective and legitimate security
institutions that can provide for their countries' internal security,
and contribute to regional and multilateral responses to threats and
instability.
Question. In your view, is there a roll for DOD in improving the
operational capabilities of the African Standby Brigades?
Answer. The Department can help improve the capabilities of the
individual countries contributing forces to the African Standby
Brigades. Direct training can make a qualitative difference in the
capabilities of partner countries and increase the effectiveness of the
regional organizations that mandate such operations. In terms of
helping the Standby Brigades once they are established, I understand
that there are Presidential Determinations authorizing work with some
regional organizations. In the cases where the Department is able to
engage, I understand that habitual training and exercises can help
strengthen the Brigades' operational capabilities.
security situation in iraq
Question. What is your assessment of the current security situation
in Iraq?
Answer. The overall security situation is stable, yet challenges
remain. It is critical for Iraq to resolve its internal boundary
disputes and political differences without the use or threat of force.
I am concerned about the intent of al Qaeda in Iraq to exploit
political and sectarian differences to breed instability. The Iraqi
Security Forces have proven themselves capable of countering this
threat to date and I believe that our continuing partnership with Iraq
should aim to help Iraq against this terrorist threat.
Question. What are the main challenges to stability and security in
Iraq over the coming months?
Answer. The main challenges to internal stability and security in
Iraq are al Qaeda in Iraq, slow political progress, and sectarian-
motivated groups who would use violence to advance their cause.
Moreover, the unresolved status of territories claimed by the Kurdistan
Regional Government has the potential to create fissures that can be
exploited by extremist groups, and could lead to an escalation of
tension between Kurdish and central government forces. While plenty of
stumbling blocks exist, it is important that the Iraqi political
parties continue to look to the political process to resolve their
differences. Continuing to encourage dialogue and respect for the
constitutional process will be crucial to ensuring long-term stability.
The United States must also closely watch the impact that events
external to Iraq, such as the deteriorating situation in Syria, have on
Iraqi stability and security.
u.s.-iraq strategic relationship
Question. The withdrawal of U.S. forces from Iraq at the end of
2011 has been described as the beginning of a new chapter in the
strategic relationship between the United States and Iraq. The U.S.-
Iraq Strategic Framework Agreement sets out a foundation for a
normalized U.S.-Iraqi relationship in areas of mutual economic,
diplomatic, cultural and security interests. Secretary of Defense
Panetta and the Iraqi Minister of Defense recently signed a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) for Defense Cooperation between the Ministry of
Defense of the Republic of Iraq and the DOD of the United States.
How do you envision the U.S.-Iraq strategic relationship developing
in the coming years and what are your priorities for that relationship?
Answer. The United States should seek a normal, productive
relationship and a strategic partnership with a sovereign Iraq--
analogous to the partnerships we have with other countries in the
region and around the world. If confirmed, I will continue to
strengthen our military-to-military relationship with Iraq, and further
its reintegration into the region.
Question. What do you see as the greatest challenges for that
relationship over the coming years?
Answer. Iraq faces several tough challenges as the Nation's new
government matures and works through internal differences, and it will
be important to continue to engage Iraq during a time of change. We
have moved from occupiers to partners, and that can be a hard
transition. But recent turmoil in the broader Middle East highlights
the importance of active U.S. engagement and maintaining strategic
partnerships with regional partners based on mutual interests and
mutual respect. We must maintain focus on Iraq in order to advance
broader U.S. objectives of peace and security in the region.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the recently
concluded MOU? In your view, does this agreement on defense cooperation
promote U.S. interests with respect to Iraq and the region?
Answer. My understanding of the MOU is that it represents mutual
understandings regarding future expansion of defense cooperation. In a
time of great uncertainty in the region, Iraq will play an increasingly
important role in ensuring stability and it is critical that we
continue to work together to ensure stability and peace in the region.
office of security cooperation in iraq
Question. In the NDAAs for Fiscal Years 2012 and 2013, Congress
authorized the Secretary of Defense to support the transition in Iraq
by providing funds for the activities and operations of the Office of
Security Cooperation in Iraq (OSC-I). In the report accompanying the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, the conferees expressed their expectation
that the administration will accelerate the transition of the OSC-I to
a normalized status comparable to Offices of Security Cooperation in
other countries in the region, and that funding for OSC-I activities
and operations will be transitioned out of DOD to other sources, as is
the case for offices of security cooperation in other countries.
Do you support the transition of the OSC-I to a normalized office
of security cooperation comparable to those in other countries in the
region?
Answer. Yes. The OSC-I, under Chief of Mission authority, is the
foundation for our long-term security partnership with Iraq. If
confirmed, I will continue Secretary Panetta's work to normalize the
OSC-I, in coordination with the Department of State, which has lead for
the U.S. Mission in Iraq.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that the transition of the
OSC-I to a normalized status, including funding from sources other than
the DOD, is completed in a deliberate manner?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with the Department of
State, which has lead for the U.S. Mission in Iraq, to normalize the
OSC-I and transition to traditional security assistance and security
cooperation funding sources.
Question. What timeframe would you use as a target to transition
OSC-1 to a normalized status?
Answer. I am unable to comment on the specific timing as I have not
reviewed the detailed plans and it is a decision to be made with the
Department of State, which has lead for the U.S. Mission in Iraq. If
confirmed, I will review the planning for OSC-I normalization and work
closely with the Department of State.
afghanistan strategy
Question. Do you support the current strategy for Afghanistan? In
your view, is that the right strategy?
Answer. Yes. I support the strategy that the President has set
forth and that we are now implementing, and I believe it is the right
strategy. I believe that any strategy should be reviewed and adapted
over time, and, if confirmed, will give my best advice to the President
and consult with Congress on this critical issue.
Question. If confirmed, are there changes you would recommend to
the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan is sound. I
also believe that, over time, the administration should continue to
assess the strategy. If confirmed, I will consult with Congress, and
with our allies and partners in this regard.
Question. What is your assessment of the progress of the campaign
in Afghanistan?
Answer. I believe that our campaign in Afghanistan has made
significant progress. Our Coalition and Afghan partners blunted the
insurgents' summer offensive for the second consecutive year. The
Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) are moving into security lead
throughout the country. They are pushing violence out of most populated
areas, and the United States and our coalition partners agreed in
Chicago to support the long-term stability and security of Afghanistan.
Exceeding initial expectations, Afghan forces began leading the
majority of operations in July 2012 and now lead approximately 80
percent of operations. In February, in conjunction with the fourth
tranche of transition, the ANSF is expected to have the lead in
securing 87 percent of the Afghan population. Overall violence was down
7 percent in 2012. At the same time, I understand that significant
challenges remain, including insider threats and completing the
transition to Afghanistan taking on full responsibility for its
security at the end of 2014.
security transition in afghanistan
Question. President Obama and Afghan President Karzai recently
announced that the transition to an Afghan lead for security throughout
Afghanistan will occur this spring, several months ahead of schedule.
As part of the ongoing transition, coalition forces are shifting
increasingly to an advise-and-assist mission but will continue to
support Afghan security forces until the International Security
Assistance Force (ISAF) mission concludes by no later than the end of
2014.
Do you support the announced transition of the security lead to
Afghan security forces throughout Afghanistan by this spring?
Answer. Yes. As this transition occurs, I understand that the ISAF
will shift into an advisor support role.
Question. Do you support the shift in the mission of coalition
forces to an increasingly advise-and-assist role in support of Afghan
security forces?
Answer. Yes. This mission shift to an increasingly support role is
consistent with what Afghans want and what was agreed at the 2010
Lisbon Summit--an Afghanistan able to provide for its own security,
with the assistance of the U.S. and other nations. The U.S. and our
coalition and Afghan partners reaffirmed this goal at the 2012 Chicago
North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Summit. For transition to be
successful, it makes good sense for the ANSF to assume lead security
responsibility this year, enabled by continued support and mentoring
from ISAF to prepare them for full security responsibility by the end
of 2014.
Question. Do you agree that it is important for the success of the
mission in Afghanistan to have Afghan security forces, rather than
coalition forces, taking the lead for security and conducting
unilateral operations to the maximum extent?
Answer. Yes. Training and developing the ANSF into a force that can
sustainably assume full security responsibility by the end of 2014 is
critical to meeting this objective.
Question. What is your assessment of the capacity and performance
of the Afghan security forces in assuming the lead for security in
areas designated for transition, including in contested areas?
Answer. I understand that the ANSF have exceeded initial
expectations. Afghan forces began leading the majority of operations in
July 2012 and now lead approximately 80 percent of operations,
including increasingly complex, multi-day operations. Violence in
transition Tranches 1, 2, and 3, where the ANSF are now in the lead,
was down 9 percent, 6 percent, and 14 percent respectively in 2012
compared to 2011. Some of these initial areas of transition include
contested areas, such as Lashkar Gah and Helmand, where the ANSF have
done well. However, the last two transition Tranches contain many
contested areas, so significant challenges remain and ISAF support will
be critical throughout 2013-2014.
Question. In your opinion, are there any conditions on the ground
in Afghanistan at the end of 2014 that would preclude a responsible
transition of mission from combat to support for U.S. forces? Under
what conditions, if any, would you recommend against making such a
transition at the end of 2014?
Answer. Currently, I believe that transition is on track for the
Afghans to assume full security responsibility by the end of 2014. At
this time, I do not foresee any realistic conditions that would
preclude this transition from being completed responsibly by the end of
2014. If confirmed, I will monitor the conditions closely and will
continue to assess progress, in consultation with commanders on the
ground and the Joint Chiefs; and, if necessary and warranted by
changing conditions, I will adjust the Department's recommendations.
draw down of u.s. forces in afghanistan
Question. In June 2011, President Obama announced his decision to
draw down the 33,000 U.S. surge force in Afghanistan so that by the
summer of 2012 U.S. forces will be at a level of 68,000. The President
recently reaffirmed his pledge to continue to bring U.S. forces home
from Afghanistan at a steady pace. He also stated he would announce the
next phase of the U.S. drawdown based on the recommendations of the
ISAF Commander and other commanders on the ground in Afghanistan.
How would you assess the decision to draw down the 33,000 U.S.
surge force from Afghanistan by the end of summer 2012?
Answer. In my view, the decision to draw down the U.S. surge by the
end of the summer has been proven by conditions on the ground. Although
challenges remain and progress in Afghanistan has been uneven in many
areas, overall security has improved and Afghans are increasingly in
the lead.
Question. What in your view should be the pace of reductions in
U.S. forces during each of 2013 and 2014?
Answer. I do not have access to the relevant analysis to make a
detailed assessment, but understand that President Obama will consider
options provided by our senior military and civilian leaders. I support
the President's direction, articulated in the West Point speech, for
``steady'' reductions. If confirmed, ensuring an effective transition
in Afghanistan will be one of my top priorities.
Question. What in your view should be the size and missions of any
residual U.S. force that may remain in Afghanistan after the end of
2014?
Answer. The key missions of any post-2014 military presence would
focus: training, advising, and assisting ANSF; and targeted
counterterrorism missions against al Qaeda and its affiliates, while
also protecting U.S. forces and citizens. The size of the force will
flow from missions assigned.
Question. In your view, is there a minimum number of troops that
will be required to both accomplish the assigned mission and provide
security for those executing that mission?
Answer. I have not yet reviewed the detailed mission planning and
analysis to form a view regarding the appropriate number of U.S.,
coalition, and Afghan troops necessary to fulfill key missions
including force protection. I do believe that sufficient forces should
be provided to do the job assigned to them, while protecting
themselves.
status-of-forces agreement for afghanistan
Question. As called for in the Enduring Strategic Partnership
Agreement signed in May, the United States and Afghanistan are holding
talks on a Bilateral Security Agreement, which will provide essential
protections for any limited U.S. military presence in Afghanistan after
2014.
Do you agree that it is essential that any status of forces
agreement for U.S. military forces in Afghanistan after 2014 provide
immunity for U.S. troops from prosecution in Afghan courts?
Answer. Yes. I agree with the position made clear by the President
during his joint press conference with President Karzai on January 11,
2013, that ``it would not be possible for us to have any kind of U.S.
troop presence [in Afghanistan] post-2014 without assurances that our
men and women who are operating there are [not] in some way subject to
the jurisdiction of another country.''
afghanistan national security forces
Question. What is your assessment of the progress in developing a
professional and effective Afghanistan National Security Forces (ANSF)?
Answer. Based on the information available to me, I believe that
the ANSF has and continues to make significant progress over the past
few years. I understand that today the ANSF field three out of every
four people in uniform defending Afghanistan, and that Afghans conduct
the majority of operations backed up by the ISAF.
Question. What do you see as the main challenges to building the
capacity of the ANSF and, if confirmed, what recommendations, if any,
would you make for addressing those challenges?
Answer. A first challenge is to continue to improve the quality,
readiness and performance of the 352,000 personnel in the ANSF. I
understand that problems remain in leadership, retention, corruption,
and the long personnel training needed to operate certain enablers such
as logistics and intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR).
A second challenge is for the ANSF to develop a greater capacity for
maintaining equipment and integrating it into operations needed for
logistics support, mobility, ISR, and operational planning. I am aware
that the Department has an aggressive effort to close these enabler
gaps. Third, and most broadly, the ANSF must continue building its
self-confidence through operational success in taking the lead
responsibility for securing transitioning areas and protecting the
Afghan people. If confirmed, I will make it a priority to continue, and
where necessary, adjust efforts to build ANSF capacity and capability.
Question. Do you support plans for building and sustaining the ANSF
at 352,000 personnel?
Answer. Yes. I understand that our commanders consider the current
ANSF force of 352,000 personnel necessary to complete the transition to
Afghan lead security responsibility by the end of 2014, and to secure
the country during the transition of power following the Afghan
Presidential election in 2014. If confirmed, I will continue to review
the numbers and capabilities of the ANSF to ensure that we are
supporting a force structure that is sufficient to meet our goals, and
is fiscally sustainable over the long term.
Question. Do you agree that any reductions in the ANSF from this
352,000 level should be based on security conditions in Afghanistan at
the time those reductions would be expected to occur?
Answer. I agree that changes in ANSF force levels should take
account of expected security conditions. At the same time, for planning
and budgeting purposes, it is necessary to make projections about the
future security environment and plans about future force levels. If
confirmed, I will review these issues and propose adjustments over
time, as appropriate.
insider threat
Question. In 2012 there was a significant increase in the number of
so-called ``green-on-blue'' incidents in which individuals in Afghan
uniform attacked U.S. or coalition soldiers. The rising number of
insider attacks has led U.S. and Afghan military leaders to order a
number of precautions against such insider threats, including expanding
Afghan counterintelligence efforts to identify possible Taliban
infiltrators, increasing cultural sensitivity training, and expanding
the ``Guardian Angel'' program to protect against the insider threat in
meetings between coalition and Afghan forces.
What is your assessment of the insider threat and its impact on the
military campaign in Afghanistan?
Answer. Insider attacks have the potential to damage the strategic
trust necessary for our campaign to succeed. It is vital that we work
with our Afghan and international partners to take every step possible
to stop these attacks. I understand that U.S. and Afghan efforts have
reduced attacks and are helping to reduce risks to coalition personnel.
If confirmed, I will continue to pay close attention to countering this
threat.
Question. What is your assessment of the measures that have been
taken by ISAF and Afghan leaders to address the insider threat?
Answer. My understanding is that the measures put in place to date
have helped to mitigate the threat from insider attacks, with the
number of attacks now dropping from a peak in August 2012. Raised
awareness of the threat and the implementation of robust force
protection measures help protect our personnel, but the work by the
ANSF to identify threats and prevent attacks through improved
intelligence gathering and vetting of personnel remains critical. As we
move into the ``fighting season'' we need to ensure these steps
continue to be implemented fully and that ISAF continues to take the
necessary steps to prevent these attacks. If confirmed, I will make
this a key priority.
Question. Are there additional steps that you would recommend to
address this threat, if confirmed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue current efforts--and ask for
a constant review of additional measures to further reduce the risk
posed by insider threats.
Question. What is your assessment of the impact of these green-on-
blue attacks on the level of trust between coalition and Afghan forces?
Answer. It is understandable that insider attacks have negatively
impacted trust in some areas. However, after more than 11 years of
fighting shoulder to shoulder and shared sacrifice, I believe that, in
most areas, the relationship between the ANSF and the Coalition remains
strong, particularly out in the field, where soldiers face a common
enemy every day.
Question. In light of the spike in insider attacks, do you see a
need to reconsider our plans for embedding small Security Force
Assistance Teams of U.S. military personnel with Afghan military units
as part of the transition to an Afghan security lead?
Answer. If confirmed, I will place a priority on mitigating insider
attacks and will ensure that our commanders continually assess the
impact of these attacks on the campaign, and consider whether changes
to the Security Force Assistance Team model should be made, including
any temporary adjustments as needed.
reconciliation
Question. In your view, what should be the role of the United
States in any reconciliation negotiations with the Afghan Taliban and
other insurgent groups?
Answer. I agree with President Obama that Afghan-led reconciliation
is the surest way to end violence and ensure lasting stability in
Afghanistan and the region. Most counterinsurgencies end in some form
of negotiation. The U.S. role should be to facilitate credible
negotiations between the Afghan Government and the Taliban, and ensure
that three necessary outcomes are met: that the Taliban and armed
groups end violence, break ties with al Qaeda, and accept Afghanistan's
constitution, including protections for all Afghan men and women.
Question. What additional steps, if any, should the United States
be taking to help advance the reconciliation process?
Answer. The United States should continue to coordinate efforts
closely with the Afghan Government.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of Afghanistan's
neighbors, in particular Pakistan, in the reconciliation process?
Answer. Afghanistan's neighbors should support an Afghan-led
process. Each will benefit from improved stability in Afghanistan or
potentially suffer from continued violence. Pakistan and other
neighbors should work forthrightly with Afghanistan to mitigate any
suspicions or misunderstandings.
special operations in afghanistan
Question. Special Operations Forces depend on general purpose
forces for many enabling capabilities, including ISR; logistics; and
medical evacuation. Admiral McRaven, Commander of U.S. Special
Operations Command, has said ``I have no doubt that special operations
will be the last to leave Afghanistan'' and has predicted that the
requirement for special operations forces may increase as general
purpose forces continue to be drawn down.
If confirmed, how would you ensure adequate enabling capabilities
for Special Operations Forces as general purpose forces continue to
draw down in Afghanistan?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek to ensure that all U.S. forces in
Afghanistan--including both Special Operations Forces and general
purpose forces--are supported by sufficient enablers. In addition to
providing clear guidance to commanders, I will seek the military advice
of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, and ensure that the views of all
relevant combatant commanders are taken into account.
Question. Last April, the United States and Afghanistan signed an
MOU on the ``Afghanization'' of direct action counterterrorism missions
in Afghanistan reflecting the shared intention of having Afghan
security forces in the lead in the conduct of such operations with U.S.
forces in a support role.
Why is it important for Afghan Special Operations Forces to be in
the lead on night raids?
Answer. Having Afghans in the lead for ``night operations'' makes
good sense for three reasons. First, this approach helps ensure that
cultural and language differences do not result in misunderstandings
that could escalate a situation. Second, having Afghans in the lead
allows for improved real-time intelligence collection. Third, the
Afghan Special Operations Forces are capable of fulfilling this mission
and their doing so is a key part of the transition.
Question. General Allen and others have consistently praised the
Village Stability Operations (VSO) and Afghan Local Police (ALP)
programs--both U.S. Special Operations missions as critical elements of
the counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan. Some Afghans have called
for the removal of U.S. Special Operators from these operations.
What are your views on the value of these programs and do you
believe they should be part of the long-term strategy in Afghanistan
(i.e. post-2014)?
Answer. I understand that VSO and the ALP have contributed to the
decline in Taliban control in many strategic areas throughout
Afghanistan. If I am confirmed, I will make a priority to assess the
potential future value of these programs.
u.s. strategic relationship with pakistan
Question. What would you consider to be areas of shared strategic
interest between the United States and Pakistan?
Answer. I believe the United States and Pakistan share common
interests in disrupting, dismantling, and defeating al Qaeda, and in
long-term regional stability, including a durable political settlement
in Afghanistan and the safety and security of the Indian Ocean.
Question. In what areas do you see U.S. and Pakistani strategic
interests diverging?
Answer. The United States and Pakistan often diverge over
Pakistan's approach to the militant and terrorist networks that operate
in Pakistan's territory and do not overtly threaten the Pakistani
state. However, in my view, these networks threaten Pakistani
stability, endanger the prospects for a settlement in Afghanistan, and
undermine regional stability--so that in fact, while the relationship
is challenging, I believe our long-term strategic interests are in
alignment.
Question. If confirmed, what changes, if any, would you recommend
for U.S. relations with Pakistan, particularly in terms of military-to-
military relations?
Answer. U.S.-Pakistan military-to-military ties have been marked by
periodic ups and downs. In my view, the military-military relationship
should be underlined by a realistic, pragmatic approach to enhancing
those areas of cooperation that are dictated by our common interests
and to ensuring accountability for actions that detract from these
interests. If confirmed, I will make accomplishing that goal a
priority.
u.s. assistance to pakistan
Question. Since 2001, the United States has provided significant
military assistance to Pakistan. In addition, the United States has
provided significant funds to reimburse Pakistan for the costs
associated with military operations conducted by Pakistan along the
Afghanistan-Pakistan border and other support provided in connection
with Operation Enduring Freedom.
In your view, how effective has the assistance and other support
that the United States has provided to Pakistan been in promoting U.S.
interests?
Answer. As the President has said, more terrorists have been killed
in Pakistan than anywhere else since September 11--and that would not
be possible without Pakistani cooperation. Security assistance for
Pakistan has helped Pakistan press this campaign against the militant
and terrorist networks that threaten us all. If confirmed, I will work
to ensure that our security assistance and other support to Pakistan
both serves U.S. interests and is cost effective.
Question. Do you support conditioning U.S. assistance and other
support to Pakistan on Pakistan's continued cooperation in areas of
mutual security interest?
Answer. U.S. assistance to Pakistan should not be unconditional. At
the same time, any conditions should be carefully examined to ensure
they advance U.S. strategic interests.
al qaeda and associated forces
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed by al Qaeda
and its associated forces to the U.S. Homeland, U.S. interests
overseas, and Western interests more broadly?
Answer. I assess that the threat posed by al Qaeda to the U.S.
Homeland has been significantly diminished over the past 4 years. At
the same time, al Qaeda's remaining leadership in Pakistan and al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula remains of serious concern. Additionally, the
Arab Spring has created new opportunities for al Qaeda affiliates in
Syria and North Africa.
Question. In light of the recent events in Benghazi and Algeria, do
you share the assessment that al Qaeda is on the brink of strategic
defeat?
Answer. Our sustained military, intelligence, and diplomatic
efforts over the last 10 years have brought us closer to the strategic
defeat of core al Qaeda. There can be no doubt, however, that al Qaeda
and associated forces remain potent, dangerous, and adaptable foes--as
evidenced by its despicable actions in Benghazi and more recently in
Algeria. If confirmed, I will continue to focus on defeating al Qaeda
and its associated forces around the world.
arab spring
Question. The Arab Spring has changed--and will likely continue to
change--the political dynamics in the Middle East and North Africa.
These changes require the United States to adjust our military-to-
military and defense civilian relations in this region. Some observers
argue that the United States should reduce significantly our military-
to-military contact in countries as a result of the ongoing changes and
others advocate more robust and stepped-up contact with our partners in
this region.
In your view, what should be the posture of the U.S. Government on
military-to-military and defense civilian relations in the region?
Answer. DOD's military-to-military and defense civilian relations
with our partners in the Middle East and North Africa have played a
critical role in advancing U.S. strategic interests, which include:
securing and protecting Israel, preventing Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon, defeating extremists, countering terrorist
organizations, ensuring the free flow of commerce, and supporting
operations in Afghanistan. Engagement with key partners' defense
ministries and militaries, building partner capacity to meet common
challenges, having a forward presence to enable operations and deter
threats, and if and when necessary to conduct future contingencies, all
require considerable effort by both DOD and the Department of State.
During this time of change and uncertainty in the region, the
Department should sustain military-to-military and defense civilian
relations, while continuing to evaluate and recalibrate the nature and
substance of our relationships to ensure they are consistent with U.S.
values and advance U.S. vital national interests.
syria
Question. The civil war in Syria continues and President Assad's
commitment to continuing his regime's ongoing operations appear
unwavering--despite broad international condemnation. To date, the
United States has limited its support to opposition forces to non-
lethal assistance to forces on the ground, as well as technical
assistance to elements of the opposition working to build a cohesive
political entity.
In your view, what is the proper role on the United States in this
conflict?
Answer. I support the administration's position that Syrian
President Bashar al-Asad has lost all legitimacy and must step aside to
enable a political solution that ends the bloodshed, and meets the
aspirations of the Syrian people. As President Obama has clearly
stated, Asad must go. I also support the administration's approach to
the ongoing crisis in Syria--working closely with allies, partners and
multilateral institutions to achieve this goal through diplomatic and
economic pressure on the Asad regime.
I agree with the administration's continued support of the Geneva
Action Group's framework for a political solution, which was endorsed
by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council, the Arab
League, and the U.N. General Assembly. If confirmed, I will continue to
support Joint U.N.-Arab League Special Representative Brahimi's efforts
to build international support for the Geneva framework and urge all
parties in Syria to take steps toward its implementation, to help
expedite an end to the suffering of the Syrian people.
Question. In your view, should the United States provide other
kinds of support to opposition groups on the ground in Syria, including
the provision of lethal support?
Answer. The U.S. Government should continue providing non-lethal
assistance to the unarmed opposition, as well as humanitarian support
to Syrians in need, both inside Syria and in neighboring countries. The
United States should also continue to support the opposition in the
diplomatic arena. This includes helping the newly established Syrian
Opposition Council with its efforts to end the conflict and improve the
future of the Syrian people. I also believe that, like ongoing
diplomatic efforts, U.S. assistance efforts should continue to be
coordinated with our allies, partners, and relevant regional groups to
have the biggest impact possible.
I do not believe that providing lethal support to the armed
opposition at this time will alleviate the horrible situation we see in
Syria. The Syrian people are in great need during this difficult
period, and the United States is helping to address those basic needs
by providing medical assistance, humanitarian assistance, and political
support on the international stage. We must continually explore
additional ways to provide resources and help influence the right
outcome.
Question. If confirmed, will you review Defense Department planning
for options to ensure the security of chemical weapons in Syria, and
recommend any additional planning, if needed?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department continues
planning for a variety of contingencies in order to provide the
President with options. This includes relevant planning for Syria and
specifically, the security and elimination of chemical weapons in
Syria. If confirmed, I will review these plans and, if necessary, I
will direct additional planning on this and any other potential
contingencies.
Question. In your view, what should be NATO's role with respect to
Syria (i.e. should NATO consider a military intervention, the creation
of a no-fly zone, or other military operations to protect civilians and
support opposition forces)?
Answer. The United States is working with our allies to achieve a
peaceful and orderly political transition in Syria and to end the
bloodshed as quickly as possible. Our NATO allies are closely
monitoring the situation in Syria, especially as the conflict touches
on NATO's border in Turkey, and like us, are extremely concerned about
the deteriorating humanitarian conditions on the ground. NATO's
ultimate task is the protection and defense of NATO members. To that
end, I support NATO's decision to augment Turkey's air and missile
defense capabilities in order to defend the population and territory of
Turkey and contribute to the de-escalation of the crisis along the
alliance's border. This includes the recent deployment of NATO Patriot
batteries to Turkey from the United States, Germany, and The
Netherlands. I understand the administration has also been working with
our international partners, including NATO allies, to ensure that the
appropriate humanitarian assistance is reaching those Syrians in need,
both inside Syria and in neighboring countries (Lebanon, Turkey,
Jordan, and Iraq).
libya
Question. On March 19, 2011, the multilateral military operation,
named Operation Odyssey Dawn, was launched in Libya to enforce United
Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Following the initial
operations against Libyan integrated air defense systems, this
operation continued under NATO Command as Operation Unified Protector.
What are your views on the limited U.S. military mission in Libya--
Operation Odyssey Dawn and Operation Unified Protector?
Answer. I believe the U.S. and NATO operations in Libya were a
success. Operation Odyssey Dawn stopped Colonel Qadhafi's army from
advancing on Benghazi, saved thousands of lives, and established the
conditions for a no-fly-zone. Operation Unified Protector built on
these accomplishments and created the time and space needed for the
opposition to oppose, and ultimately overthrow, Qadhafi. Both
operations had limited and clear objectives for the unique capabilities
the U.S. military could provide, avoided U.S. boots-on-the-ground,
integrated allies and partners, minimized collateral damage and
civilian casualties to a historically unprecedented extent, and enjoyed
the legitimacy of U.N. Security Council authorization. This was all
achieved at a fraction of the cost of recent interventions in the
Balkans, Iraq, or Afghanistan.
u.s. marine corps support to the state department
Question. The Accountability Review Board for Benghazi recently
completed its report examining the facts and circumstances surrounding
the September 11-12, 2012 attack against the U.S. temporary mission
facility in Benghazi. Among its findings and conclusions, its report
supported the ``State Department's initiative to request additional
marines and expand the Marine Security Guard (MSG) Program--as well as
corresponding requirements for staffing and funding. The Board also
recommends that the State Department and DOD identify additional
flexible MSG structures and request further resources for the
Department and DOD to provide more capabilities and capacities at
higher risk posts.'' In the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, Congress
authorized up to 1,000 additional marines in the MSG program to provide
the additional end strength and resources necessary to support enhanced
Marine Corps security at U.S. embassies, consulates, and other
diplomatic facilities.
In your view, should the Marine Corps diplomatic security mission
be expanded to include new roles beyond the protection of classified
information and equipment, and if so, how many additional marines and
what rank structure would be needed?
Answer. I am aware that the Departments of Defense and State are
currently thoroughly examining the challenges and threats posed by
global unrest to our overseas operations and are developing options to
address these challenges. These options include consideration of
expanding Marine Security Guard detachments, as well as adjustments to
their roles and responsibilities. I have not reviewed the details of
the options and, therefore, am unable to comment on the specific
arrangements, numbers of personnel, or rank structure at this time.
However, if confirmed, I will place personal emphasis on this issue and
work closely with the Secretary of State and Congress to ensure we are
doing all we can to help protect our diplomats and diplomatic
facilities overseas.
Question. In your view, should the current arrangements between the
Department of State and U.S. Marine Corps be modified?
Answer. I cannot recommend any changes at this time. If confirmed,
I will review the on-going work and recommendations that are being
developed by the Departments of Defense and State that is examining the
roles, responsibilities, and arrangements of the U.S. Marine Security
Guards and the Department of State.
strategic communications and information operations
Question. Over the past decade, DOD has funded an increasing number
of military information support operations (formerly known as
psychological operations) and influence programs. The GAO reports that
DOD has ``spent hundreds of millions of dollars each year'' to support
its information operations outreach activities. Many of these programs
are in support of operations in Afghanistan, but Military Information
Support Teams (MIST) from U.S. Special Operations Command also deploy
to U.S. embassies in countries of particular interest around the globe
to bolster the efforts of the Department of State and the U.S. Agency
for International Development. Further, the geographic combatant
commands are increasingly moving into this operational space.
What are your views on DOD's military information support
operations and influence programs?
Answer. I believe DOD must be able to influence and inform foreign
audiences in environments susceptible to the messages of U.S.
adversaries. MISTs are trained in developing culturally appropriate
messages to counter hostile information and propaganda, as well as
assisting with building the capacity of partner nations to conduct
these activities themselves. I understand that DOD influence
activities, including those conducted by MISTs, are coordinated closely
with the embassies in the areas where they operate, both inside and
outside of areas of conflict, and at times can support common efforts
of other agencies. I understand the Department has taken significant
steps to address congressional concerns related to policy oversight,
budgeting, and effectiveness. If confirmed, I intend to continue to be
responsive to Congress on this matter, as well as to continue the
Department's efforts to coordinate information activities across the
interagency.
Question. In 2005, al Qaeda's Ayman al-Zawahiri declared that ``We
are in a battle, and more than half of it is taking place in the
battlefield of the media.'' In 2010, a non-partisan study highlighted
the lack of a U.S. strategy to counter radical ideologies that foment
violence (e.g. Islamism or Salafist-Jihadism).
In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD, if any, in
developing and implementing a strategy to counter radical ideologies,
and how does that role complement or conflict with the efforts of the
Intelligence Community and the State Department?
Answer. Countering violent extremist ideology is a whole-of-
government endeavor. I believe the Defense Department's focus should be
on using its assets to meet military objectives and providing support
to other U.S. Government agencies as requested. I understand the
Department's activities in this area are closely coordinated with the
Intelligence Community and the State Department.
Question. Defense Secretary Gates launched the Minerva Program in
2009 to develop deeper social, cultural and behavioral expertise for
policy and strategy purposes.
Do you support this program and its goals?
Answer. I understand both Secretary Gates and Secretary Panetta
supported the MINERVA initiative, which provides the Department with a
means to focus research on complex social, cultural and political
dynamics related to our strategic interests around the world. If
confirmed, I would seek to learn more about the program and assess its
continued value in supporting policy and strategy development.
somalia
Question. Somalia is a training and operations hub for al Shabab
and other violent extremists; pirates operating in the Indian Ocean and
Arabian Peninsula; illicit traffickers of weapons, humans, and drugs;
and remnants of the al Qaeda East Africa cell that was responsible for
the destruction of our embassies in Dar es Salaam and Nairobi in August
1998.
What is your assessment of the threat posed by al Shabab to the
U.S. Homeland and U.S. and Western interests in the East African
region?
Answer. My understanding is that successful operations by the
African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) have reduced Al-Shabaab's
freedom of movement in south and central Somalia, but al Shabaab
remains a threat to the U.S. Homeland and to U.S. and Western interests
in the Horn of Africa. Al Shabaab leaders have claimed affiliation with
al Qaeda since 2007 and formally merged with the group in February
2012. Al Shabaab has demonstrated a desire and capability to conduct
terrorist acts throughout the Horn of Africa, and it presents a threat
to the homeland through links into Somali diaspora communities in the
United States and Europe. Al Shabaab continues to repress the Somali
people and remains the greatest threat to the new Somali Government. As
the new Somali Government stands up, I believe that the United States
must remain focused on the risks posed by al Shabaab.
Question. Given the role of the various U.S. Government Departments
and Agencies in the Horn of Africa, what changes, if any, would you
make to DOD's current role in the Horn of Africa?
Answer. With the establishment of the new government in Somalia and
U.S. recognition of that government earlier this month, the Department
will continue to play a role in Somalia's security sector development
in order to help secure the gains made by AMISOM. Most of the U.S.
Government's traditional security cooperation tools have been
restricted from use in Somalia for some time, but I understand that the
United States will explore possible changes in the coming year, as the
United States moves to normalize relations with Mogadishu. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure that the Department's approach to
Somalia is developed as part of a coordinated U.S. national security
policy toward the Horn of Africa, and to determine how the Department
can and should best support our foreign policy in this region.
Question. In your view, what role, if any, should the United States
play in the building of a Somali national army?
Answer. The United States can play a guiding and mentoring role in
the development of Somalia's security sector. It is in the U.S.
interest to ensure that Somalia's new government has a competent and
professional military to provide security to its citizens and play a
constructive role in the region.
al qaeda in the arabian peninsula
Question. A number of senior U.S. officials have indicated the most
significant threat to the U.S. Homeland currently emanates from Yemen.
What is your assessment of the threat posed by al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula to the United States?
Answer. I am very concerned about the threat that al Qaeda in the
Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) poses to the Homeland. AQAP has attempted at
least three attacks on the United States since December 2009, and in my
view fully intends to attack again. AQAP has shown some very
sophisticated and innovative techniques, such as the development of
concealed explosive devices and printer cartridge bombs. AQAP is also
attempting to recruit and radicalize would-be terrorists in the West
through its extensive media outreach.
Question. What is your assessment of the current U.S. strategy to
counter al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, specifically in Yemen?
Answer. I support the administration's whole-of-government strategy
to: support the political transition, marshal international economic
and humanitarian assistance, and build Yemen's counter-terrorism
capabilities through training and assistance. The U.S. strategy to
disrupt, dismantle, and defeat AQAP is a collaborative U.S.-Yemeni
effort. By closely monitoring and acting on current threat streams
while building key Yemeni capabilities, I believe the United States has
shown the ability to counter near-term threats.
We have made a number of important gains against AQAP over the past
couple of years. I understand that the Department continues to
collaborate extensively with Yemeni forces on operational matters,
which have helped remove several key AQAP operatives from the
battlefield. Efforts to counter AQAP's narrative have helped to
delegitimize the group and discourage its efforts to recruit new
operatives. The U.S. Government's work on countering threat financing
has made it more difficult for AQAP to receive funds and to support
other parts of al Qaeda. U.S. efforts--many of them executed by the
Department--to train, advise, and equip Yemeni forces are driving AQAP
from territory it previously held and are enabling precise operations
to capture and kill AQAP leaders.
north africa
Question. In December 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
stated that ``Al Qaeda has long sought to operate in areas beyond the
reach of effective security and governance, [and] we know that al
Qaeda, its affiliates and adherents are looking to establish a foothold
in other countries in the Middle East, and north and west Africa,
including al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, and the Boko Haram group in
Nigeria.''
What is your assessment of the threat posed by al Qaeda and its
associated forces in North Africa? Do they pose a threat to the United
States homeland and/or U.S. interests abroad?
Answer. Al Qaeda in the lands of the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) poses
an increasing threat to U.S. interests. My understanding is that at
this time, there is no credible evidence that AQIM is a direct threat
to the U.S. Homeland. However, as seen in the recent hostage situation
in Algeria, AQIM and its associates do threaten U.S. persons and
interests abroad, as well as our European allies.
Question. In January 2013, the French Armed Forces began conducting
operations against violent extremist groups in Mali.
In your view, what should be the role, if any, of the United States
in supporting the French operation?
Answer. The United States shares the French goal of denying AQIM
and other terrorists a safe haven in the region. I agree with the
administration's decision to support the French mission without
deploying U.S. combat forces on the ground. My understanding is that
this support includes assisting the movement of French and African
forces, providing intelligence and planning support, and assisting in
the training and preparation of African forces.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of the United
States in working with United Nation's Security Council authorized
forces from the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) in
Mali?
Answer. The African-led International Support Mission in Mali
(AFISMA), approved by a Chapter VII U.N. Security Council mandate to
restore Malian sovereignty and counter violent extremists, is very
important for U.S. interests and for regional stability. I support the
U.S. position to expedite the training, equipping and deployment of
West African troops as part of AFISMA to ensure a successful, African-
led mission.
collaboration between the defense department and the intelligence
community
Question. Since September 11, 2001, collaboration--both analytical
and operational--between the Defense Department and the Intelligence
Community has grown increasingly close. On one hand, seamless
collaboration is a vital component of effective and rapid responses to
non-traditional threats, and bringing together the strengths of the
full spectrum of defense and intelligence missions creates
opportunities for solutions to complex problems. On the other hand,
such collaboration--without effective management and oversight--risks
blurring the missions of agencies and individuals that have cultivated
distinct strengths or creating redundant lines of effort.
What are your views regarding the appropriate scope of
collaboration between DOD and the Intelligence Community?
Answer. Collaboration between DOD and the Intelligence Community
(IC) is an essential element for supporting our national security
objectives. Eight of the 17 IC components are embedded in the
Department which constitutes a substantial portion of the Nation's
intelligence capabilities and resources. It is my understanding that
the Department depends on capabilities provided by the IC to support
weapons systems acquisition and to enable military operations, while
the IC depends on capabilities provided by the Department to support a
wide range of critical intelligence-related and special activities.
Collaboration has also been central to the ability to dismantle and
eventually defeat al Qaeda and to counter the proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction (WMD). In 2007, the Secretary of Defense and the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) established the position of the
Director of Defense Intelligence (DDI) within the Office of the
Director of National Intelligence, and dual-hatted the Under Secretary
of Defense for Intelligence (USD(I)) as the DDI. The DNI and the USD(I)
have since pursued National Intelligence Program-Military Intelligence
Program budget integration leading to more effectiveness and
efficiencies from vital intelligence resources.
Question. In your view, are there aspects of the current
relationship between the Department and the Intelligence Community that
should be re-examined or modified?
Answer. I do not know the issue well enough to make recommendations
at the time. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department
consistently assesses its processes and procedures for evaluating how
it interacts with the IC and look for opportunities to build on the
existing relationship.
nato alliance
Question. The NATO alliance continues to be central to our
coalition operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere, even as many NATO
members have significantly reduced their national defense budgets in
response to economic and fiscal pressures.
Do you agree that U.S. participation in the NATO Alliance
contributes to advancing U.S. security interests?
Answer. Yes. the transatlantic relationship is of critical
importance to U.S. security interests. NATO has been the cornerstone of
European security and an integral part of U.S. foreign policy for more
than 60 years, and NATO has continued to be critically important to
U.S. security interests in recent years. In Afghanistan, there have
been nearly 40,000 allied and partner forces alongside our own. In
Libya, NATO allies came together with Arab and other partners to
prevent a humanitarian catastrophe, and to support the Libyan people.
Over years in the Balkans, NATO has been vital to stability and has
moved us closer to the goal of a Europe whole, free, and at peace. NATO
must remain the central Alliance in U.S. global strategy and has proven
an effective partner.
Question. What are the greatest opportunities and challenges that
you foresee for NATO in meeting its strategic objectives over the next
5 years?
Answer. In my view, the top NATO-related challenge is the mounting
fiscal pressures facing all allies and the resulting reduction in
alliance military capabilities as allies cut spending. However, these
fiscal difficulties present an opportunity to transform NATO into an
Alliance that is more efficient, with a new way of doing business that
emphasizes innovation, flexibility, and enhanced cooperation and
interoperability with allies and partners. The Alliance must also
continue to adapt to meet the new threats of the 21st century: cyber
attacks, terrorism, proliferation of WMD, and regional conflicts.
Question. In light of the reductions in national defense spending
by some NATO members, are you concerned that the alliance will lack
critical military capabilities? If so, what steps, if any, would you
recommend be taken to address potential shortfalls in alliance
capabilities?
Answer. Yes. I am concerned that the Alliance is in danger of
losing critical military capabilities if something does not change. The
past decade-plus of fighting in Afghanistan has left the alliance with
worn equipment and depleted defense budgets. The Alliance should commit
to halting defense cuts, complete the capability projects it has
already initiated, and reinvest the funds it will save from the end of
combat operations in Afghanistan into sustaining and building
prioritized capabilities. If confirmed, I will work to ensure NATO's
commitments to critical capabilities.
Question. The concept of defense cooperation between NATO members
was emphasized at the NATO summit in Chicago in May 2012.
What areas or projects do you recommend that NATO nations cooperate
in to improve NATO alliance capabilities?
Answer. I support the roadmap for NATO that was agreed to by
Presidents and Prime Ministers from across the alliance at the Chicago
Summit last May. It describes and prioritizes NATO's required
capabilities, encourages greater pooling of resources, and focuses on
improving education, training, and technology to preserve the
interoperability resulting from years of joint operations in
Afghanistan.
Question. Under what conditions, if any, would you envision further
enlargement of NATO in the coming years?
Answer. If confirmed, I would work closely with my colleagues in
the administration and in close consultation with Congress and our
allies to determine which countries and within what timeframe NATO
would undertake further enlargement. Each NATO aspirant should be
judged on its individual merits and progress in implementing political,
economic, and military reforms.
Question. In your view, is there a continuing requirement for U.S.
nuclear weapons to be deployed in NATO countries?
Answer. I agree with the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review that the
presence of U.S. nuclear weapons, along with NATO's unique nuclear
sharing arrangements, contribute to alliance cohesion and provide
reassurance to allies and partners who feel exposed to regional
threats. Any changes should only be taken after a thorough review
within, and a decision by, the alliance. I also support NATO's
Deterrence and Defense Posture Review that the President and fellow
Heads of State and Government agreed to at the May 2012 Chicago NATO
Summit. The review committed the alliance to ensuring that NATO's
nuclear deterrent remains safe, secure, and effective. The review also
stated that the alliance is prepared to consider further reductions in
non-strategic nuclear weapons assigned to the alliance, in the context
of reciprocal steps by Russia. If confirmed, I will continue to consult
with our allies on any such negotiations.
Question. What is your understanding of the relationship between
Israel and Turkey as it relates to NATO? Are you concerned about the
breakdown in the security cooperation relationship between Turkey and
Israel and do you have any ideas as to how to mend it?
Answer. I remain concerned about the deterioration of the
relationship between Turkey and Israel, both of which are important
partners for the United States and are critical to stability in their
region. These relationships are broader than this dispute. Turkey is a
critical NATO Ally, and we will continue to exercise, plan, and work
with Turkey in that context. Israel is a key security partner of the
United States. If confirmed, I would work to ensure that the United
States continues, in diplomatic channels and in defense contacts, to
encourage both Turkey and Israel to take the steps necessary to resolve
their dispute and work together to address common regional challenges.
kosovo
Question. Approximately 760 U.S. troops remain in the Balkans as
part of the Kosovo Force (KFOR) that first deployed to Kosovo in 1999
and today is comprised of over 5,500 personnel from 30 countries.
Spikes in violence in 2011 required the deployment of the NATO
Operational Reserve Force battalion of approximately 600 soldiers to
bolster KFOR and maintain a secure environment. Progress is required in
both the military and political realms before further troop reductions
can be made.
What major lines of effort do you think are required to further
reduce or eliminate U.S. and NATO presence in Kosovo?
Answer. I recognize that the United States has a long-established
commitment, together with our NATO allies, to a responsible,
conditions-based drawdown of forces in Kosovo. I understand DOD
continues to work with allies and NATO military authorities in
monitoring and assessing conditions and pursuing carefully developed
plans for the eventual drawdown. Ultimately, a political solution is
needed to normalize relations between Kosovo and Serbia and thereby
establish lasting security in Kosovo and the region. If confirmed, I
will support this effort, both through Department-led engagements, and
also by supporting our interagency and international partners to
achieve this goal. I understand that a key part of the KFOR military
plan, executed by NATO, is to enable a transition of security
responsibilities to Kosovo. The United States plays a critical role in
this effort. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD provides support for
this goal consistent with decisions among the United States and our
allies.
Question. In your view, is the European Union (EU) playing a
significant enough role in Kosovo?
Answer. The EU is playing a critical role by facilitating high-
level dialogue between Kosovo and Serbia. This dialogue is broadly
supported by the United States and our allies as an opportunity to
normalize relations between the two countries. The EU Rule of Law
Mission (EULEX) plays an important role in Kosovo, working to
strengthen legal institutions there. The United States will continue
its support for a robust role by EULEX to fulfill its mandate.
special operations forces
Question. The previous two Quadrennial Defense Reviews (QDR) have
mandated significant growth in our special operations forces and
enablers that directly support their operations.
What is your assessment of the QDR mandate regarding the mix of
responsibilities assigned to general purpose and Special Operations
Forces, particularly as it relates to security force assistance and
building partner military capabilities?
Answer. I agree with the premise that adversaries will continue to
seek alternative methods to counter U.S. influence and interests, and
that for the foreseeable future the most likely contingencies the
United States will face will involve irregular threats. Therefore, I
fully support the 2010 QDR's strategic shift toward expanding general
purpose forces' capabilities and capacity for these contingencies. The
overall flexibility of our Armed Forces has been greatly improved by
investing in key enablers within our conventional force such as:
strengthening and expanding capabilities for security force assistance;
increasing the availability of rotary-wing assets; expanding manned and
unmanned aircraft systems for ISR; improving counter-improvised
explosive device capabilities; and enhancing linguistic, cultural,
counterinsurgency, and stability operations competency and capacity.
Question. Do you believe that our general purpose forces need to
become more like Special Operations Forces in mission areas that are
critical to countering violent extremists?
Answer. Countering violent extremism requires employing all of the
capabilities of the Department--mixed and matched appropriately--
depending on the mission requirements. The experience of the last 10
years is clear that general purpose units and special forces both
contribute to countering violent extremists.
Question. Are there certain mission areas that should be reserved
for Special Operations Forces only?
Answer. Special Operations Forces (SOF) are a uniquely specialized
component of our U.S. Armed Forces that are trained, organized, and
equipped to conduct counterterrorism, unconventional warfare, direct
action, special reconnaissance, foreign internal defense, and counter-
proliferation of WMD, and other designated operation, often in areas
under enemy control or in politically sensitive environments. In such
operations and environments, SOF provide unique and essential
capabilities.
Question. Do you believe that we should further increase the number
of special operations personnel? If so, why, and by how much?
Answer. I understand U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) is on
track to meet the growth mandated by the last two QDRs. If confirmed, I
would work with Commander, SOCOM, to better understand the command's
missions, pressures, and growth plans.
Question. Special Operations Forces rely heavily on Overseas
Contingency Operations (OCO) funds.
With the drawdowns in Iraq and Afghanistan, what OCO funding for
special operations needs to be moved into the base budget to preserve
enduring capabilities in your opinion?
Answer. I believe we must continue to provide SOCOM with base
budget resources sufficient to preserve long-term readiness of a global
Special Operations Force. I understand that in the fiscal year 2013
budget the Department moved roughly $1 billion from OCO to base funding
and the intent is to continue this transition, although the current
fiscal and strategic environment make that challenging.
Question. In your view, can the size of Special Operations Forces
be increased, while also maintaining the rigorous recruiting and
training standards for special operators?
Answer. I understand and agree with the concept that Special
Operations Forces (SOF) cannot be mass produced, and I fully support
SOCOM's efforts to maintain the quality of SOF operators and support
personnel during this current era of SOF growth. Experience has shown
that SOF manpower growth of 3 to 5 percent annually can be sustained
and will not dilute the force or outpace the required training and
support structure. This is the pace SOCOM has sustained to great effect
over the past several years and is on track to sustain this year.
Question. In recent years, Special Operations Forces have taken on
an expanded role in a number of areas important to countering violent
extremist organizations, including those related to information and
military intelligence operations. Some have advocated significant
changes to SOCOM's title 10 missions to make them better reflect the
activities Special Operations Forces are carrying out around the world.
Question. What current missions, if any, do you believe can and
should be divested by SOCOM, and why?
Answer. At this time, I do not advocate significant changes to
SOCOM's title 10 missions. If confirmed, I would work with Commander,
SOCOM, to better understand the command's missions, operations, and
pressures and if I see that changes are needed I will offer proposals.
Question. Are there any additional missions that you believe SOCOM
should assume, and, if so, what are they and why do you advocate adding
them?
Answer. I do not currently foresee any additional missions that
SOCOM should assume. If confirmed, I would work with Commander, SOCOM,
to review any additional missions that may be proposed.
Question. What can be done to ensure that indirect special
operations missions with medium- and long-term impact, such as foreign
internal defense, receive as much emphasis as direct action, and that
they receive appropriate funding?
Answer. The activities of Special Operations Forces are quite
varied, from high-risk strikes and counterterrorist raids conducted in
minutes, to training and advising foreign counterparts conducted over
months and years. Both require highly skilled operators, trained,
organized, and equipped for the task. I believe that each of these
activities is a highly valued capability for the U.S. Government that
should be maintained and, if confirmed, I will ensure that the
Department is adequately prepared for both.
unified command plan changes
Question. It has been reported that Admiral McRaven, Commander of
SOCOM, is seeking changes to the Unified Command Plan (UCP) and other
authorities that he believes would allow SOCOM to better support the
requirements of the Theater Special Operations Commands (TSOCs).
Reportedly, such changes would give the Commander of SOCOM combatant
command authority over the TSOCs--including responsibilities for
resourcing--and provide for more rapid deployment of special operations
forces to and between geographic combatant commands without the
requirement for approval by the Secretary of Defense in every case.
Operational control of deployed Special Operations Forces would
reportedly remain with the respective geographic combatant commander.
Some have expressed concern that such changes could raise problems
related to civilian control of the military, infringe upon the
traditional authorities of the geographic combatant commanders, and
make it more difficult for Ambassadors and geographic combatant
commanders to know what military personnel are coming into their areas
of responsibility and what they are doing while they are there.
Please provide your assessment of whether such UCP changes are
appropriate and can be made without conflicting with civilian control
of the military, infringing upon authorities provided to the geographic
combatant commanders, or raising concerns with the State Department.
Answer. It is my understanding that DOD is considering several
initiatives to enhance the organization, training, equipping, and
employment of Special Operations Forces to meet future global security
challenges, including potential changes to the UCP and other guidance
that establish command responsibilities and relationships. If
confirmed, I look forward to seeing the recommendations from the Joint
Chiefs of Staff and senior civilian leadership and will ensure these
proposed changes preserve civilian control of the military principles,
establish clear and appropriate command authorities, and support strong
interagency relationships.
combating terrorism
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed by al Qaeda
and associated forces to the U.S. Homeland, U.S. interests overseas,
and western interests more broadly? Which affiliates and associated
forces are of most concern?
Answer. I assess that the threat posed by al Qaeda to the U.S.
Homeland has been significantly diminished over the past 4 years. At
the same time, al Qaeda's remaining leadership in Pakistan and al Qaeda
in the Arabian Peninsula remain of greatest concern. Additionally, the
Arab Spring has created new opportunities for al Qaeda affiliates in
Syria and North Africa.
What is your understanding of the Department's role in the U.S.
strategy to combat terrorism?
Answer. My understanding is that the U.S. Government is engaged in
a multi-departmental, multi-national effort, and that key activities
that the Department undertakes to support this strategy include:
training, advising, and assisting partner security forces; supporting
intelligence collection on al Qaeda; conducting information operations
against al Qaeda; and, when appropriate, capturing or killing al Qaeda
operatives. I understand that the Department also works to help enable
our intelligence and law enforcement partners, both in the United
States and overseas, in their efforts to counter this threat.
Question. Are there steps the Department should take to better
coordinate its efforts to combat terrorism with those of other Federal
departments and agencies?
Answer. Based on my current knowledge, it appears that the
Department is properly coordinating its counterterrorism efforts with
the rest of the U.S. Government. I understand that the U.S. military,
Intelligence Community, and law enforcement agencies regularly
collaborate on operations, and that departments and agencies constantly
share intelligence, with little of the ``stovepiping'' that we saw
before September 11. I will look at this closely if confirmed.
intelligence support for indirect activities
Question. Some observers contend that the national intelligence
agencies focus their assistance to the Defense Department on special
operators engaged in direct action operations. As a consequence, it is
alleged, general purpose forces and Special Operations Forces engaged
in indirect activities, including foreign internal defense and
population protection, receive less intelligence support.
Do you believe this is true? If so, and if confirmed, how would you
ensure that general purpose forces and special operations forces
engaged in indirect activities receive adequate intelligence support?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Intelligence Community and
DOD continue to expand intelligence support for a full range of
military operations--direct and indirect--not only in Afghanistan, but
across multiple areas of responsibility. The Department has invested in
and employed innovative ISR capabilities increasing its intelligence
and operations support to interagency and foreign partners in their
efforts against emerging threats. DOD and the Intelligence Community
have assisted our partners in Afghanistan, East Africa, the Arabian
Peninsula, Colombia, and the Phillipines. I think that U.S. military
operations around the world over the past few years have demonstrated
that our general purpose forces are the beneficiaries of consistent,
timely support from across the Intelligence Community. If confirmed, I
will work to ensure that intelligence capabilities are properly aligned
across the force for all missions.
section 1208 operations
Question. Section 1208 of the Ronald Reagan NDAA for Fiscal Year
2005 (Public Law 108-375), as amended by subsequent bills, authorizes
the provision of support (including training, funding, and equipment)
to regular forces, irregular forces, and individuals supporting or
facilitating military operations by U.S. Special Operations Forces to
combat terrorism.
What is your assessment of this authority?
Answer. I understand that the section 1208 authority has been a
very effective tool for U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) conducting
counterterrorism operations to build effective security partners.
Combatant commanders strongly support section 1208.
lord's resistance army
Question. The President notified Congress in October 2011 of
Operation Observant Compass (OOC), an operation to support the efforts
of Ugandan and other regional militaries to remove Joseph Kony and
other senior leaders of the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) from the
battlefield in Central Africa, and of his decision to send
approximately 100 U.S. Special Operations Forces personnel to Central
Africa to help regional partners achieve these goals. Despite pressure
by the Ugandan People's Defense Forces and efforts by U.S. Special
Operations personnel to support them, elements of the LRA--including
Joseph Kony--continue to operate and commit atrocities against civilian
populations in the Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the
Congo, and South Sudan. Congress recently passed and the President
signed the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, which reiterated that the ongoing
efforts to remove or apprehend Joseph Kony and his top commanders from
the battlefield and end the atrocities perpetuated by his LRA should
continue as appropriate to achieve the goals of the operation.
Do you support OOC?
Answer. Yes. My understanding is that Department support to
regional counter-LRA efforts helps to advance regional security
cooperation and security sector reform more broadly. If confirmed, I
would seek to continue the U.S. commitment to deepen our security
partnerships with African countries and regional organizations by
expanding efforts to build African military capabilities through low-
cost, small-footprint operations. At the same time, I would work with
the Department of State and other U.S. agencies and departments to seek
to strengthen the capacity of civilian bodies and institutions to
improve the continent's ability to provide security and respond to
emerging conflicts. I would also regularly assess and review Department
contributions to this mission to ensure the deployment of U.S.
personnel is not open-ended.
Question. What is your understanding of the objectives of OOC?
Answer. U.S. Special Operations Forces under OOC seek to enhance
the capacity of local forces to end the threat posed by the LRA. It is
my understanding that U.S. military advisors are working with these
forces to strengthen information-sharing and synchronization, enhance
their operational planning, and increase overall effectiveness. While
OOC is important in the effort to counter the LRA threat, there is not
a purely military solution to this problem. If confirmed, I would
support the current U.S. policy of pursuing a comprehensive, multi-
faceted strategy to help the governments and people of this region in
their efforts to end the threat posed by the LRA and to address the
impacts of the LRA's atrocities. The U.S. strategy to counter the LRA
outlines four pillars for continuing support: increasing the protection
of civilians; apprehending or removing Joseph Kony and senior
commanders from the battlefield; promoting the defection, disarmament,
demobilization, and reintegration of remaining LRA fighters; and
increasing humanitarian access and providing continued relief to
affected communities.
mass atrocities prevention
Question. President Obama identified the prevention of mass
atrocities and genocide as a core U.S. national security interest, as
well as a core moral interest, in August 2011 under Presidential Study
Directive 10. What are your views on the role the United States plays
in the prevention of mass atrocities and genocide?
Answer. As President Obama noted in his speech at the Holocaust
Museum last April, preventing and responding to atrocities is a
critical mission and a core national security interest of the United
States. As the President has made clear, we must look at a wide range
of tools before military intervention. I support this view: we should
make every effort to prevent crises from escalating, through every
policy lever at our disposal, including diplomacy, assistance, and
financial measures. I understand that the Atrocities Prevention Board
has strengthened our efforts by developing more tools with which to
work; I support these vital efforts
Question. What are your views on the adequacy of the Department's
tools and doctrine for contributing to this role?
Answer. I understand that the Department has played an active role
in the work of the Atrocities Prevention Board, working closely with
other agencies to develop a range of tools that enhance the USG's
ability to prevent and respond to atrocities. I also understand that
DOD has strengthened its own capabilities, including by developing
formal doctrine on mass atrocity response operations, for the first
time, and incorporating atrocity prevention and response into policy
and plans. If confirmed, I would continue these efforts.
u.s. force posture in the asia-pacific region
Question. The Defense Department's January 2012 strategic guidance,
``Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for the 21st Century'',
states that ``while the U.S. military will continue to contribute to
security globally, we will of necessity rebalance toward the Asia-
Pacific region.'' Likewise, the 2010 report of the QDR states that the
United States needs to ``sustain and strengthen our Asia-Pacific
alliances and partnerships to advance mutual security interests and
ensure sustainable peace and security in the region,'' and that, to
accomplish this, DOD ``will augment and adapt our forward presence'' in
the Asia-Pacific region.
Do you feel DOD has adequate resources to implement the new January
2012 strategic guidance?
Answer. Congress passed and the President signed into law the BCA
of 2011. The President insisted that the resulting defense cuts be
driven by strategy and U.S. defense needs in the coming decade. I
understand that the fiscal year 2013 DOD budget was shaped by the
strategic guidance and reflects key mission and capability priorities
emerging from the strategic review. If confirmed, I would continue to
refine the focus of the Department's spending in future budget cycles
and keep it in line with the President's strategic guidance. believe
that the Department is facing hard but manageable cuts. The strategy is
executable with the resource levels currently detailed in the BCA, but
the potentially severe cuts stemming from sequestration would seriously
threaten the Department's ability to implement the strategic guidance.
Question. What do you see as the U.S. security priorities in the
Asia-Pacific region?
Answer. The maintenance of peace, stability, the free flow of
commerce, and of U.S. influence in this dynamic region will depend in
part on an underlying balance of military capability and presence. I
believe that as a Pacific nation, the United States should, with its
network of allies and partners, maintain an enduring defense presence
in the Asia-Pacific region as a tangible demonstration of U.S.
commitment to Asia's continued security and economic development.
Question. What does the ``rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific
region'' mean to you in terms of force structure, capabilities, and
funding?
Answer. The rebalance is broader than just military policies and
programs; it is about harnessing every element of our national power to
sustain a regional order rooted in economic openness, peaceful
resolution to disputes, and democratic governance and political
freedom, In terms of our force structure the rebalance places a renewed
emphasis on air and naval forces while sustaining ground force
presence. While rebalancing, it will also be important for the
Department to develop new capabilities and investments to respond to
changes in the security environment and technical advancements required
to maintain an edge, our freedom of action, and ability to project
power in the Asia-Pacific region. I believe that the rebalancing to
Asia-Pacific is vital for U.S. future interests, but it can be done
smartly, using air and sea and geographically distributed ground
forces, without sacrificing the needed U.S. presence in the Middle
East.
Question. Do you believe that it is a ``necessity'' to rebalance
the U.S. military toward the Asia-Pacific region? If so, why?
Answer. I share the President's view that future U.S. economic and
security interests will be closely tied to the Asia-Pacific. I have
reviewed the Defense Strategic Guidance released last year, and agree
that the emerging economic and political dynamism in the Asia-Pacific
will require strong and continuous U.S. commitment.
Question. Why, if at all, do you believe it is important for the
U.S. military to maintain and even augment its forward presence in the
Asia-Pacific region, and what are the advantages to having a forward
presence?
Answer. A robust U.S. military presence in the Asia-Pacific has
underwritten peace and prosperity in the region for the past 60 years.
The Department should be able to assure regional allies and partners,
deter threats to regional stability, and prevail in conflicts if
necessary. If confirmed, I would support the administration's effort to
work towards a posture that is more geographically distributed--for
example, the movement of forces to Guam and Australia; operationally
resilient, with a focus on our sea based assets; and politically
sustainable--meaning we must work with our partners and allies to
address their concerns about U.S. presence, such as in Okinawa.
Question. What is your assessment of the risks and benefits that
are likely to result from this shift?
Answer. This shift in U.S. posture is meant to continue supporting
peace and prosperity in the Asia-Pacific region. U.S. forces should be
present to effectively assure our allies and deter potential
adversaries. By emphasizing the Asia-Pacific while also focusing on the
Middle East, rebalancing will necessarily accept risk in other areas
given the resource-constrained environment. I believe the risks
associated with this rebalance are manageable. The potentially severe
cuts stemming from sequestration, however, would seriously threaten the
Department's ability to implement the strategic guidance, including the
rebalance.
Question. What changes, if any, in structure, equipment, and
training do you believe will be necessary to meet the requirements for
general purpose ground forces in an Asia-Pacific strategy?
Answer. My understanding is that our military leadership is already
working hard to ensure fielded capabilities enable our military
personnel to think, train, and, if necessary, fight to succeed in this
theater. The Department is already devoting significant effort to
understanding how to operate in--or gain access to--those areas where
our adversaries may try to deny us access and is developing the
required operational concepts to manage that challenge. We will also
need to build military-to-military ties and other relationships, as
well as language and cultural expertise, to operate effectively in the
Asia-Pacific region. If confirmed, I will work closely with the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, Services, and Office of the Secretary of Defense
leadership to assess any additional changes in structure, equipment,
and training.
china
Question. How would you characterize the current U.S.-China
relationship?
Answer. I would describe the relationship as simultaneously
possessing elements of cooperation and competition. The U.S.-China
relationship, of which the defense component is only one part, is one
of the most complex and important bilateral relationships in the world.
The United States and China are working together to build a cooperative
partnership based on practical cooperation in addressing shared
regional and global challenges--a commitment President Obama and
President Hu made in January 2011. At the same time, China is rapidly
modernizing its military and increasingly asserting claims to territory
in the East China Sea and the South China Sea.
Question. From your perspective, what effect is China's expanding
economy and growing military having on the region at-large and how does
that growth influence the U.S. security posture in the Asia-Pacific
region?
Answer. China's expanding economy and growing military are
developments the United States, allies, partners, and all other nations
in the region must monitor carefully. On the one hand, China's growth
and potential create an opportunity to cooperate where our interests
and those of China converge. At the same time, China's rapid rise and
the relative lack of transparency surrounding its intentions can be a
source of anxiety and concern in the region. If confirmed, I will
evaluate the impact of these developments--as well as the impact of
other security trends--on requirements for the U.S. defense posture in
the region.
Question. What do you believe are the objectives of China's
military modernization program?
Answer. As I understand it, China is pursuing a long-term,
comprehensive military modernization program designed to improve the
capacity of its armed forces to fight and win high-intensity regional
military operations of short duration. I understand that Taiwan
contingencies remain the principal focus of much of this modernization,
but there are growing indications that China is developing capabilities
for missions that go beyond China's immediate territorial concerns,
such as its counter-piracy operations off the Horn of Africa and
noncombatant evacuation operations from Libya.
Question. How do you believe the United States should respond to
China's military modernization program?
Answer. I believe the United States should continue to monitor
developments in China's military modernization while encouraging
Beijing to be more transparent about its military and security
strategies, policies and programs. The U.S. response to China's
military modernization should be flexible and supported by the
continued evolution of our presence and force posture in the Asia-
Pacific region, the strengthening of our regional alliances and
partnerships, the maintenance of our global presence and access, and
the modernization of our own capabilities in such areas as countering
efforts to deny us access and freedom of action.
Question. U.S.-China military-to-military dialogue has been
strained over the past several years and efforts to establish and
maintain mutually beneficial military relations has been hampered by
China's propensity for postponing or canceling military engagements in
an apparent effort to influence U.S. actions.
What is your view of the relative importance of sustained military-
to-military relations with China?
Answer. I believe there is value in sustained--and substantive--
military dialogue with China as a way to improve mutual understanding
and reduce the risk that miscommunication and misperception could
result in miscalculation. If confirmed, I would look for ways to
strengthen the U.S.-China military-to-military relationship consistent
with our interests and our values.
Question. Do you believe that we should make any changes in the
quality or quantity of our military relations with China? If so, what
changes would you suggest and, given Chinese resistance to military-to-
military dialogue, how would you implement them?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek ways to improve the U.S.-China
military-to-military relationship, in terms of the quality and the
quantity of exchanges between the Armed Forces of our countries. I
would support continuing to pursue exchanges with the Chinese armed
forces at all levels, and I would look to engage in a wide range of
areas where we might find common ground to encourage China to act
responsibly on the regional and global scene.
north korea
Question. What is your assessment of the current security situation
on the Korean peninsula?
Answer. North Korea's provocative behavior, large conventional
military, proliferation activities, ballistic missile program, and
nuclear program continue to present a serious threat to the United
States, our regional allies, and the international community. The
opaque nature of the North Korean system, coupled with an uncertain
political transition, adds to my concerns. North Korea's December
missile launch, which was a violation of United Nations Security
Council Resolutions, provided yet another example of North Korea's
pattern of irresponsible behavior. If confirmed, I will work with our
allies and other key partners in the region and internationally to
ensure that we can deter and, if necessary, defeat North Korean
aggression.
Question. What is your assessment of the threat posed to the United
States and its allies by North Korea's ballistic missile and WMD
capabilities and the export of those capabilities?
Answer. I am concerned about North Korea's WMD and ballistic
missile programs because they present an immediate threat to our allies
and partners as well as a growing threat to the United States. North
Korea's December launch--using ballistic missile technology--
underscores our concerns about North Korea's continued pursuit of a
long-range missile program. The United States will continue carefully
monitoring, and impede, North Korea's WMD and missile development
programs and related proliferation activities. If confirmed, I would
ensure that the Department continues working closely with other parts
of the U.S. Government to address North Korea's missile and WMD
programs, take necessary steps to defend the United States and our
allies, and enhance engagement with our allies to ensure that we can
deter and, if necessary, defeat North Korean aggression.
Question. In your view, what additional steps should the United
States take to defend against the North Korean ballistic missile threat
and dissuade North Korea from its continued pursuit of ballistic
missile technology and to stop or slow North Korean proliferation
missile and weapons technology to Syria, Iran, and others?
Answer. The United States should continue to work to prevent North
Korea's proliferation of weapons-related technology by advancing
international nonproliferation norms and further tightening sanctions
aimed at impeding development of North Korea's ballistic missile and
nuclear programs. This includes cooperating with partner nations to
inspect and interdict vessels and aircraft suspected of carrying
illicit cargo. The United States should also seek to enhance bilateral
and trilateral missile defense cooperation with our Republic of Korea
(ROK) and Japanese allies, particularly in the area of information
sharing. If confirmed, I would continue to work to strengthen the
international consensus against proliferation; to invest in programs
like the Proliferation Security Initiative, which bolsters the will and
capacity of partner nations to interdict these dangerous shipments; to
increase WMD-related information sharing with international partners;
to take necessary steps to defend the United States and our allies; and
to ensure that our ballistic missile defenses are able to defeat any
North Korean attack.
u.s. contributions to international peacekeeping missions
Question. In testimony before the House Committee on Foreign
Affairs on July 29, 2009, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations
(U.N.) stated that the United States ``is willing to consider directly
contributing more military observers, military staff officers, civilian
police, and other civilian personnel--including more women I should
note--to U.N. peacekeeping operations.'' General Dempsey has said the
United States ``should consider opportunities for U.S. personnel to
contribute to U.N. peacekeeping missions'' and that ``experience shows
that even a small number of trained and experienced American
servicemembers can have a significant, positive effect on U.N.
operations.'' In your view, should the United States increase the
number of personnel it contributes in the form of staff positions and
military observers to U.N. peacekeeping missions and other
international peace operations?
Answer. I support in principle additional contributions of U.S.
military personnel to key positions in U.N. peacekeeping operations
where the mission is a strategic priority for the Department and the
United States and where our servicemembers can add significant value to
the mission effectiveness and efficiencies. I understand that, although
we still provide military observers to U.N. peacekeeping missions, the
Department has shifted its contributions almost exclusively to staff
officer positions so as to maximize the returns on our investment.
Question. In your view, what are the advantages and disadvantages
of contributing additional military personnel to U.N. operations in the
form of staff positions and military observer positions?
Answer. The success of U.N. peacekeeping operations is important to
the United States. I believe that the United States should continue to
provide military personnel to U.N. peacekeeping operations, especially
for key staff positions that help shape the direction and success of
the mission. Such support must be practicable and weighed against the
potential costs and competing demands for military commitments. If
confirmed, I will carefully evaluate the costs of requested U.N.
support against the potential positive impacts and U.S. interests.
department of defense counternarcotics activities
Question. DOD serves as the single lead agency for the detection
and monitoring of aerial and maritime foreign shipments of drugs
flowing toward the United States. On an annual basis, DOD's
counternarcotics (CN) program expends approximately $1.5 billion to
support the Department's CN operations, including building the capacity
of U.S. Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, and certain
foreign governments, and providing intelligence support on CN-related
matters and a variety of other unique enabling capabilities.
In your view, what is the appropriate role of DOD in counterdrug
efforts?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Department plays an
important role in U.S. counterdrug efforts in support of the National
Security Strategy, the National Drug Control Strategy, and the Strategy
to Combat Transnational Organized Crime. The Department supports and
enables U.S. agencies and foreign partners to be more effective in
executing their respective counternarcotics responsibilities. In the
Western Hemisphere, the allocation of DOD capabilities in support of
U.S. law enforcement interdiction efforts has helped remove hundreds of
tons of cocaine and deny billions in illicit revenues to transnational
criminal organizations. I believe this support role is a sensible and
effective indirect approach.
Question. In your view, what should be the role of the United
States in countering the flow of narcotics to nations other than the
United States?
Answer. Drug trafficking is by far the world's most lucrative
illicit activity and therefore is often used as a source of revenue by
terrorists, insurgents, and other actors threatening our national
security. In my view, the consequences of narcotics flows beyond U.S.
borders--for example, the role of drug trafficking in Afghanistan and
the surrounding region is of particular concern to the Department. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with Congress, the Office of
National Drug Control Policy, other agencies in the U.S. Government,
and military commanders to address the flow of illegal narcotics as it
affects U.S. national interests.
national strategy to combat transnational organized crime
Question. The Director of National Intelligence recently described
transnational organized crime as ``an abiding threat to U.S. economic
and national security interests,'' and stated that ``rising drug
violence and corruption are undermining stability and the rule of law
in some countries.'' In July 2011, the President released his Strategy
to Combat Transnational Organized Crime: Addressing Converging Threats
to National Security. One of the priority action areas designated in
the strategy is ``enhancing DOD support to U.S. law enforcement''.
In your view, what role should DOD play in combating transnational
organized crime and in training and equipping partner security forces
that have been tasked with combating it?
Answer. By law, the Department is the lead Federal agency for
detection and monitoring of the aerial and maritime transit of illegal
drugs into the United States. In the Western Hemisphere, DOD
coordinates the efforts of the U.S. interagency and regional partners
in the detection and monitoring of illicit aerial and maritime drug
shipments towards the United States. It is my understanding that beyond
that, the Department's role is to contribute unique capabilities in
support of law enforcement, other U.S. Government departments and
agencies, and international partners. That support takes multiple
forms: military intelligence support to law enforcement; military-to-
military capacity building; broader capacity building support to
foreign partner security services (including police forces); and
counter threat finance support. believe the Department should continue
to focus on delivering unique capabilities in support of other
departments and agencies that have the lead for combating transnational
organized crime.
counter threat finance
Question. DOD and the Intelligence Community (IC) have begun
investing more resources in identifying and tracking the flow of money
associated with terrorist networks and illicit trafficking, but the
opportunities for tracking and degrading illicit financing flows are
not yet matched by the effort and resources devoted to them.
Identifying and disrupting key individuals, entities, and facilitation
routes enabling the flow of money that supports terrorism, production
of IEDs, narco-trafficking, proliferation, and other significant
national security threats could have an outsized impact on confronting
these threats.
What are your views on the role of DOD in counter threat finance
activities?
Answer. Our Nation's adversaries, from drug traffickers to
terrorists or insurgents, rely upon the flow of money to enable their
activities. All available U.S. Government tools should be employed to
track and disrupt the finances that support these groups, and the
Department can bring unique tools to bear. My understanding is that the
Department is not the lead U.S. agency in counter threat finance, but
does work with other departments and agencies, and with partner
nations, to fight our adversaries' ability to access and use global
financial networks. For example, the Department has worked with the
Intelligence Community and other interagency partners to identify and
disrupt our adversaries' finances and remove key sources of insurgent
funding in Afghanistan. I believe the Department should continue to
work with law enforcement agencies to ensure military support is
targeted, tailored, and in line with defense priorities.
Question. Are there opportunities to replicate or improve upon the
network-disruption efforts of groups like the Joint Improvised
Explosive Device Defeat Organization or the Afghanistan Threat Finance
Cell in impacting other facilitation networks?
Answer. My understanding is that the Afghanistan Threat Finance
Cell has been successful at disrupting illicit networks in Afghanistan
through broad interagency cooperation. The Joint Improvised Explosive
Device Defeat Organization's quick reaction and innovation has saved
countless American lives. I believe that the capabilities involved in
network disruption are worth institutionalizing into the Department. If
confirmed, I will work with the Department's senior leadership and the
interagency on this worthy effort.
Question. In your view, how should DOD coordinate and interface
with other key agencies, including the Department of Treasury and the
Intelligence Community, in conducting counter threat finance
activities?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department works closely with
the National Intelligence Manager for Threat Finance as well as the
Department of Treasury's Assistant Secretary for Intelligence and
Analysis. The Department also supports other U.S. Government
departments and agencies and with partner nations to deny and disrupt
adversaries' ability to use global licit and illicit financial networks
to affect U.S. interests negatively. I believe the Department should
continue to support law enforcement agencies, the Department of the
Treasury, and the Intelligence Community with unique DOD capabilities,
including planning, intelligence analysis and tools, and the
integration of intelligence into operations.
central america and mexico
Question. During a March 2012 Senate Armed Services Committee
hearing, the Commanders of U.S. Northern Command and U.S. Southern
Command discussed the increasingly dangerous region along the northern
and southern borders of Mexico and the devastating impact transnational
criminal organizations are having on the people and security of
southern Mexico, Guatemala, Belize, Honduras, and El Salvador. The
United States has increased its assistance in this region, but--to
date--DOD has had only a small role.
What are your views on the threats posed by transnational criminal
organizations in this region?
Answer. It is clear that transnational and domestic criminal
organizations and gangs undermine the security of citizens in many
parts of the Western Hemisphere. The influence of criminal elements has
brought an increase in violence as well as an increase in narcotics and
other illicit trafficking. The root causes of violent crime and
insecurity are also influenced by endemic poverty and lack of economic
opportunity, weak government institutions, and widespread corruption
and impunity. Central America has become one of the most violent
regions in the world, and this can be largely attributed to the
influence of these elements. Criminal influences threaten regional
stability and the fundamental security of an area that lies very close
to the United States. I believe the United States has a clear interest
in helping partner nations strengthen their security institutions
consistent with U.S. values.
Question. What is your assessment of DOD's role and current
activities in Mexico and Central America?
Answer. I have not had a chance to fully assess these issues, but I
am aware that the Department is building defense relations with Mexico
based on mutual interest. I am also aware that the Department has a
wide range of activities and initiatives with partner nations in
Central America, consistent with our values, shared interests and our
partner's capacity. My understanding is that that engagements in both
Mexico and Central America are broadly focused on defense planning and
institutional reform, human rights training, counterdrug support and
humanitarian assistance activities. I believe these roles and
activities are appropriate to support our policies and strategies in
the region, which focus on efforts to strengthen law enforcement,
governance and rule of law institutions, while improving economic and
social conditions that can contribute to insecurity.
Question. What changes, if any, would you propose to DOD's current
role and activities in this region?
Answer. If confirmed, I would need to conduct a thorough review
before being able to propose specific changes to the Department's roles
and activities in this region. In general terms, however, I am
supportive of leveraging the longstanding military-to-military
relationships within the region to ensure our partner nations' defense
institutions are capable and remain responsive to civil authorities,
while being respectful of human rights.
interagency collaboration
Question. The collaboration between U.S. Special Operations Forces,
general purpose forces, and other U.S. Government departments and
agencies has played a significant role in the success of
counterinsurgency and counterterrorism operations in recent years.
However, much of this collaboration has been ad hoc in nature.
What do you believe are the most important lessons learned from the
collaborative interagency efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere?
Answer. The importance of unity of effort and action remains one of
the most critical lessons the Nation has learned from its experiences
with counterinsurgency, counterterrorism, and stability operations in
Iraq and Afghanistan. I believe that effective interagency
collaboration can greatly improve the U.S. Government's preparedness to
operate effectively in all phases of conflict. If confirmed, I will
prioritize efforts to ensure interagency collaboration is as robust and
effective as possible.
Question. How do you believe these efforts can be improved?
Answer. Interagency collaboration can always be improved. Ensuring
that the U.S. military plans and trains with its civilian counterparts
in other U.S. departments and agencies, and vice-versa, is one way to
increase our unity of effort in the field. We also need a strong
interagency planning process to ensure effective use of expertise from
across the U.S. Government that recognizes each department's and
agency's unique role and capabilities. I believe that robust civilian
capabilities and resourcing are critical to achieving national security
objectives and will be vital to the success of future operations.
Question. How can the lessons learned in recent years be captured
in military doctrine and adopted as ``best practices'' for future
contingency operations?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has a variety of
efforts devoted to capturing and disseminating best practices within
the Department and to the interagency. The importance of
institutionalizing lessons learned from the past 10 years of war was
highlighted in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance. If confirmed I will
continue this emphasis.
intelligence reform and terrorism prevention act of 2004
Question. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (IRTPA), among other actions, realigned the responsibilities for
budgeting for and management of intelligence organizations between the
Secretary of Defense and the head of the Intelligence Community, the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI).
What do you believe is the role of DOD in intelligence under IRTPA?
Answer. The role of DOD, including the defense intelligence
components, is clearly outlined in law. Under titles 10 and 50 of the
U.S.C., the Secretary of Defense has broad responsibility for the
intelligence and intelligence-related activities conducted by the
Department's components. In addition, under title 50, the Secretary has
several specific statutory responsibilities for elements of the
Intelligence Community that are part of DOD, including the Defense
Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency, the National
Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and the National Reconnaissance Office.
Consistent with the DNI's statutory responsibilities, the Secretary of
Defense is responsible for the continued operation of those elements as
effective organizations within the Department for the conduct of their
missions in order to satisfy the requirements of the Department and the
Intelligence Community.
The Secretary, in consultation with the DNI, is also responsible
for ensuring that the budgets of the Intelligence Community elements
that are within the Department are sufficient to satisfy the overall
intelligence needs of the Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, the
combatant commanders, and other departments and agencies. The Secretary
is also responsible for the timely response of intelligence community
elements within the Department to the needs of operational military
forces. The Department strengthened its management of defense
intelligence in 2002 by designating the Under Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence (USD(I)) as lead for its intelligence reform efforts and
Principal Staff assistant and advisor to the Secretary of Defense and
Deputy Secretary of Defense regarding intelligence, counterintelligence
(CI), and security matters.
As a former member of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
and the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, I have seen first-hand
how the Intelligence Community and all its elements have become better
integrated and cooperative and, if confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I
look forward to furthering that cooperation.
Question. Do you believe that the IRTPA strikes the correct balance
between the duties and responsibilities of the Secretary and the DNI?
Answer. Yes. I believe the duties and responsibilities of the
Secretary and the DNI are well balanced under the IRTPA. The IRTPA
appropriately provided the DNI strong authority to oversee and direct
the implementation of the National Intelligence Program. As such, the
DNI is responsible for establishing requirements and developing budgets
as well as setting objectives and priorities for collection, analysis,
production, and dissemination of national intelligence. The
responsibility for execution of DOD intelligence activities remains
with the Secretary. The Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence
also holds the position of the Director of Defense Intelligence in the
Office of the DNI; the position was established to enhance integration,
collaboration, and information sharing. If confirmed as Secretary of
Defense, I will reinforce this strong and effective relationship with
the DNI.
Question. What changes in the IRTPA, if any, would you recommend
that Congress consider?
Answer. As of now, I would not recommend any changes to the IRTPA.
If confirmed, I would address any proposed changes should the need
arise.
strategic reviews
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the DOD
processes for analysis, decisionmaking, and reporting results for each
of the following strategic reviews:
The QDR (section 118 of title 10, United States Code);
Answer. The QDR is statutorily required, and sets a long-term
course for the Department by assessing the opportunities and challenges
that the Nation faces in the emerging global security environment. It
provides an important opportunity to clearly and concisely articulate
the national defense strategy and identify priorities for defense
policy and force planning. Given the new defense strategy and the
fiscal challenges the Nation is facing, I believe the upcoming QDR will
be critical in setting the future path of the Department.
Question. The National Military Strategy (section 153 of title 10,
United States Code);
Answer. The National Military Strategy outlines the ways and means
for our military to ensure national security based on guidance from the
National Security Strategy and the QDR. Section 153 of title 10 of the
U.S. Code requires the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to assist
the President and Secretary of Defense in providing strategic direction
for the Armed Forces. Because the Chairman prepares the National
Military Strategy in consultation with the combatant commanders and the
Joint Chiefs of Staff, I believe that it is the best military advice
available for the Secretary of Defense. The Chairman also provides an
annual risk assessment based upon the most current National Military
Strategy.
Question. Global Defense Posture Review (section 2687a of title 10,
United States Code);
Answer. My understanding is that the Department continuously
reviews U.S. Global Defense Posture based in part on combatant command
submissions of annual Theater Posture Plans. The Department has an
executive-level oversight body, the Global Posture Executive Council
(GPEC), composed of senior leaders from across the Department and
including the Department of State. This body provides analysis and
recommendations to the Secretary and Deputy Secretary of Defense. The
Department submits an annual report to Congress that provides an
overview of global defense posture strategy and the status of key
overseas posture realignment actions. My assessment, at this time, is
that the GPEC offers an appropriate forum for comprehensive analysis of
key overseas posture issues.
Question. The Quadrennial Roles and Missions (QRM) Review (section
118b of title 10, United States Code).
Answer. The QRM review is a statutorily required review of the
roles and missions of the Armed Forces and the Department's core
competencies and capabilities to perform and support these missions. My
understanding is that the QRM is required every 4 years, most recently
in 2012, and accordingly will be due again in 2016 submitted with or
before the President's budget submission for the next fiscal year. I
believe that the next few years will be very dynamic--both in world
events and how our military can and should respond--and that the next
QRM review will be very important to capturing the consequences of
those changes.
Question. If confirmed, what recommendations would you make, if
any, to change title 10, U.S.C., and to improve DOD's processes for
analysis, policy formulation, and decisionmaking relative to each
review above?
Answer. Based on my current understanding, at this time I would not
request any changes to title 10, U.S.C. If confirmed and after
reviewing Department processes relating to each review, I will make
recommendations to Congress and the White House accordingly.
Question. The QDR must examine the National Security Strategy as
most recently updated by the President's January 2012 Defense Strategic
Guidance (DSG). Noteworthy, the DSG states that the ``tide of war is
receding''.
Do you agree with that assessment and, if so, how might that
influence your analysis and recommendations with regard to strategic
priorities in the QDR?
Answer. I agree that, with the drawdown of the war in Iraq and
transition of security responsibilities in Afghanistan, our future
security challenges will be defined less by the wars of the past decade
and more by emerging complex threats. The Department remains committed
to security in Afghanistan and Iraq, and our counterterrorism mission
will remain a priority for the foreseeable future, but the Department
needs to begin focusing on the mix of skills and capabilities and new
technologies that will be needed in the future. The QDR should,
therefore, examine the current and future security environment, to
include changes since the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance was released,
and adjust strategic priorities as appropriate.
Question. Section 118 in title 10, U.S.C. also requires the QDR to
identify the budget plan that would be required to provide sufficient
resources to execute successfully the full range of missions called for
in that national defense strategy at a low-to-moderate level of risk,
and any additional resources (beyond those programmed in the current
Future Years Defense Program) required to achieve such a level of risk.
The law also requires the QDR to make recommendations that are not
constrained to comply with and are fully independent of the budget
submitted to Congress by the President.
If confirmed, how would you propose to structure the Department's
QDR analysis and recommendations to address these two requirements?
Answer. It would be my intent, if confirmed, to oversee a QDR
process that begins with an assessment of U.S. interests,
opportunities, and challenges, and concludes with the development of a
defense program and budget designed to meet the resulting defense
objectives we set at a low-to-moderate level of risk. If confirmed, I
would intend to provide my honest appraisal of the resources required
for defense.
Question. In your view, is there analytical and/or practical value
in a defense strategy that is unconstrained by or independent of the
current budget request or fiscal environment?
Answer. I think we must be aware of the fiscal environment when
determining our defense strategy just as the strategy is informed by
other important environmental factors, such as trends in military
technology. That strategy must ensure that the U.S. military is be
capable of meeting crucial national security priorities across the
range of current and future potential threats.
tactical fighter programs
Question. Perhaps the largest modernization effort that we will
face over the next several years is the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)
program to modernize our tactical aviation forces with fifth generation
tactical aircraft equipped with stealth technology.
Based on current and projected threats, what are your views on the
requirements for and timing of these programs?
Answer. Dominance in the air is essential to the success of our
forces. I understand that the F-35, which will replace several older
generation aircraft in the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps, is
intended to provide that dominance well into the future. I have not
looked at the projected threats in detail; however I believe that other
nations, notably China and Russia, have programs to build advanced
aircraft that will challenge our current capabilities in the coming
years. My view is that we cannot let any other nation achieve parity
with the United States in the ability to control the air.
Question. What is your assessment of whether the restructuring of
the JSF program that we have seen over the past several years will be
sufficient to avoid having to make major adjustments in ether cost or
schedule in the future?
Answer. I know that the Joint Strike Fighter is the Department's
largest acquisition program and that it has experienced significant
cost increases and schedule slips. I understand that the Department has
already taken steps to tighten the contract terms for the F-35 and
restructured the program in 2012 to reduce concurrency, the risk of
being in production before development is finished. I have not had the
opportunity to review this program or its restructuring in detail. If
confirmed, I will make it a high priority to examine the health of this
program to determine if it is on a sound footing and ensure the
aircraft are delivered with the capability we need and a cost we can
afford.
navy shipbuilding
Question. Today's Navy is at its smallest size in decades and could
decline further without additional shipbuilding efforts. Over the past
several years, successive Chiefs of Naval Operations (CNOs) have
concluded that the Navy requires a fleet of at least 313 ships to
perform its mission. Despite this conclusion, the President's budget
request for fiscal year 2013 proposed the decommissioning of nine
ships--two dock landing ships and seven cruisers designed to last
another 10 to 15 years, in order to address defense budget constraints
and growing operating costs. Congress rejected the proposal noting the
Navy's initial investment of $11.6 billion in the nine ships and the
fact that cutting them creates unnecessary and unaffordable future
shipbuilding requirements.
What are your views regarding the CNO's conclusions about the
appropriate size and composition of the fleet, and the adequacy of the
Navy's current and projected plans to deliver that inventory of ships?
Answer. A strong and capable Navy is essential to meet our Nation's
strategic requirements across the spectrum of operational demands.
Therefore, the Navy needs a broad set of capabilities among the mix of
ships in its inventory. I understand the Chief of Naval Operations is
currently analyzing the Navy shipbuilding goal and will present his
analysis shortly. If confirmed, I will review these recommendations for
the Navy's current shipbuilding plan and work with the Navy to ensure
we have the right size, mix, and usage of our naval forces to meet our
strategic goals.
Question. In your opinion, how important is the requirement for a
313 ship fleet on the ability of the Navy to support the national
military strategy?
Answer. I understand that the Navy's presently stated requirement
is for a 313 ship fleet, but I do not yet know all the details of the
mix and capabilities of our present and future fleet. I do know the
United States requires a capable Navy that is robust enough to execute
the full range of missions called upon by our combatant commanders in
support of the National Security Strategy and Defense Strategic
Guidance--including operating persistently across the globe, securing
freedom of access, responding to crises, and projecting power into
denied areas. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy and Congress to
ensure naval forces are appropriately structured to meet our national
defense needs.
Question. Do you believe the Navy can meet its goals for the size
of the fleet in the current budget climate?
Answer. I believe the President's budget request for fiscal year
2013 allowed the Navy to meet its current plan for the size of the
fleet. However, the budget environment that we all are dealing with has
introduced a good deal of uncertainty for the future of each of the
armed services. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the
Navy and the Chief of Naval Operations to understand the impact of
budget levels on the size of the fleet and how we work within the
budget constraints to still meet mission requirements.
aircraft carriers
Question. DOD has repeatedly reaffirmed that the United States is
committed to maintaining a fleet of 11 nuclear powered aircraft
carriers despite budget pressures, and maintaining 2 carriers on patrol
in the Middle East. Yet, recent press accounts cite concerns by the
Navy to maintain the carrier deployment schedule due to declining
budgets. The Chief of Naval Operations recently stated ``Right now, we
are committed to providing two carrier strike groups in the Arabian
Gulf through March. We've been doing this since 2010, and we're
committed to that, as I said, through this March. We need to take a
look at that, and we will be, with the Joint Staff and the Services to
see if we need to continue this.''
What is your view of the impact of maintaining two carriers in the
Arabian Gulf on U.S. strategic goals in the region?
Answer. The Carrier Strike Group is a premier instrument supporting
the warfighter and demonstrating U.S. resolve and commitment to allies
around the world. In recent years the Navy has stepped up to meet
increased demands to support operations in the Middle East, as well as
to counter other tensions in the region. This support has been critical
to our goals in the region. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy to
ensure that we allocate our resources to ensure the level of presence
necessary to meet our Nation's world-wide strategic goals.
Question. What are your views about the requirement to maintain a
fleet of 11 aircraft carriers?
Answer. I understand that the Department's recent strategic reviews
indicate that an 11-carrier force is the correct size to support our
current strategy and provide sufficient carrier strike groups to meet
overseas presence requirements. However, I also understand that
increased combatant commander demands for carrier strike groups over
the past 3 years have stressed the carrier force. Carriers are an
essential tool given the strategic focus on the Asia-Pacific, an
inherently maritime theater, and the Middle East, an increasingly
maritime theater, and the requirement to conduct operations in multiple
regions simultaneously. If confirmed, I will work with the Navy to
ensure that we resource a sustainable level of presence that continues
to support the strategic goals.
future role of the army
Question. In a speech at West Point in February 2011, former
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates argued that it is unlikely that the
Nation will commit large land forces to future conflicts, and that the
Army must ``confront the reality that the most plausible, high-end
scenarios for the U.S. military [will be] primarily naval and air
engagements.'' Accordingly, the Army will find it difficult to justify
the number, size, and cost of its heavy forces. The Defense Strategic
Guidance, announced in January 2012, echoed that prediction and
indicated that ground forces would not be sized to conduct large scale
long-term stabilization operations.
Do you agree with Secretary Gates assertion that the commitment of
land forces, on the scale of Iraq or Afghanistan, is unlikely in the
future? Why or why not?
Answer. We will continue to need the best Army in the world. But
the best Army does not mean the largest. We must have the Army be
appropriately sized for the contingencies we deem likely, and it also
must be trained and modernized. Our forces must be able to conduct
operations across the spectrum of conflict and adapt to the security
environment as it changes. However, given that we must make choices in
today's fiscal and security environment, I agree that large-scale,
long-term stabilization operations is an area where we can take risk in
the future.
Question. Do you agree that high-end military operations will
primarily be naval and air engagements such that the Army will have
difficulty justifying the size, structure, and cost of its heavy
formations?
Answer. The Nation needs a robust balance of capabilities in each
of the warfighting domains--air, sea, and ground. These capabilities
can and should be complementary of one another--capabilities in one
domain need not come at the expense of those in another. Furthermore, I
know from my experience that war is an inherently human endeavor. As
long as this nation faces adversaries with large, capable ground
forces, the United States will need an Army with diverse and flexible
capabilities, which include heavy forces.
Question. General Raymond Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army, has
stated that the Army will continue to be an indispensable part of the
joint force and that there is a synergy that is gained of all the
services in order for the military to meet the Nation's needs. He has
also said the Army provides more than Brigade Combat Teams--the Army is
the largest contributor to Special Operations Forces and it provides a
broad range of essential services to combatant commanders to include
ISR; air and missile defense; logistical support; and signal
communication support.
In your view, what are the most important considerations or
criteria for aligning the Army's size, structure, and cost with
strategy and resources?
Answer. The most important considerations are our national security
requirements. Our security environment and strategy requires the Army
to have the appropriate size and structure to be able to support
steady-state operations to shape the environment and deter potential
adversaries, while simultaneously supporting contingency operations to
defeat any potential adversary should deterrence fail.
Question. If confirmed, what actions, if any, would you propose to
properly align the Army's size and structure with the requirements of
security strategies and the likely availability of resources?
Answer. The Department should align the Army's size and structure
to the strategy in the same way it would align those of any other
component of the joint force: based on appropriate security scenarios,
examining the demands of the missions that are most relevant to that
component and then determining how best to provide the capabilities
required to accomplish those missions. During this period of budget
austerity, some tradeoffs across the force may be necessary. If
confirmed, I will work closely with military and civilian leaders to
balance maintaining the skills needed to meet our most pressing
national security demands within the limits of acceptable risk.
army force structure
Question. The Defense Strategic Guidance of January 2012 calls for
the reduction of Army end strength and force structure over the next 5
years to 490,000 personnel and 8 fewer combat brigades. Army analysis
underway and decisions still pending could add a third maneuver
battalion to the modular armored and infantry brigades requiring a
further reduction in the total number of Active component brigades to
support such a redistribution of personnel.
If confirmed, what guidance would you give the Army regarding
priorities for planning, decisions, and execution with respect to the
identification and deactivation of the planned eight and anticipated
additional brigade deactivations?
Answer. If confirmed, I would provide the same guidance I would
give to any Service, which would be to figure out what is in the best
interest of the Nation's security as expressed in the National Security
Strategy and Defense Strategic Guidance. The Army, and the other
Services, must use a holistic approach to ensure our forces are
organized, manned, trained, equipped, and stationed to best incorporate
the lessons of the last decade, while remaining ready for the kinds of
challenges we will face in the future.
Question. If confirmed, will you prioritize for deactivation those
brigades based overseas before those based in the United States?
Answer. If confirmed, I would prioritize the selection of brigades
for deactivation based on how best to meet the Nation's global strategy
and objectives while minimizing negative impact on Army families and
communities and ensuring we maintain our treaty obligations and
commitment to our allies. I cannot say now whether that results in
prioritizing overseas units versus U.S.-based units, but, if confirmed,
I will look comprehensively at this issue. I recognize that any force
structure reduction will affect Army communities, and I expect that the
Army and DOD will work with those communities to help minimize the
impact.
Question. In your view, can the Army's Active component end
strength be drawn down below the announced and planned reduction to
490,000? If so, what in your view would be the impact on strategic
risk, if any, and, in your view would that strategic risk be acceptable
or unacceptable?
Answer. Independent of size, we must maintain the best Army in the
world. If fiscal pressures compel us to consider further reductions of
any Service, I plan to study tradeoffs and fully understand the risks
to our strategy before recommending further cuts. But the size of the
force should be driven by mission requirements.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment of the current
size and structure of the Army's Reserve component? If confirmed, what
size or force structure changes, if any, would you propose for either
the Army Reserve or the Army National Guard?
Answer. The Active and Reserve components of the Army, as parts of
the entire force, must be sized and shaped to support our strategy. One
of the foundations of the All-Volunteer Force is the Army National
Guard with the critical capabilities it provides to the Governors and
States, in addition to the tremendous support that it provides for
Federal missions at home and abroad. Another foundation is the Army
Reserve, which has been a key partner with the Active Army and the Army
National Guard throughout many diverse missions. However, as the needs
of the Nation change, I expect that the capabilities and capacities
resident in the Army National Guard and the Army Reserve may also have
to change. If confirmed, I will review the results of ongoing studies
on recommended composition and size before I propose future changes to
Reserve component end strength.
army modernization
Question. According to a recent study done for the Secretary of the
Army by former Assistant Secretary of the Army Gilbert Decker and
retired Army General Louis Wagner, the Army has sunk $3.3 billion to
$3.8 billion annually since 2004 into weapons programs that have been
cancelled. The report states that, ``The Army lacks a credible,
quantitative model and process for determining realistic, achievable
requirements for modernization and recapitalization given reduced
budgets.'' The Army has implemented many of the recommendations made in
the report.
What is your assessment of the Army's modernization record?
Answer. I understand that the Army has terminated several large
acquisition programs in the past, which gave rise to the study
commissioned by Secretary McHugh in 2010. These program terminations
were caused by a variety of factors, to include the Army's reliance on
immature technologies as solutions to very complex and evolving
military requirements. These factors significantly impacted program
cost and delivery schedule. I understand that the Army has undertaken
efforts to address the root causes of these prior terminations in
current and future acquisition programs. If confirmed, I will emphasize
the need for sound, cost-informed planning regarding the Army's
acquisition efforts and work with the Army to continue to address these
root causes.
Question. What actions, if any, would you take to ensure that the
Army achieves a genuinely stable modernization strategy and program?
Answer. If confirmed, I will closely monitor and oversee the Army's
acquisition efforts to ensure that stable and affordable modernization
strategies are adopted and implemented. To this end, I will emphasize
the need for Army acquisition programs that incorporate sound and
realistic development strategies, affordable and technically feasible
requirements, and--to the fullest extent practicable--adequate and
stable resources. I understand that these are necessary ingredients for
success in acquisition programs.
Question. What is your understanding and assessment, if any, of the
Army's capabilities portfolio review process and its current
modernization priorities and investment strategy?
Answer. It would be premature for me to currently assess the Army's
specific processes for reviewing military requirements or setting
modernization priorities. I understand that the Capability Portfolio
Reviews are designed to provide a comprehensive examination of Army
requirements in an effort to validate their operational value and
inform the programming and budgeting processes. This holistic approach
makes sense to me, but if confirmed, I will work with Army leadership
to review their processes.
Question. What actions, if any, would you take to sustain the
momentum of these reviews in stabilizing the Army's modernization
strategy and priorities?
Answer. If confirmed, I would encourage and support the Army to
take any necessary steps to properly define its equipment modernization
requirements and priorities. I would closely monitor the outcome of
these processes and support the Army's implementation of a successful
modernization strategy.
Question. What is your assessment of the Army's implementation of
the recommendations of the Decker-Wagner Acquisition Report?
Answer. I understand that the actions to implement the approved
recommendations in the 2010 report commissioned by Secretary McHugh are
either complete or underway. If confirmed, I will review the Army's
implementation of the recommendations and work to ensure that they are
reflected in ongoing and future modernization efforts.
unfunded priorities
Question. What is your position on allowing the Service Chiefs to
respond to Congress with a list of critical unfunded priorities not
included in the President's budget request?
Answer. If confirmed, I plan to continue the Department's current
policy whereby the Service Chiefs may communicate their unfunded
requirements directly to Congress, once they have informed me of those
requirements.
ballistic missile defense
Question. In September 2009, President Obama announced that he had
accepted the unanimous recommendation of the Secretary of Defense and
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to pursue a Phased Adaptive Approach (PAA) to
missile defense in Europe. This approach is intended to defend all of
Europe against existing and emerging threats from Iranian missiles,
starting in 2011 and increasing in capability with each of its four
phases. Phase 4 of the European PAA is intended to provide a capability
to defend against long-range missiles that could reach the United
States, thus augmenting the existing Homeland missile defense
capability.
Do you support the Phased Adaptive Approach to missile defense in
Europe and, if confirmed, will you implement it?
Answer. Yes. I support the European Phased Adaptive Approach
(EPAA). If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to support
implementation of EPAA.
Question. In February 2010, the Defense Department issued its
report on the first-ever comprehensive review of U.S. ballistic missile
defense policy and strategy, the Ballistic Missile Defense Review
(BMDR), as required by Congress. The BMDR established a number of
policy priorities, including establishing defense against near-term
regional missile threats as a top priority of missile defense plans,
programs and capabilities. It also stated the policy of sustaining and
enhancing the ability of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system to
defend the homeland against attack by a small number of long-range
missiles by countries such as North Korea and Iran, and of hedging
against future uncertainties.
Do you support the policies, strategies, and priorities set forth
in the Ballistic Missile Defense Review and, if confirmed, will you
implement them?
Answer. Yes. I support the administration's policies, strategies,
and priorities as set forth in this review, and, if confirmed, I will
implement them.
Question. The two most recent flight tests of the Ground-based
Midcourse Defense (GMD) system failed to intercept their targets. The
Missile Defense Agency (MDA) formed a Failure Review Board to determine
the root cause of the failure and developed a plan to correct it,
including flight tests to confirm the correction. Until the flight
tests confirm the correction, MDA has suspended production of the Exo-
atmospheric Kill Vehicles (EKVs) of the type that failed in the
previous flight tests, in order to ensure that those EKVs do not
contain a flaw that would need to be corrected later.
Do you agree that it is a high priority to correct the failure of
the GMD system kill vehicle and demonstrate through flight testing that
the system works as intended?
Answer. I'm not familiar with the technical details associated with
these flight test failures, but in general I would agree that for any
system, but especially for a national missile defense system, it is
important to correct failures and demonstrate effectiveness as quickly
as possible.
Question. Do you agree that it is prudent to verify that the flight
test failure problem has been corrected before resuming production of
additional EKVs?
Answer. I am not in a position to express a technical opinion on
the right course of action, but in general it would seem prudent to
demonstrate system effectiveness before committing to production. This
is in line with the administration's principle of ``fly before you
buy''.
Question. Do you support the continued enhancement and sustainment
of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense system?
Answer. I very strongly believe that we should sustain and enhance
our national missile defense to protect the Nation from limited ICBM
attack by states like North Korea and Iran.
Question. Do you support the modernization of the Exo-atmospheric
Kill Vehicle, which is based on 20-year-old technology?
Answer. Yes. I understand that the Exo-Atmospheric Kill Vehicle
(EKV) is a key component of the Ground-based Midcourse Defense System
that we rely on to protect the United States.
Question. Would you agree to study the feasibility, advisability,
cost, and potential advantage of deploying additional ground based
interceptors in the United States, including at a site located on the
east coast of the United States?
Answer. I understand that such a study is required by the NDAA and,
if confirmed, I will ensure the Department executes the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2013 direction to analyze potential locations for another
continental United States (CONUS)-based missile defense site and to
conduct environmental impact surveys.
Question. The United States and NATO are seeking options to
cooperate with Russia on missile defense. President Obama has announced
that such cooperation would not limit U.S. or NATO missile defense
capabilities.
Do you agree that such cooperation could enhance the security of
the United States, NATO, and Russia against common missile threats from
nations such as Iran?
Answer. Yes. I agree that missile defense cooperation with Russia
has the potential to enhance the security of the United States, NATO,
and Russia. I also agree with President Obama's commitment to ensure
that such cooperation will not limit U.S. or NATO missile defense
capabilities.
Question. Do you agree that, irrespective of Russian objections,
the United States is committed to the continued development and
deployment of U.S. missile defense systems, including qualitative and
quantitative improvements to such systems, to defend the homeland, our
forward-deployed troops, and allies and partners overseas?
Answer. I agree that the United States is committed to continue to
develop and deploy missile defenses, including qualitative and
quantitative improvements consistent with the Ballistic Missile Defense
Review. The President is on record as saying, and I agree, that the
United States cannot accept limits on its BMD systems or expose
information that would put our missile defense systems at risk. The
President has made clear the need to ensure our missile defense systems
are capable of defeating the most likely threat we face from North
Korean and Iranian missiles. It makes sense to explore approaches to
missile defense cooperation that improve transparency and reassure
Russia that the U.S. missile defense system does not undermine Russia's
strategic deterrent.
space
Question. China's test of an anti-satellite weapon in 2007 was a
turning point for the United States in its policies and procedure to
ensure access to space. As a nation heavily dependent on space assets
for both military and economic advantage, protection of space assets
became a U.S. national priority.
Do you agree that space situational awareness and protection of
space assets should be a national security priority?
Answer. Yes. Space situational awareness is foundational to all
space activities, and enables the United States to maintain the
strategic advantages we derive from space-based capabilities.
Question. In your view, should China's continued development of
space systems inform U.S. space policy and programs?
Answer. Yes. U.S. space policies and programs should be informed by
China's continued development of space systems, including its
multidimensional counterspace program, as well as by the range of other
actors that make the space environment increasingly congested,
contested, and competitive.
Question. If confirmed, would you propose any changes to national
security space policy and programs?
Answer. At this time, I am unaware of any necessary changes and if
confirmed, I would plan to continue to implement the President's 2010
National Space Policy and the 2011 National Security Space Strategy. If
I find need for changes in the future, I would propose them.
Question. Do you support the space code of conduct as a non-binding
agreement among nations that utilize outer space?
Answer. Yes. An international code of conduct for space
activities--a non-binding arrangement among nations that utilize
space--would enhance our national security by helping to maintain the
long-term sustainability, safety, stability, and security of space. As
more countries and companies field space capabilities, a code could
encourage responsible behavior and single out those who would act
otherwise, while reducing the risk of mishaps, misperceptions, and
mistrust.
Question. If confirmed, would you commit to reviewing the overall
management and coordination of the national security space enterprise?
Answer. I understand that there has been a recent reorganization of
the management and coordination of the national security space
enterprise, including the establishment of the Defense Space Council,
and the confirmation of the Secretary of the Air Force as the Executive
Agent for Space. This reorganization has resulted in improvements in
information flow across the Department and among U.S. departments and
agencies, and has also improved the process for acquisition and policy
decisions. If confirmed, I will commit to review this reorganization to
ensure continued progress.
Question. What is your view on weapons in space?
Answer. If confirmed, I would continue to implement the 2011
National Security Space Strategy, which states that ``it is in the
interests of all space-faring nations to avoid hostilities in space,''
and the President's 2010 National Space Policy, which states that ``all
nations have the right to explore and use space for peaceful
purposes.'' The National Space Policy also directs the Secretary of
Defense to develop capabilities, plans and options to deter, defend
against, and, if necessary, defeat efforts to interfere with or attack
U.S. or allied space systems.
Question. The administration is proposing to free up 500 MHz of
spectrum for broadband use, a candidate portion of which includes the
band 1755-1850 MHz, which is used heavily by DOD and other national
security agencies.
Do you support this initiative?
Answer. I fully support the national economic and security goals of
the President's 500 MHz initiative to make spectrum available for
commercial broadband use, the implementation of more effective and
efficient use of limited radio-frequency spectrum and the development
of solutions to meet these goals.
Question. Do you support section 1602 of Public Law 106-65, which
requires the Secretaries of Commerce and Defense and the Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff to certify that any alternative band or bands
to be substituted for spectrum currently used by DOD and other national
security agencies provide ``comparable technical characteristics to
restore essential military capability that will be lost as a result of
the band of frequencies to be so surrendered''?
Answer. I fully support section 1602 of Public Law 106-65. This
provision is absolutely critical to protecting and maintaining our
warfighting capabilities. This statutory requirement is intended to
ensure the Department is provided access to alternate spectrum before
surrendering any spectrum critical for national security capabilities.
Any spectrum reallocations and auctions should provide sufficient time
for evaluation and certification of such alternate spectrum so that
national security operations are not put at risk.
Question. If confirmed, how do you intend to comply with section
1602 in light of the 500 MHz initiative?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continues to
conduct operational and cost-feasibility analysis to guarantee that
spectrum-dependent national security capabilities are preserved, while
supporting the economic benefits spectrum provides to our Nation.
Question. Do you intend to insist that DOD be compensated fully for
the cost of relocating, if required to do so?
Answer. Yes. In order to relocate national security capabilities
that rely on spectrum, while maintaining mission effectiveness, the
Department must have alternate spectrum with comparable technical
characteristics, full cost reimbursement for modifying complex weapons
systems, and adequate time to make the transition.
Question. How do you propose the Department make more efficient use
of communications spectrum through leasing of commercial satellites?
Answer. I understand that both the National Security Space Strategy
and the Department of Defense Space Policy indicate that the Department
will make use of commercial systems to the maximum extent practicable.
I am not familiar with all the details, but will review this more
thoroughly, if confirmed.
Question. Do you support more competition in the launch of DOD
payloads?
Answer. Yes. in general I favor competition in contracting--to
include new competitors that can meet certification standards.
Question. If confirmed, what steps will you take to encourage new
entrants to the medium and heavy lift launch of DOD payloads while
balancing affordability, mission assurance, and maintaining the
viability of the existing launch provider?
Answer. I understand that the Department has developed criteria to
certify new space launch vehicles capable of reliably launching
national security satellites and will openly compete up to 14 space
launches in the next 5 years, while guaranteeing the existing launch
provider at least 28 launches.
Question. Do you support commercial hosting of DOD payloads and if
so how?
Answer. Hosted payloads are one of the ways to enhance resilience
and assure space capabilities in the congested, contested, and
competitive space environment. If confirmed, I would support innovative
approaches to improve the national security benefits we derive from
space in a budget-constrained environment, including through the use of
hosted payloads.
Question. What is your long-term vision and support for the Space-
Based Infrared Sensing System (SBIRS)?
Answer. I understand that the SBIRS provides advanced early warning
of hostile missile threats, allowing our warfighters to take swift and
precise action. If confirmed, I would support the Department's
continued efforts to define the future architecture necessary to
provide early warning.
Question. Do you support splitting the systems sensors up to lower
overall cost of the system?
Answer. I understand that the Department of Defense Space Policy
requires the consideration of resilience in space architecture
development. Splitting space sensors may be one way to achieve
resilience. If confirmed, I will look at options for improving
resilience in this system.
strategic systems
Question. Over the next 5 years DOD will begin to replace or begin
studies to replace all of the strategic delivery systems. For the next
15 plus years, DOD will also have to sustain the current strategic
nuclear enterprise. This will be a very expensive undertaking.
Do you support the President's intent, stated in his message to the
Senate on the New START treaty (February 2, 2011), to modernize or
replace the triad of strategic nuclear delivery systems?
Answer. I support the President's commitment to a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. I believe
that providing necessary resources for nuclear modernization of the
Triad should be a national priority. I understand the Department is
currently modernizing, replacing, or studying recapitalization options
for each leg of the Triad.
Question. Do you have any concerns about the ability of the
Department to afford the costs of nuclear systems modernization while
meeting the rest of the DOD commitments?
Answer. I am not able to make a judgment on this at this time;
however, if confirmed, I will assess the costs to ensure that we
protect critically important nuclear systems modernization while
meeting other defense commitments. We must continue to aggressively
scrutinize each of our programs to ensure we maintain critical
capabilities in a fiscally responsible manner.
Question. The Department is committed to modernizing our nuclear
command and control system, do you support that commitment?
Answer. I do. An effective, reliable Nuclear Command, Control, and
Communication (NC3) system is a vital component of a safe, secure, and
effective nuclear deterrent. NC3 systems provide the President
redundant and assured capability to execute U.S. nuclear forces under
any scenario and are a critical element in ensuring crisis stability
and deterrence.
u.s. cyber command personnel requirements
Question. The Commander of U.S. Cyber Command (CYBERCOM) in
conjunction with the Chiefs of the Military Services and other elements
of DOD, is now seriously engaged in defining the numbers and
qualifications of personnel required to conduct the offensive,
defensive, and intelligence missions of the Command in support of the
combatant commands and the defense of the Nation in cyberspace.
Preliminary indications are that the numbers of exceptionally qualified
operators are going to be substantial. Secretary Panetta committed to
report to the Committee on Armed Services as early as possible this
year how the Department would address these serious manpower and
training requirements.
Do you believe that the strategy, operational concepts, and
operational assumptions that underpin CYBERCOM's force planning have
received sufficient critical scrutiny and analysis?
Answer. I understand that the Department's leadership has invested
significant effort analyzing the threat, reviewing the force planning
model, and is currently addressing how to implement the proposed model.
If confirmed, I will review this analysis and implementation plan.
Question. Can the Military Services' current personnel systems and
practices produce and sustain the number of highly qualified cyber
operators that CYBERCOM believes are required, especially in light of
end strength reductions and declining budgets?
Answer. Recruiting, training, and retaining military and civilian
personnel needed for cyber operations will be a challenge. This is a
high priority area for the Department with regard to investment of both
resources and management oversight and, if confirmed, I will review
these systems and practices.
Question. Should consideration be given to providing the Commander
of CYBERCOM personnel authorities similar to those granted to the
Commander of SOCOM?
Answer. If confirmed, I will seek the advice of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff and senior civilian staff of the Department before recommending
any additional authorities for CYBERCOM.
cyber deterrence
Question. Do you believe we are deterring and dissuading our
adversaries in cyberspace?
Answer. At this time, it appears that the United States has
successfully deterred major cyber attacks. I expect that deterring and,
if necessary, defeating such attacks will be a continued key challenge.
If confirmed I intend to ensure that the Department provides strong
support to our national efforts in this area.
u.s. cyber command status
Question. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recommended
that U.S. CYBERCOM be elevated from a sub-unified to a full unified
command. The NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 includes a Sense of the Congress
resolution calling for consultation with Congress before a Presidential
decision is made to make CYBERCOM a unified command, and asking for
consideration of a number of issues associated with such a decision.
Do you believe it would be advisable to consult with Congress prior
to making a decision to elevate CYBERCOM to a unified command?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure consultation with
Congress.
Question. As the current Commander of the sub-unified CYBERCOM is
dual-hatted as the Director of the National Security Agency (NSA), what
are your views on the wisdom of having an intelligence officer serve as
a unified combatant commander, rather than a line officer with broad
training and command experience?
Answer. My sense is that dual-hatting the commander of CYBERCOM and
the Director of NSA has worked well to date. However, if confirmed, I
will review specifics of the dual-hatted relationship and assess
whether it should continue in the future. I recognize that NSA support
is critical to CYBERCOM's mission given the technical capabilities
required to operate in cyberspace. In addition, I recognize that the
CYBERCOM commander requires significant understanding of the
intelligence community's capabilities and processes to execute his or
her missions effectively. However, I am also aware of concerns about
the dual-hatted relationship and, if confirmed, will carefully consider
these concerns.
Question. Do you believe that CYBERCOM is mature enough to become a
unified command, and that policy, strategy, operational planning, and
rules of engagement to govern operations in cyberspace are sufficiently
developed to justify this step?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has made
significant progress since CYBERCOM's creation in 2009. This includes
issuance of a comprehensive strategy for military operations in
cyberspace. In addition, I am told that CYBERCOM is expanding its
integration into the Department's deliberate planning, and that the
Chairman, with the approval of the Secretary of Defense, will issue a
new set of rules of engagement governing all military operations,
including cyber operations, in the near future. If confirmed, I will
evaluate the maturity of the command and will consult closely with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, combatant commanders, and Congress prior
to any decisions with respect to CYBERCOM.
china's aggressive theft of u.s. intellectual property
Question. A recent report by the National Counterintelligence
Executive confirmed the widespread belief that China is engaged in a
massive campaign to steal technology, other forms of intellectual
property, and business and trade information from the United States
through cyberspace. The current Commander of CYBERCOM has referred to
this as the greatest transfer of wealth in history and, along with
others, believes this is a serious national security issue.
Do you believe that China's aggressive and massive theft of
technology in cyberspace is a threat to national security and economic
prosperity?
Answer. I believe that the theft of intellectual property and other
sensitive information threatens the United States' military advantage
and economic prosperity. If confirmed, I will work within the
Department and with other departments and agencies to address this
threat.
Question. What steps, if any, do you believe are needed to deter
China from such activities in the future?
Answer. I am not in a position to recommend specific policies,
guidance, or changes to authorities at this time. I understand that the
Department is enhancing its cyber defense programs and those of certain
defense industrial base networks, as well as improving its ability to
identify the origins of intrusion. If confirmed, I will consider what
diplomatic and public engagement as well as other actions that should
be taken to address this challenge.
dod's role in defending the nation from cyber attack
Question. What is your understanding of the role of DOD in
defending the Nation from an attack in cyberspace? In what ways is this
role distinct from those of the Homeland security and law enforcement
communities?
Answer. My understanding is that DHS has the lead for domestic
cybersecurity. Thus, DHS coordinates national protection, prevention,
mitigation, and recovery in significant cyber incidents. The Defense
Department provides technical assistance to DHS when requested. The
Department's role is to provide the military forces needed to deter the
adversary, and if necessary, act to protect the security of the
country. This includes planning against potential threats to our
critical infrastructure, gathering foreign threat intelligence, and
protecting classified networks. I believe that the defense, homeland
security, and law enforcement communities should work together, and
with our private sector partners to improve network defenses, share
information on cyber threats, and ensure swift response to threats when
they manifest themselves.
Question. Do you believe that defending the Homeland mission will
require both offensive and defensive cyber forces and tools?
Answer. If confirmed, this is an area I will review closely. My
current view is that defending the Homeland from cyber attacks should
involve the full range of tools at the disposal of the United States,
including diplomacy and law enforcement as well as any authorized
military operations.
Question. This new mission will require substantial resources,
including personnel. How do you envision generating these additional
resources in the face of reduced budgets and declining end strength?
Answer. The current fiscal situation will force hard choices across
a range of priority missions, including cyber. If confirmed, I will
consult closely with military and civilian leaders in the Department,
the President, and Congress in finding the right balance.
iran
Question. What is your assessment of the military and political
threat posed by Iran?
Answer. Iran poses a significant threat to the United States, our
allies and partners, and our interests in the region and globally. Iran
continues to pursue an illicit nuclear program that threatens to
provoke a regional arms race and undermine the global non-proliferation
regime. Iran is also one of the main state-sponsors of terrorism and
could spark conflict, including against U.S. personnel and interests.
Iran is also actively investing in the development of a range of
conventional capabilities, including air, missile, and naval assets
that have generated regional anxieties and could threaten our interests
and personnel in the region.
Question. What is your assessment of U.S. policy with respect to
Iran?
Answer. I believe that President Obama has put in place and pursued
effectively--with support from the U.S. Congress--a strong, multi-
vector strategy to deal with the threats that Iran poses to the United
States, particularly its nuclear pursuits. This strategy has included a
strong diplomatic effort to test Iranian intentions, lay the ground
work for an international coalition that holds Tehran accountable for
its transgressions, and isolate Iran in the region and globally. This
strategy has also included the application of smart, unprecedented, and
effective sanctions against the Iranian regime that has sharpened its
choices significantly. Lastly, this strategy has credibly, and smartly
in my opinion, made clear that all options are on the table. I believe
that this strategy has made it clear to Iran that the United States
will do what it must to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,
and I will continue to implement this policy if confirmed.
Question. In your view, what has been the effect of sanctions
against Iran--how effective have they been?
Answer. I believe that the President with significant help from the
U.S. Congress, has been able to bring the world community together to
confront Iran with effective sanctions. As a result of these sanctions,
Iran's financial, trade, and economic outlook has deteriorated
significantly. International financial institutions estimate that
Iran's economy contracted in 2012 for the first time in more than 2
decades. Iran's access to foreign exchange reserves held overseas has
diminished. Additionally, the Iranian currency--the rial--reached an
all-time low in mid-October, losing more than half its value since the
start of 2012. Inflation and unemployment are also growing. As the
economic outlook for Iran continues to worsen and as the U.S. continues
to reinforce our pressure track along with the International Community,
I believe that pressure is building on Iran.
Question. You have said that ``Washington should make clear that
everything is on the table with Tehran--an end to sanctions, diplomatic
recognition, civil nuclear cooperation, investment in Iran's energy
sector, World Bank Loans, World Trade Organization membership, Iraq,
Afghanistan, regional security arrangements, etc.--if Iran abstains
from a nuclear weapons program, ends support for terrorist groups,
recognizes Israel, and engages in more constructive policies in Iraq.''
Do you still hold this view?
Answer. I do believe that if Iran lives up to international
obligations, it should have a path to a more prosperous and productive
relationship with the international community and eventual rejoining of
the community of nations. The other choice is clear as well--if Iran
continues to flout its international obligations, it should continue to
face severe and growing consequences. While there is time and space for
diplomacy, backed by pressure, the window is closing. Iran needs to
demonstrate it is prepared to negotiate seriously.
Question. In March 2012, President Obama said ``when it comes to
preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, I will take no options
off the table, and I mean what I say. That includes all elements of
American power: A political effort aimed at isolating Iran; a
diplomatic effort to sustain our coalition and ensure that the Iranian
program is monitored; an economic effort that imposes crippling
sanctions; and, yes, a military effort to be prepared for any
contingency.''
Do you agree with the President's view that ``all options should be
on the table'' to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon?
Answer. I agree with the President that the United States should
take no options off the table in our efforts to prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon. If confirmed, I will focus intently on
ensuring that U.S. military is in fact prepared for any contingency.
countering iran's ballistic missile threats
Question. Iran has hundreds of short- and medium-range ballistic
missiles today that are capable of reaching forward-deployed U.S.
forces, allies, and partner nations in the CENTCOM AOR. The Ballistic
Missile Defense Review Report of February 2010 stated that the United
States intends to pursue a phased and adaptive approach to ballistic
missile defense tailored against such missile threats in various
regions, including the Middle East.
Do you agree that such a phased adaptive approach will provide
CENTCOM with the missile defense capabilities needed to defend our
forward deployed forces and our allies and partners in the region
against Iranian ballistic missile threats?
Answer. While I have not looked into the details of the phased
adaptive approach, I believe this approach includes the appropriate
steps to protect the United States as well as our forces and interests
overseas. If confirmed, I will work to ensure the President continues
to propose a budget sufficient to support our ballistic missile defense
priorities, balanced with competing priorities, and consistent with the
projected capabilities of missile defense systems to deal with the
anticipated threats.
Question. What role do you see for the Aegis Ballistic Missile
Defense system with Standard Missile-3 interceptors in U.S. regional
missile defense capabilities against Iran's ballistic missiles?
Answer. My understanding is that today, U.S. Aegis combatants
equipped with Standard Missile-3s are on station and protecting U.S.
forces, partners, and allies in the Middle East as well as Europe
against Iran's ballistic missiles. My expectation is that this
capability will continue to evolve.
Question. In addition to U.S. missile defense capabilities in the
CENTCOM AOR, what role do you see for other nations in the AOR to
contribute to regional missile defense capabilities, such as UAE's
plans to purchase the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system?
Answer. Recognizing that global demand for BMD will likely exceed
the U.S. supply, it is appropriate for the United States to seek
appropriate burden-sharing arrangements with partners and allies in the
CENTCOM area and other regions. Such arrangements can increase the
quantity of missile defense assets in support of U.S. regional
deterrence and security goals. If confirmed, I will encourage those
contributions to our mutual defense needs.
Question. The Intelligence Community assesses that, with sufficient
foreign assistance, Iran may be technically capable of flight testing
an ICBM capable of reaching the United States by 2015. What should the
United States do to hedge against this possibility?
Answer. I understand that, with the deployed Ground-based Midcourse
Defense system, the United States is currently protected against the
threat of limited ICBM attack from states like Iran and North Korea. As
noted in the 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review, it is important
that we maintain this advantageous position by hedging against future
uncertainties. If confirmed, I would continue the current efforts to
prepare options in case the threat changes or if the development of new
technical capabilities is delayed.
u.s.-israel defense cooperation
Question. In recent years, the NDAA has supported close cooperation
and substantial funding for a number of critical missile defense and
rocket defense programs for the state of Israel, including the Arrow
system, the Arrow-3 interceptor, David's Sling, and the Iron Dome
system.
In your view, should the United States continue to support such
joint cooperation and funding for these programs?
Answer. Yes. I am proud of the work that the United States has done
in support of the ballistic missile defense of Israel and, if
confirmed, I will continue to support these efforts. Missile defense is
a core area of U.S.-Israel joint cooperation. The importance of these
efforts came to the forefront with Israel's recent Operation Pillar of
Defense in Gaza. Throughout the 8 days of the operation, Hamas and the
Palestinian Islamic Jihad launched over 1,506 rockets into Israel.
Focusing only on these that posed a real threat to populated areas,
Iron Dome intercepted 421 rockets with an overall intercept rate of
approximately 85 percent--saving the lives of countless Israeli
civilians. This highlights the importance of the work that the United
States is doing with the Israelis on all layers of missile and rocket
defense, and if confirmed, I will work to continue and expand this
cooperation.
dod's cooperative threat reduction (ctr) program
Question. The CTR program is focused on eliminating WMD in the
states of the former Soviet Union and other nations around the world.
Its key objectives include: (1) eliminating strategic nuclear weapons;
(2) improving the security and accounting of nuclear weapons and
weapons-usable fissile material; (3) detecting, eliminating, and
preventing the proliferation of biological and chemical weapons and
capabilities; and (4) encouraging development of capabilities to reduce
proliferation threats. The current CTR umbrella agreement between the
Russian Federation and the United States will expire at the end of May
2013, and it has been reported that the Duma does not support extending
the umbrella as it is currently written at this time.
Do you support extending this umbrella agreement?
Answer. Yes. On December 3, 2012, President Obama said, ``If Russia
believes the CTR agreement hasn't kept pace with the changing
relationship between our countries, we should update it.'' If
confirmed, I will support continuation of the nonproliferation
cooperation with Russia supported by the CTR Umbrella Agreement.
Question. Do you support continued cooperation with the Russian
Federation to eliminate WMD in Russia?
Answer. Yes. U.S. and Russian efforts to secure and eliminate WMD
have made both countries safer, and have proven to be a productive area
of cooperation.
Question. Do you support the use of metrics to assess the progress
of the CTR programs and to ensure individual programs complete their
objectives?
Answer. Yes. Metrics are an important tool in ensuring efficient
execution of the CTR program.
Question. In your view, are Russia and the former Soviet Union
countries making a significant contribution to efforts to reduce the
proliferation threats they inherited?
Answer. My understanding is that the Russian Federation and several
other states of the Former Soviet Union have contributed in many ways
to reduce threats posed by WMD that they inherited. I understand that
the Department supports these efforts through the CTR program, which
helps secure nuclear materials, destroy chemical weapons, and reduce
the threat from especially dangerous pathogens. Russia and several of
its neighbors also made important contributions to the Nuclear Security
Summits held in Washington and Seoul.
Question. Do you think the CTR program is well-coordinated among
the U.S. Government agencies that engage in threat reduction efforts in
Russia, e.g., DOD, the Department of Energy, and the State Department?
Answer. My understanding is that CTR and other nonproliferation
programs executed by Federal agencies are coordinated well through the
leadership of the National Security Staff. If confirmed, one of my
priorities as Secretary of Defense will be to ensure that all of the
Department's activities in this area are well-coordinated with
interagency partners.
Question. As the CTR program expands to geographic regions beyond
the states of the former Soviet Union, in your view what proliferation
prevention and threat reduction goals should the DOD establish or focus
on?
Answer. My understanding is that the President has highlighted
nuclear and biological terrorism as key threats, and that the CTR
program strongly supports these priorities. I agree with these
priorities.
Question. Do you support extending the CTR program to nations in
the Middle East, especially with respect to containing Syrian chemical
weapons?
Answer. My understanding is that the CTR program is authorized to
undertake activities in the Middle East. The main objective of this
expanded authority is to enhance the capacity of regional partners,
particularly the nations that border Syria, to mitigate the threat to
their territory posed by the potential loss or use of Syria's chemical
weapons. If confirmed, I would continue to support this effort.
Question. Do you support extending the CTR program to nations in
Africa, especially with respect to biological materials?
Answer. Yes. based on my current understanding, I believe it makes
good sense to continue to expand the CTR program's geographic reach
beyond the former Soviet Union. Any cost effective steps we can take to
keep terrorists from accessing dangerous biological agents by
partnering with other nations are especially important in regions like
East Africa where active terrorist threats converge with emerging
infectious diseases.
prompt global strike
Question. The 2010 QDR concluded that the United States will
continue to experiment with prompt global strike prototypes. There has
been no decision to field a prompt global strike capability as the
effort is early in the technology and testing phase.
In your view, what is the role for a conventional prompt global
strike capability in addressing the key threats to U.S. national
security in the near future?
Answer. I understand that the Department continues to assess a
broad range of conventional strike capabilities to address current and
emerging threats. Conventional prompt global strike weapons could
provide the President with unique conventional capabilities in certain
scenarios that include fleeting or otherwise inaccessible time-
sensitive targets for example. I understand, however, that there are
concerns about this operational concept. At this point, I believe that
it makes sense to assess potential approaches to conventional prompt
global strike. If confirmed, I will look forward to further discussions
with Congress on this topic.
Question. What approach to implementation of this capability would
you expect to pursue if confirmed?
Answer. I understand the Department is continuing to conduct
research and testing to support the development of concepts and
technologies for boost-glide systems that could provide the basis for a
conventional prompt global strike capability. If confirmed, I will
review implementation options.
Question. Do you support a competitive procurement of prompt global
strike systems if they progress to a milestone B stage?
Answer. In general, where viable options exist, I think the
Department should take maximum advantage of a competitive procurement
process.
nuclear weapons and stockpile stewardship
Question. Congress established the Stockpile Stewardship Program
with the aim of creating the computational capabilities and
experimental tools needed to allow for the continued certification of
the nuclear weapons stockpile as safe, secure, and reliable without the
need for nuclear weapons testing. The Secretaries of Defense and Energy
are statutorily required to certify annually to Congress the continued
safety, security, and reliability of the nuclear weapons stockpile.
As the stockpile continues to age, what do you view as the greatest
challenges with respect to assuring the safety, reliability, and
security of the stockpile?
Answer. I understand that the Stockpile Stewardship Program has
ensured that our nuclear weapons stockpile remains safe, secure, and
effective without the use of underground nuclear weapons testing. At
the same time, the challenge we face is that some aspects of today's
nuclear complex are in need of repair or replacement. If confirmed, I
will continue to work with the Department of Energy to ensure the
safety, security, and reliability of our stockpile, and the
modernization of the nuclear weapons complex infrastructure.
Question. Do you agree that the full funding of the President's
plan for modernizing the nuclear weapons complex, commonly referred to
as the 1251 report, is a critical national security priority?
Answer. The modernization of the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) infrastructure and life extension of our nuclear
weapons are critical to sustaining a safe, secure, and effective
nuclear deterrent. If confirmed, I will work to ensure appropriate
funding levels and cost-effective management for these efforts, which
will require a substantial and sustained fiscal commitment.
Question. Prior to completing this modernization effort, do you
believe it would be prudent to consider reductions below New START
treaty limits for either the deployed or nondeployed stockpile of
nuclear weapons?
Answer. I believe that we should make necessary investments in
infrastructure modernization regardless of potential future nuclear
weapon reductions. I understand that the New START treaty does not
limit nondeployed warheads; if confirmed I will ensure that the
stockpile, including both deployed and nondeployed nuclear warheads,
sustains the credibility of the U.S. deterrent, including our
commitments to extend deterrence to U.S. allies.
Question. What role does the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC) play in
helping to establish key stockpile stewardship goals and modernization
objectives?
Answer. The NWC is the primary interface for coordinating nuclear
weapons enterprise issues between DOD and the Department of Energy. I
understand that its current top priority is to address stockpile life
extension and nuclear infrastructure modernization in the current
fiscal environment.
Question. Do you support a more active role of the Office of Cost
Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) in ensuring the programs within
the Department of Energy and the NNSA are appropriately tailored for
the best investment of funds possible to achieve a safe, effective, and
reliable nuclear weapons stockpile?
Answer. I am not familiar enough with the degree of CAPE's
involvement with the Department of Energy and the NNSA to make that
determination at this time. I understand that CAPE has worked closely
with NNSA over the past year to review NNSA programs, and if confirmed,
will closely consider CAPE's appropriate role in this regard in the
future.
medical countermeasures initiative
Question. The administration has produced an interagency strategy
for the advanced development and manufacture of medical countermeasures
(MCM) to defend against pandemic influenza and biological warfare
threats. In this strategy, DOD will be responsible for the rapid
development and manufacture of medical countermeasures to protect U.S.
Armed Forces and Defense Department personnel.
Do you support this interagency strategy and the MCM Initiative
and, if confirmed, would you plan to implement them?
Answer. I am very concerned about the threat of biological weapons.
I support assigning to the Department the responsibility for protecting
the U.S. Armed Forces and Defense Department personnel with rapid
development and manufacturing of medical countermeasures. If confirmed,
I will need to look into the specific plans associated with the
interagency strategy of the Medical Countermeasure Initiative. I would
do my best to implement the administration's strategy, consistent with
any statutory guidance and available funding.
defense acquisition reform
Question. The Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act of 2009 (WSARA)
is designed to ensure that new defense acquisition programs start on a
sound footing, to avoid the high cost of fixing problems late in the
acquisition process.
What are your views regarding WSARA and the need for improvements
in the Defense acquisition process?
Answer. I believe that our weapons systems acquisition process has
substantial room for improvement. My understanding is that WSARA, which
enacted a number of steps to improve many aspects of weapons system
acquisition, has been largely implemented by the Department and that it
is improving the Department's acquisition performance, but that more
needs to be done. I am aware the Department is continuing to implement
the remaining provisions of WSARA and other acquisition improvement
initiatives. If confirmed, I will review these efforts to ensure that
they are adequate and I will continue to work with Congress and our
industry partners to improve the way we acquire systems for the
Department.
Question. If confirmed, how would you improve all three aspects of
the acquisition process B requirements, acquisition, and budgeting?
Answer. Close coordination of these three processes is essential to
improving the Department's ability to acquire services and systems and
to obtain the best value for every defense dollar. Since WSARA's
enactment, progress appears to have been made in regard to closer
integration of these three processes, but I do not believe that this
work is complete. In my view, requirements must be feasible and
affordable, there must be an executable plan to acquire the products
that meet those requirements, and there must be an adequate budget
established to conduct the program and acquire the product. If
confirmed, I will work to bring requirements, acquisition, and
budgeting into close alignment by ensuring that the individuals
responsible for these three aspects of acquisition work in conjunction
with one another and not in isolation.
Question. If confirmed, how would you improve acquisition
accountability?
Answer. I support a chain of command for the acquisition process
that provides for the clear responsibility and accountability that was
established by the Goldwater-Nichols Act in the 1980s. For major
programs, this chain of command begins with the Defense Acquisition
Executive and runs through DOD component head to the Service or
Component Acquisition Executive, the Program Executive Officer, and the
Program Manager. If confirmed, I will hold these individuals
accountable for acquisition system performance.
Question. Do you believe that the current investment budget for
major systems is affordable given increasing historic cost growth in
major systems, costs of current operations, and asset recapitalization?
Answer. I have not yet reviewed DOD's investment budget in detail
or the balance between major systems investments, operations, and
recapitalization. However, it is clear to me that pursuing only
affordable programs and controlling costs throughout a product's life
cycle are critical in any financial environment. All programs must be
closely managed to avoid cost growth, and the affordability of any new
requirements must be carefully scrutinized at the outset--before the
program is authorized. If confirmed, I will examine the investment
budget closely for near and long-term affordability, taking into
consideration the potential for cost growth. I will also assess the
sustainability of the balance between the various accounts that make up
the Department's budget, including the investment, operations, and
asset recapitalization portions of the budget.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address this issue and
guard against the potential impact of weapon systems cost growth?
Answer. My understanding is that the Department has been imposing
affordability cost caps on new programs for over 2 years for both
production and sustainment costs. These caps are being used to force
trade-offs between capability and costs early in a program's life
cycle. If confirmed, I will strongly support the imposition and
enforcement of these cost caps. I will also work with the Department
and industry to ensure that we stay on budget and on schedule. DOD and
the taxpayer cannot afford the excessive cost growth that has plagued
some programs in the past.
reliability of weapons systems
Question. The Department's process for procuring major weapons
systems places insufficient emphasis on reliability and maintainability
and, therefore, produces systems that are increasingly costly to
operate and sustain. Given that these ownership costs comprise most of
a given weapons systems' overall lifecycle cost, these increased costs
could undermine considerably the Department's ``buying power''.
How would you ensure that the defense acquisition system produces
more reliable weapons systems?
Answer. I believe that the key to obtaining necessary reliability
is to establish effective incentives and, when necessary, to enforce
the consequences of failure to meet established standards. If
confirmed, I will ensure that the acquisition system takes this
approach to achieving the needed reliability performance for its
weapons systems.
excessive concurrency in major defense acquisition programs
Question. Major defense acquisition programs (MDAP) have
experienced excessive cost-growth and schedule delays due to, among
other things, too much of an overlap between development and
production. This has exposed these systems to a high risk of costly new
discoveries requiring redesign and retrofit late into operational
testing or production.
What more can be done to ensure that the defense acquisition system
safeguards against excessive concurrency in MDAPs?
Answer. I am not an expert in this field; however, my understanding
is that some limited degree of concurrency between development and
initial production can often be the most efficient way to structure a
weapons system program. However, the Department has in some cases, such
as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, taken too much risk with concurrency,
committing to production well before the design was tested enough to
know that it was mature and stable. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
that the risks of concurrent development and production are fully
understood and taken into account by acquisition decisionmakers before
a program enters production.
procurement program risk
Question. Another major cause of excessive cost growth and schedule
delays in how the Department procures major weapons systems and major
automated information systems (in particular, ``enterprise resource
planning'' systems, which are vital to defense financial improvement
and business transformation), relates to the Department's inability to
identify, price, and therefore effectively manage program risk, (e.g.,
technological, developmental, integration, and manufacturing risk).
How would you improve the defense acquisition system to ensure that
the Department can more effectively and timely address all types of
risk in its major defense procurement programs to better ensure the
delivery of needed combat capability on time and on budget?
Answer. I believe the early identification, management, and
mitigation of program risk is a critical element of any well-managed
acquisition program. I understand that the Department, through
implementation of WSARA and other ongoing initiatives, is working to
improve early planning efforts to better understand risks and to put in
place steps that will remove and/or mitigate them prior to the
commitment of a major investment in product development or initial
production. My view is that new product development inherently involves
risk and that the risk of any new product development must be actively
managed if the program is to be successful. If confirmed, I will review
the adequacy of these initiatives and their effectiveness.
services contracting
Question. Over the last decade, the Department has become
progressively more reliant upon contractors to perform functions that
were once performed exclusively by government employees. As a result,
contractors now play an integral role in areas as diverse as the
management and oversight of weapons programs, the development of
personnel policies, and the collection and analysis of intelligence. In
many cases, contractor employees work in the same offices, serve on the
same projects and task forces, and perform many of the same functions
as DOD employees.
In your view, has DOD become too reliant on contractors to support
the basic functions of the Department?
Answer. Although I understand that DOD has been taking steps in
recent years to reduce its reliance on contractors, I believe DOD must
continue to manage its workforce in a way that avoids inappropriate or
excessive reliance on contractor support for basic Department
functions, while also meeting its obligations to perform work
efficiently and effectively and to be a good steward of taxpayer
resources. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department implements a
workforce strategy that aligns functions and work among military,
civilian, and contracted services in a cost effective, and balanced
manner consistent with workload requirements, funding availability, and
laws and regulations.
Question. If confirmed, how do you plan to address the issue of
cost growth in services contracting and ensure that the Department gets
the most for its money in this area?
Answer. If confirmed, I will continue the efforts of the
administration and the Department to improve the visibility and
accountability of contracted services by expanding and refining the
data we collect from contractors, as required by statute, in order to
compare it to our civilian and military workforce planning factors.
Question. U.S. military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan have
relied on contractor support to a greater degree than previous U.S.
military operations. According to widely published reports, the number
of U.S. contractor employees in Iraq and Afghanistan has often exceeded
the number of U.S. military deployed in those countries.
Do you believe that DOD has become too dependent on contractor
support for military operations?
Answer. At this time I don't have enough information to make an
assessment. While many support functions for military operations are
appropriate for contract support, some are more closely associated with
work that should be performed by government employees (military or
civilian), or other Federal agencies. I am aware of recent
recommendations made by the Commission on Wartime Contracting and the
GAO regarding such dependence and, if confirmed, I will support ongoing
efforts to implement those recommendations as appropriate.
Question. What risks do you see in the Department's reliance on
such contractor support? What steps do you believe the Department
should take to mitigate such risk?
Answer. Reliance on contractor support can lead to operational risk
if contractors fail to perform or perform outside the scope of
appropriately defined roles. Our experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan
have also shown that additional risk is introduced when there is poor
government oversight, further increasing the potential for fraud,
waste, and abuse. We also know that government oversight is critical to
ensure appropriate contractor interaction with local communities.
If confirmed, I will support the Department's ongoing efforts to
minimize any over-reliance on contractors and ensure the appropriate
mix of military, civilian, and contract personnel in theater. I will
also review the Department's progress in implementing recommendations
made by the Commission on Wartime Contracting, the GAO, and the
legislative mandates in the NDAA regarding operational contracting
requirements including considerations for contract support as part of
the national military strategy, the QDR, and the Chairman's annual risk
assessment.
Question. Do you believe the Department is appropriately organized
and staffed to effectively manage contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. I do not have enough information yet to make a full
assessment of this issue. However, I believe that investments made over
the last few years in the Department's acquisition workforce, as well
as the implementation of recommendations made by the Commission on
Wartime Contracting and the GAO, have vastly improved the Department's
ability to effectively manage contractors on the battlefield. If
confirmed, I will continue to improve our capabilities in this critical
area.
Question. What steps if any do you believe the Department should
take to improve its management of contractors on the battlefield?
Answer. At this time I don't have enough information to identify
specific steps or actions necessary to improve management of
contractors on the battlefield. If confirmed, I will work with the
Chairman, the Joint Chiefs, the combatant commanders, and other
Department leadership to ensure commanders in the field have the
necessary resources and access to information to effectively manage
contract support and mitigate against potential risks.
private security contractors
Question. Federal agencies including DOD have spent more than $5
billion for private security contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan over
the last decade. Over this period, there have been numerous reports of
abuses and questionable activities by private security contractors in
both countries.
Do you believe DOD and other Federal agencies should rely upon
contractors to perform security functions that may reasonably be
expected to require the use of deadly force in highly hazardous public
areas in an area of combat operations?
Answer. I believe it may be appropriate to use private security
contractors for specific security functions in contingency operations
when they are limited by specific rules for the use of force. Such
functions include providing security for our military bases in areas of
operations and protecting supply convoys. Without a significant
increase in end strength and resources, the Department would not have
the capacity to take on all the missions private security contractors
are able to fill. However, the Department must provide proper guidance
and supervision when using private security contractors and must ensure
they do not engage in combat operations. I cannot comment on the use of
private security contractors by other Federal agencies.
Question. In your view, has the U.S. reliance upon private security
contractors to perform such functions risked undermining our defense
and foreign policy objectives in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Answer. The use of private security contractors in support of
contingency operations always requires careful oversight. The
misapplication of the use of force by private security contractors can
undermine our strategic objectives. If confirmed, I will ensure DOD has
established policies and procedures to effectively manage private
security contractors to prevent actions that would be detrimental to
our policy objectives.
Question. Section 846 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 requires DOD
to carry out risk assessments and risk mitigation plans whenever it
relies on contractors to perform critical functions in support of OCOs.
What steps will you take, if confirmed, to implement the
requirements of section 846?
Answer. I believe that contract support is an essential part of the
total force and will remain so in the future. In many cases contractors
are absolutely vital. For example transportation command heavily uses
contractors to move personnel and equipment. If confirmed, I will
ensure that the DOD policy and operational guidance addresses the
requirements of section 846 and that proper risk assessments and risk
mitigation plans are conducted.
Question. What steps if any would you take, if confirmed, to ensure
that any private security contractors who may continue to operate in an
area of combat operations act in a responsible manner, consistent with
U.S. defense and foreign policy objectives?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure DOD has policies that
effectively guide the operations of private security contractors when
they are used, and that we provide proper oversight. We must also
strive to ensure that all contractors, including private security
contractors, are appropriately legally accountable for their actions,
and that private security contractors that operate in an area of combat
and contingency operations act responsibly.
efficiency in department operations
Question. The Joint Chiefs recently stated that, ``we must be given
the latitude to enact the cost-saving reforms we need while eliminating
the weapons and facilities we do not need.''
In your view, what latitude must be given to the Joint Chiefs to
enact cost-saving reforms?
Answer. It is my understanding that the Joint Chiefs supported some
hard choices that were made in the fiscal year 2013 President's budget
in order to achieve the savings required to sustain the new defense
strategy. The Joint Chiefs need Congress to provide them the latitude
to implement those changes and allow them to execute the new strategy.
I also understand that it is now a zero sum game. If the Department is
not able to implement the changes proposed, other offsets must be made,
while still preserving warfighting capability.
Question. If confirmed, how would you work with the Joint Chiefs to
eliminate unneeded weapons?
Answer. If confirmed, I look forward to the opportunity to sit down
with the Joint Chiefs and to work together to thoroughly review,
identify, and eliminate any effort that is outdated or no longer needed
by the Department.
Question. Do you support the administration's request for the
authority to conduct two rounds of Bases Realignments and Closures
(BRAC) to eliminate unneeded facilities?
Answer. I understand that the administration's proposal for two
rounds of BRAC was not accepted by Congress. However, I also think any
prudent manager has to look at all options when faced with significant
budget pressures. As with industry, the Department should examine its
infrastructure and eliminate excess. The BRAC process is not perfect,
but I believe BRAC is a fair and comprehensive way to right-size the
Department's footprint, and is the best process identified to date. If
confirmed, I would have to look at the need for BRAC in the future.
Question. If so, given the recent report by GAO of the excessive
costs of the 2005 BRAC round, what would be your priorities in carrying
out a round of BRAC?
Answer. It is my understanding that the 2005 BRAC round was an
anomaly, the only round conducted while the Department was growing. It
focused on transformation, jointness, and relocating forces from
overseas. A future BRAC round is more likely to be like the rounds in
1993 and 1995 where excess capacity was reduced.
acquisition workforce
Question. Over the last 15 years, DOD has reduced the size of its
acquisition workforce by almost half, without undertaking any
systematic planning or analysis to ensure that it would have the
specific skills and competencies needed to meet DOD's current and
future needs. Since September 11, 2001, moreover, the demands placed on
that workforce have substantially increased. Section 852 of the NDAA
for Fiscal Year 2008 established an Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund to help DOD address shortcomings in its acquisition workforce.
This requirement was revised and updated by section 803 of the NDAA for
Fiscal Year 2013.
Do you agree that the Department would be ``penny-wise and pound
foolish'' to try to save money by cutting corners on its acquisition
workforce at the risk or losing control over the hundreds of billions
of dollars that it spends every year on the acquisition of products and
services?
Answer. Yes. It is imperative that DOD act as a good steward of the
resources entrusted to it by the American people. A properly qualified
and sized acquisition workforce is central to maintaining this
stewardship and to ensuring that the Department obtains as much value
as possible for the money that it spends obtaining products and
services from contractors.
Question. Do you believe that the Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund is needed to ensure that DOD has the right number of employees
with the right skills to run its acquisition programs in the most cost
effective manner for the taxpayers?
Answer. I understand that the Acquisition Workforce Development
Fund has provided funds necessary for strengthening the acquisition
workforce with regard to both its size and skills. I support this goal
and, if confirmed, will work with Congress to ensure that the Fund is
used effectively to build the capability of the Department's
acquisition workforce.
human capital planning
Question. DOD faces a critical shortfall in key areas of its
civilian workforce, including the management of acquisition programs,
information technology systems and financial management, and senior DOD
officials have expressed alarm at the extent of the Department's
reliance on contractors in these areas. Section 115b of title 10,
U.S.C., requires the Department to develop a strategic workforce plan
to shape and improve its civilian employee workforce.
Would you agree that the Departments human capital, including its
civilian workforce, is critical to the accomplishment of its national
security mission?
Answer. Yes. I agree. The civilian workforce performs key enabling
functions for the military, such as critical training and preparation
to ensure readiness, equipment reset and modernization. Civilians also
provide medical care, family support, and base operating services--all
vital to supporting our men and women in uniform.
Question. Do you share the concern expressed by others about the
extent of the Departments reliance on contractors in critical areas
such as the management of acquisition programs, information technology
and financial management?
Answer. Yes. We must ensure that we have a properly sized, and
highly capable, civilian workforce that maintains critical skills and
prevents an overreliance on contracted services. If confirmed, I will
support the administration's focus on reducing inappropriate or
excessive reliance on contracted support.
Question. If confirmed, will you ensure that the Department
undertakes necessary human capital planning to ensure that its civilian
workforce is prepared to meet the challenges of the coming decades?
Answer. Yes. If confirmed, I will ensure departmental human capital
planning employs strategies for recruitment, development, and retention
of a mission-ready civilian workforce.
Question. Section 955 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 requires a
5-percent reduction in anticipated funding levels for the civilian
personnel workforce and the service contractor workforce of DOD,
subject to certain exclusions.
What impact do you expect the implementation of section 955 to have
on the programs and operations of DOD?
Answer. I do not have enough information at this time to speak to
potential impact. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department's
implementation of section 955, both in the civilian and contracted
support workforces, is done in a manner that best mitigates risk to
programs and operations, while maintaining core capabilities and
support to our warfighters and their families.
Question. What steps will you take, if confirmed, to ensure that
section 955 is implemented in a manner that is consistent with the
requirements of section 129a of title 10, U.S.C., for determining the
most appropriate and cost-efficient mix of military, civilian and
service contractor personnel to perform DOD missions?
Answer. If confirmed, I will ensure implementation of section 955
recognizes that the sourcing of work among military (both Active and
Reserve components), civilian, and contracted services must be
consistent with requirements, funding availability, and applicable
laws.
Question. What processes will you put in place, if confirmed, to
ensure that the Department implements a sound planning process for
carrying out the requirements of section 955, including the
implementation of the exclusion authority in section 955(c)?
Answer. If confirmed, I will review the current processes the
Department has for workforce determinations, along with existing
management structures and tools. I do not currently have enough
information regarding possible specific exclusions, but will ensure
that the workforces of the Department are sized to perform the
functions and activities necessary to achieve the missions of the
Department.
test and evaluation
Question. If confirmed, will you make it a priority to ensure that
the Department as a whole and each of the Services specifically
maintains its testing organizations, infrastructure, and budgets at
levels adequate to address both our current and future acquisition
needs?
Answer. Yes. Test and evaluation is a critical element of our
acquisition system, that providing the measured and objective insight
into a system's performance that is essential to making sound
programmatic decisions.
Question. A natural tension exists between major program objectives
to reduce cost and schedule and the test and evaluation objective to
ensure performance meets specifications and requirements. What is your
assessment of the appropriate balance between the desire to reduce
acquisition cycle times and the need to perform adequate testing?
Answer. Test and evaluation provides acquisition decisionmakers
with accurate and objective information on system performance necessary
to inform critical acquisition decisions. My view is that we should
generally not gamble on the performance of a weapons system when a
reasonable amount of testing will significantly reduce the risk of
redesign or major changes after production has been started. If
confirmed, I will closely monitor the balance between reducing
acquisition cycle time and conducting adequate testing to ensure
warfighters receive affordable, operationally effective, and suitable
systems when they need them.
Question. Under what circumstances, if any, do you believe we
should procure weapon systems and equipment that has not been
demonstrated through test and evaluation to be operationally effective,
suitable, and survivable?
Answer. I understand that test and evaluation plays a critical role
in product development and fielding. I believe that there are only a
limited number of cases where it might be necessary to field a system
prior to operational testing--for example, to address an urgent gap in
a critical operational capability in an ongoing or imminent conflict.
Even when fielding is accelerated to meet an urgent need, applicable
statutes governing the test process must be complied with. There must
be some level of testing to ensure basic operational performance and
the safety of the system and to evaluate the system's capabilities and
limitations to identify any deficiencies that might need to be
corrected.
Question. Congress established the position of Director of
Operational Test and Evaluation to serve as an independent voice on
matters relating to operational testing of weapons systems. As
established, the Director has a unique and direct relationship with
Congress, consistent with the statutory independence of the office.
Do you support the continued ability of the Director of Operational
Test and Evaluation's to speak freely and independently with Congress?
Answer. Yes.
funding for science and technology (s&t) investments and workforce
Question. In his State of the Union speech in 2010, the President
said that ``maintaining our leadership in science and technology is
crucial to America's success.'' The DOD budget submissions for fiscal
years 2012 and 2013 supported continued investment in science and
technology, despite the significant budget pressure.
Do you support maintaining growth in the DOD's S&T investments?
Answer. I understand and appreciate the importance of government
investment in science and technology in the area of national security.
Maintaining technological superiority against current and projected
adversaries underpins our National Security Strategy and it is only
through this investment that we can sustain this critical edge. I fully
support the President's commitment to science and technology, and if
confirmed, I will work to support science and technology investments in
our defense budget.
Question. How will you assess whether the science and technology
investment portfolio is adequate to meet the current and future needs
of the Department?
Answer. If confirmed, I anticipate conducting reviews of the
Department's current science and technology investment strategy, in the
context of the Department's priorities and capability needs. I also
acknowledge the necessity of maintaining a strong technology base.
Question. Well over half of all graduates of U.S. universities with
advanced degrees in science and technology are non-U.S. citizens. Due
to a variety of reasons, many return to their home countries where they
contribute to competing against the United States in technology
advancement.
What is your view on steps that the Department should take, if any,
to ensure that DOD and the defense industrial base are able to recruit
and retain scientists and engineers from this talent pool?
Answer. In order to maintain our technology superiority, it is
essential for the Department to attract the best and brightest minds.
The President made clear in his recent inaugural address that including
bright students and engineers from abroad in America's workforce is an
imperative for our future. If confirmed, I will work within the
Department and the administration to find ways in which the Department
could enhance its skilled workforce, to include its scientific and
engineering segments, by drawing upon a broad talent pool and by
seeking to recruit and retain the best possible individuals, within the
construct of national security requirements.
defense industrial base
Question. The latest QDR addressed the need for strengthening the
defense industrial base. Specifically, it said: ``America's security
and prosperity are increasingly linked with the health of our
technology and industrial bases. In order to maintain our strategic
advantage well into the future, the Department requires a consistent,
realistic, and long-term strategy for shaping the structure and
capabilities of the defense technology and industrial bases--a strategy
that better accounts for the rapid evolution of commercial technology,
as well as the unique requirements of ongoing conflicts.''
What is your understanding and assessment of the current state of
the U.S. defense industry?
Answer. I understand the Department relies on a broadened technical
and industrial base that is now far more global, commercial, and
financially complex than ever before. For the past decade the defense
industrial base has enjoyed a period of increasing budgets that is now
at an end. While I think our industrial base is currently strong, I am
concerned about the impact that further defense budget cuts would have
on the ability of the base to provide the broad range of products and
services that the Department and our Nation need. If confirmed, the
continuing health of the industrial base will be a high priority for
me.
Question. Do you support further consolidation of the U.S. defense
industry?
Answer. Expansion and consolidation of industries and companies is
the hallmark of a robust free market economy as it responds to the
market forces. I expect, and encourage, the free market to act when
faced with changing demands. However, I believe the Government must
also be watchful for consolidations that eliminate competition or cause
market distortions. At the end of the Cold War there was a major
consolidation at the top tier of defense businesses. My understanding
is that the Department's leadership have indicated that further
consolidation at the top tier would not be viewed favorably. I have not
studied this in detail; however, my initial assessment is that this is
the correct view. I also believe that each individual case of
consolidation, acquisition, or merger dealing with our defense firms
must be examined carefully for what is best for the warfighter and the
taxpayer, particularly with regard to its impact on competition.
Question. What is your position on foreign investment in the U.S.
defense sector?
Answer. Foreign investment has generally benefitted the United
States, including DOD, by providing needed capital and increasing
access to leading-edge technologies. However, I believe foreign
investment in the defense sector can also expose critical national
defense-related technologies to risks, including loss of the
intellectual property that gives our military personnel the
technological edge they rely upon. Congress has put provisions in place
to address critical national security concerns of this nature,
including the Committee on Foreign Interests in the United States led
by the Department of the Treasury. If confirmed, I will continue DOD's
commitment to its oversight function and to ensuring that national
security concerns are addressed in transactions that involve foreign
investments in the United States, including investments in the defense
sector.
Question. If confirmed, what steps if any do you believe DOD should
take to most effectively and efficiently manage risk and ensure the
continued health of the U.S. defense industrial base?
Answer. If confirmed, I would seek to ensure the sources of
manufacturing and services in the industrial base that the Department
relies on are capable of meeting our warfighters' requirements. I will
ensure that the Department proactively monitors the base to identify
any risks that need to be addressed. When necessary and as resources
permit, the Department should be prepared to act to ensure that key
industrial capabilities are sustained, although, unfortunately, this
will not be possible in every case. I will also make myself accessible
to the best source of information on the industry's concerns--industry
itself. This means working closely and communicating with private
industry to ensure that, as the Department makes changes necessary to
adapt to a new set of strategic and budgetary challenges, it does not
inadvertently jeopardize critical elements of the industrial base. I
believe the Department must simultaneously be receptive to industry's
concerns and address their issues as effectively as possible,
consistent with the Department's priorities and the resources
available.
reset and reconstitution funding
Question. The Department has a substantial backlog of maintenance
availabilities due to the high tempo and demand of more than a decade
of combat operations. Senior DOD officials have testified that they
will require 2 to 3 years of additional funding to restore readiness
through reset and reconstitution of their equipment and personnel.
Do you agree with the assessment that the DOD will need 2 to 3
years of additional funding for reset and reconstitution?
Answer. I would need to review the facts behind the specific
estimate of 2 to 3 years; however, I believe that it will require
considerable time to repair equipment returning from operations in
Afghanistan because of the nature of the repairs and difficulty of
removing the equipment from theater.
Question. If confirmed, how will you balance maintenance and reset
requirements with fiscal realities and future risk in developing your
budget request?
Answer. The goal of reset and reconstitution is to produce ready
units with the equipment they need for contingencies or current
operations. Any further budget cuts must be balanced against this need
for ready units, and, if confirmed, I will work with the services to
prioritize the readiness of the units needed to implement the
President's strategy.
operational energy
Question. Last July, the Assistant Secretary of Defense for
Operational Energy Plans and Programs published a policy that any
alternative drop-in replacement fuel procured for DOD-wide use and
distribution within the Class III (Bulk) supply chain must compete with
petroleum products and any awards will be based on the ability to meet
requirements at the best value to the government, including cost.
What is your view of this policy?
Answer. I understand this policy to be a positive one. It is
prudent for the Department to engage in tests and demonstrations that
confirm defense equipment can operate on a range of fuels; however, as
the Department allocates its limited resources to ensure it delivers
necessary warfighting capability, it should only buy large volumes of
these fuels when they are cost-competitive with petroleum products.
Question. What is your assessment of section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act of 2007 and how it should apply to
military operations of DOD?
Answer. My understanding is that section 526 has not restricted the
Department from purchasing whatever fuel it has needed to support
military operations. Rather, section 526 applies only to contracts that
are for the express purpose of buying alternative or synthetic fuel. As
long as mission capability is not restricted, it is helpful to have
this guidance that new fuels should not be any more polluting than
fuels produced from conventional petroleum sources.
Question. Considering the potential of further cuts to Defense
budgets and the importance of energy security, do you believe DOD
should jointly invest with other government agencies in the
construction of a commercial biofuels refinery?
Answer. I understand the Department is in the early planning stages
of such a project, undertaken in partnership with the private sector
and the Departments of Energy and Agriculture, which have the lead
roles for the Federal Government in promoting biofuels. I have not
reviewed this project; however, I believe the Nation's long-term energy
security would benefit from a competitive, domestic renewable fuels
industry--the Department has a long history of contributing to national
innovation by innovating to meet the defense mission. As a major
consumer of liquid fuels, the Department would benefit from that
industry as well. That said, I am not yet in a position to comment on
the trade-offs between the value of this investment and the other
priorities of the Department. Given the Department's funding
constraints, I would, if confirmed, examine the value of this
investment carefully before authorizing it to proceed.
Question. If confirmed, what priorities would you establish for
Defense investments in energy technologies?
Answer. My broad priorities for defense energy investments will be
those that: increase military capabilities, provide more mission
success, and lower total cost. If confirmed, I will focus on both
operational effectiveness and efficiency--improving the energy
performance of aircraft, ships, ground vehicles, and military bases;
reducing the vulnerability of our fuel supply lines; lowering the load
our expeditionary forces must carry; and diversifying the energy
supplies we use.
law of the sea convention
Question. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea is
pending consideration in the U.S. Senate.
What is your view on whether or not the United States should join
the Law of the Sea convention?
Answer. I strongly support U.S. accession to the Law of the Sea
Convention. Ratification would allow the United States to take its
rightful place and enjoy the benefits and protections of this treaty.
Question. How would being a party to the Law of the Sea convention
help or hinder the United States' security posture?
Answer. Becoming a party to the Law of the Sea Convention would
enhance the U.S. security posture around the globe in several
significant ways. First and foremost, accession would enable the United
States to reinforce all of the rights, freedoms, and uses of the sea
codified in the Convention, including the navigational and over-flight
rights that are critical to the global mobility of U.S. forces as well
as the right to submit extended continental shelf claims that would
help us preserve the rights to potential resources. Additionally,
accession would help the United States to promote a common rules-based
approach among other nations to peacefully resolve their territorial
and maritime disputes, particularly in East Asia. Further, accession
would add to the Department's credibility in a large number of Asia-
focused multilateral venues where Law of the Sea matters are discussed.
Lastly, accession would reassure some nations who have expressed
concerns of the legality of cooperative security efforts that United
States supports, such as the Proliferation Security Initiative. The
United States has longstanding interests in freedom of the seas and
respect for international law, and our accession to the Convention
would further demonstrate our commitment to those national interests.
congressional oversight
Question. In order to exercise its legislative and oversight
responsibilities, it is important that this committee and other
appropriate committees of Congress are able to receive testimony,
briefings, and other communications of information.
Do you agree, if confirmed for this high position, to appear before
this committee and other appropriate committees of Congress?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree, if confirmed, to appear before this
committee, or designated members of this committee, and provide
information, subject to appropriate and necessary security protection,
with respect to your responsibilities as Secretary of Defense?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to ensure that testimony, briefings, and
other communications of information are provided to this committee and
its staff and other appropriate committees?
Answer. Yes.
Question. Do you agree to provide documents, including copies of
electronic forms of communication, in a timely manner when requested by
a duly constituted committee, or to consult with the committee
regarding the basis for any good faith delay or denial in providing
such documents?
Answer. Yes.
______

[Questions for the record with answers supplied follow:]
Questions Submitted by Senator Carl Levin
u.s.-armenian defense relationship
1. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, what is your assessment of the U.S.-
Armenia defense relationship, and what steps, if any, would you take to
strengthen that relationship?
Mr. Hagel. The U.S.-Armenia defense relationship is sound. As with
all relationships, there is room to grow and areas where we can
strengthen our cooperation and partnership. That growth will be based
on shared interests and willingness to cooperate, available resources,
and capacity to absorb new capabilities and missions.
If confirmed, I would continue to engage Armenian leaders to
strengthen existing areas of engagement and identify new areas of
cooperation that support Armenia's defense reforms, especially its
peacekeeping brigade, and continue its ability to deploy in coalition
operations. I would look for the United States to be Armenia's partner
of choice and help Armenia's defense establishment contribute to
regional security and stability.

nuclear triad
2. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, the Global Zero report provides an
illustrative example of a future alternative nuclear policy and force
structure in the 2022 timeframe that would eliminate, through
negotiated international agreements, our land-based Intercontinental
Ballistic Missiles (ICBM) as a means to reduce the size of our nuclear
forces consistent with our obligations under Article VI of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT).
Do agree with General Kehler, the Commander of U.S. Strategic
Command and with the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that at the
present time, the triad of strategic nuclear forces continues to serve
U.S. national security interests?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I agree that the NPR's recommendation remains the
right one at the present time. I believe that the triad's mix of ICBMs,
submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable
heavy bombers continues to support U.S. national security interests
under New START limits.

malign iranian influence
3. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, Iran supports proxies in Lebanon,
Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and the Western Hemisphere. In your
view, what is the impact of Iran's activities in places such as
Lebanon, Yemen, Iraq, Afghanistan, Bahrain, and the Western Hemisphere?
Mr. Hagel. Iranian support for proxy groups and terrorist
activities in the Middle East region and in places around the world
constitutes a serious threat not only for the stability of our partners
and allies who are directly impacted by these activities, but also for
U.S. interests. In short, Iran's activities are malevolent and intended
to be destabilizing. If confirmed, I intend to focus intently on
countering Iran's malign influence--including preventing Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon.

4. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, in your view, what role--if any--
should the Department of Defense (DOD) play in countering malign
Iranian influence in the Middle East?
Mr. Hagel. In my view, DOD could help to counter Iranian malign
activities in at least three ways. First, the Department should support
diplomatic and intelligence efforts to inhibit the activities of
Iranian proxy and terrorist groups. Second, the Department can leverage
its presence in the region to deter and, when directed by the
President, disrupt Iranian malign activities. Third, the Department
could leverage its extensive security cooperation relationships with
countries in the Middle East and around the world to partner in
countering Iranian destabilizing activities.

syria
5. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, the civil war in Syria continues and
President Assad's commitment to continuing his regime's ongoing
operations appears unwavering--despite broad international
condemnation. You have indicated that you share the Obama
administration's position that Assad must go. In your view, what is the
most effective way to bring about the end of the Assad regime?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that a political transition should remain our
goal. The best way to weaken the Assad regime at this time is through
political, diplomatic and economic pressure, as well as assisting the
unarmed opposition. If confirmed, I will support the President's
ongoing reassessment of the continuously changing conditions on the
ground in Syria to determine what additional steps may be appropriate.

6. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, what is your assessment of the
composition and intentions of the Syrian opposition?
Mr. Hagel. Based on my observations, the opposition is made up
largely of Syrians wanting to free themselves from a repressive ruler.
An important exception is the Al Nusrah Front, which the State
Department has listed as an alias of al Qaeda in Iraq. In my view, the
United States should continue to encourage the Syrian Opposition
Council to pursue an approach that isolates extremist elements but is
inclusive of a broad range of communities inside Syria, and I will
continue this policy if confirmed.

7. Senator Levin. Mr. Hagel, are the opposition's motivations
consistent with U.S. interests in the region?
Mr. Hagel. In Syria, the opposition is made up of disparate groups
with varying interests and values. I believe that the Syrian Opposition
Council's fundamental motivation to end Assad's rule is consistent with
U.S. interests. U.S. efforts in Syria should aim to partner with those
groups that share U.S. interests and values, and isolate those groups--
such as the Al Nusrah Front--which do not.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Jack Reed
armenian genocide
8. Senator Reed. Mr. Hagel, could you please provide clarification
of your views on the Armenian genocide?
Mr. Hagel. As President Obama has emphasized in his April 24th
Remembrance Day statements, the achievement of a full, frank, and just
acknowledgement of the facts of what occurred in 1915 is in all of our
interests. I further concur with the President that the best way to
advance that goal is for the Armenian and Turkish people to address the
facts of the past as a part of their efforts to move forward. If
confirmed, I would continue to strongly support the State Department's
efforts to work with Armenia and Turkey to normalize relations so they
can forge relationships that are peaceful, productive, and prosperous.

global zero report
9. Senator Reed. Mr. Hagel, there have been a number of questions
raised about the Global Zero report on U.S. nuclear policy and force
structure. I want to make sure we understand the context of that
report. Is it correct that the report provides an illustrative
alternative nuclear policy and force structure 10 years in the future--
as an example of how we could continue to reduce our reliance on and
the number of nuclear forces, in line with our future security
requirements?
Mr. Hagel. In the Global Zero report we took a longer-term view of
what might be possible under different circumstances. The policy and
force structure it provided was indeed illustrative in nature. The
study group's analysis was intended to provide a stimulus to national
debate about how many nuclear weapons may be enough in the future, and
to illustrate a possible pathway forward.

10. Senator Reed. Mr. Hagel, is it correct that the illustrative
reductions envisioned would be made through bilateral and multilateral
negotiated arms control agreements?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I agree with the administration's view, as stated
in the 2010 NPR, that large disparities in nuclear capabilities on
either the United States or the Russian side could raise concerns and
could hinder our pursuit of a stable, long-term U.S.-Russian
relationship. Therefore, I agree that further reductions should be
negotiated bilaterally or, if appropriate, multilaterally.

11. Senator Reed. Mr. Hagel, is it correct that pursuing additional
reductions to our nuclear forces, beyond the limits established in the
New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), is consistent with our
obligations under Article VI of the NPT, and with the findings and
conclusions of the April 2010 NPR?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, I believe that pursuing negotiated reductions below
New START levels would be consistent with both Article VI of the NPT
and with the conclusions of the 2010 NPR.

12. Senator Reed. Mr. Hagel, is it correct that the illustrative
example of an alternative U.S. nuclear policy and force structure in
the next decade would be consistent with maintaining a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear deterrent force?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Bill Nelson
strategic dispersal
13. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, our Nation must recognize the
spectrum of threats that confront us daily, and position our assets
accordingly. Pearl Harbor taught us assets and resources should not be
concentrated in one place. Dispersing our capital ships is in our best
national security interest and specifically, dispersing the East Coast
carrier fleet is a national security priority. One needs to only look
at the Pacific Fleet to see an excellent example of strategic
dispersal. The Navy has stationed its Pacific Fleet at four different
homeports--San Diego, CA; Bremerton, WA; Everett, WA; and Japan, but
has been slow to accomplish the same thing with our Atlantic Fleet. The
military decision to disperse the fleet has been studied, and
restudied. Admiral after admiral, secretary after secretary, have all
testified keeping a second Atlantic homeport is essential to national
security. In addition, the 2010 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)
clearly states, ``To mitigate the risk of a terrorist attack, accident,
or natural disaster, the U.S. Navy will homeport an East Coast carrier
in Mayport, Florida.''
Moving a carrier from Norfolk, VA, to Mayport is a cost-effective
national security objective. As Secretary of Defense, will you maintain
the DOD's support for moving a carrier from Norfolk to Mayport and, as
your predecessors have done, will you ensure strategic dispersal is
again added as an objective in the 2014 QDR?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that our country faces a spectrum of threats and
concur that strategic dispersal is a critical element in reducing risk
and providing strategic flexibility in the event of natural disaster,
manmade calamity or attack by a foreign nation or terrorists. If
confirmed, I will look at strategic dispersal as a means of ensuring we
address strategic risk to our national security objectives. I support
the Department's efforts to continue to prepare Mayport for carrier
access.

14. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, will you support the addition of
programmed funds in the next President's budget to do so?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will ensure future budgets and the
upcoming QDR evaluate all options to maximize our strategic objectives,
including strategic dispersal of our carriers on the east coast.

excess capacity in overseas military installations
15. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, the value of having a forward
footprint with our men and women stationed abroad, as well as the
cooperation it breeds with our allies, is critical to our national
security. However, I am concerned about the excess capacity of U.S.
military bases in overseas locations and the drain of our taxpayers
dollars to maintain these installations. I believe this excess capacity
and the potential for savings needs to be addressed before we begin to
close or realign domestic installations. Please share your thoughts on
this issue.
Mr. Hagel. A prudent manager has to look at all options when faced
with significant budget pressure. That includes reviewing options for
consolidation overseas--particularly in Europe, where the Department is
reducing force structure and there are clear opportunities to reduce
supporting infrastructure. The Department should begin this review
immediately, as specific legislation is not required to consider base
closures overseas. However, this should not preclude the Department
from taking simultaneous action to realize infrastructure savings at
domestic installations. Given the size of the cuts the Department is
facing, it is unrealistic to expect to achieve all necessary savings by
looking only at overseas infrastructure.

moratorium on drilling in the gulf of mexico
16. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, in 2006, you cosponsored the Gulf of
Mexico Energy Security Act to restrict leasing in areas of the eastern
Gulf of Mexico within 125 miles of Florida, including areas in the Gulf
of Mexico east of the military mission line. Previous Secretaries of
Defense (Rumsfield, Gates) supported a moratorium on drilling east of
the military mission line. These training ranges are vital for our
fifth generation air superiority assets--F-22, F-35--as well as
providing an area for the critical testing of the weaponry on various
airframes. As Secretary of Defense, will you maintain this vital
military test and training area?
Mr. Hagel. My understanding is that the Department conducted
analysis in 2010 that identified some parts of this region where
drilling would not interfere with military activities if the drilling
activities are significantly constrained--for example, in some regions,
drilling was deemed compatible if the structures were subsurface. If
confirmed, I will review this analysis and ensure the Department does
not put critical military test and training capabilities at risk.

afghanistan drawdown
17. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, President Obama plans to withdraw
combat forces from Afghanistan by 2014. The U.S. and North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) allies are transitioning from fighting to
training and advising the Afghan security forces, and during his recent
meeting with President Karzai, President Obama signaled the transition
to Afghan security forces may be accelerated. What footprint should the
U.S. and NATO allies have after 2014?
Mr. Hagel. The President has stated, and I agree, that the scope of
the international mission in Afghanistan after 2014 should focus on two
primary objectives: first, to deny safe haven to al Qaeda and its
affiliates; and second, to train, advise, and assist the Afghan forces
so they can maintain their own security. This mission shift is
consistent with what was agreed upon by the United States, NATO allies,
and ISAF and Afghan partners at the Chicago NATO Summit last year and
also with our long-term Strategic Partnership Agreement with the Afghan
Government, signed May 1, 2012. I understand that the President is
considering a range of options provided by his military commanders and
national security team. I have not been a part of those discussions,
but, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that the appropriate resources
and capabilities are made available for the post-2014 mission.

18. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, how will the Afghanistan Government
afford to maintain their military operations?
Mr. Hagel. At the 2012 NATO Summit in Chicago, the United States,
NATO allies, and other international partners pledged to provide
significant financial assistance after 2014 to help maintain the Afghan
National Security Forces (ANSF). The Afghan Government also pledged to
provide at least $500 million a year for the ANSF beginning in 2015,
and to increase this amount over time as its economy grows. The
international donor community has also pledged its support to
Afghanistan's continued economic and social development after 2014
through commitments made at the 2012 Tokyo conference, including
pledges for $16 billion in civilian aid over 4 years. With this
support, as Afghanistan's economy grows and its revenues increase,
Afghanistan will increasingly be able to take responsibility for future
security costs. Further, it is my understanding that DOD is working
closely with the Afghan Government to ensure that the force we are
building and developing is a sustainable one. If confirmed, I will
continue to work closely with the Afghan Government to ensure that the
ANSF is sustainable within available resources.

camp lejeune water contamination
19. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, Florida has 16,000 veterans and
civilians in the Camp Lejeune water contamination registry, second only
to North Carolina. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
(ATSDR) is completing studies designed to determine the size and scope
of water contamination at Camp Lejeune. In January, ATSDR released the
preliminary results of a drinking water study, which shows the
following:

Housing complex drinking water was contaminated with
dry cleaning solvents from 1957 to 1987 above the current
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) limits.
Separate housing areas were contaminated with organic
compounds (from 1 million gallons of spilled gasoline) from
1953 to 1985 above the current EPA limits.

Recent ATSDR findings show drinking water contamination at Camp
Lejeune from 1953 through 1987. Although the U.S. Navy Bureau of
Medicine had established Navy drinking water standards during this time
period, DOD continues to state that no standards existed. As Secretary
of Defense, will you ensure that these misleading statements from the
Navy and Marine Corps receive the proper oversight from you?
Mr. Hagel. The health and well-being of our servicemembers, their
families, and civilian employees is of the utmost importance to me. If
confirmed, I will be committed to finding answers to the many questions
surrounding the historic water quality issue at Camp Lejeune and
ensuring appropriate oversight of these efforts. Working with the
leaders of the Navy and Marine Corps, I will engage the proper experts
and review all the facts pertaining to the Bureau of Medicine
Instruction to which you refer, ensuring that accurate information is
provided to all who believe they may have been exposed to contaminated
water at Camp Lejeune. The Department will continue to understand the
meaning of ongoing scientific efforts and provide comprehensive
science-based answers to our servicemembers, their families, and
civilian employees.
I applaud Congress' efforts to support families through the passage
of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families
Act of 2012 and I pledge to support the Department of Veterans Affairs
efforts to properly implement the legislation.

air force oversight
20. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, the Air Force recently released two
major decisions which affected Florida: the Air Force Materiel Command
(AFMC) reorganization and the KC-46 basing selection. We believe there
is room for improvement in regards to the Air Force routing and seeking
validation through the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) on
these very important decisions.
In regards to the KC-46 basing decision and the analysis to
determine future requirements, the level of engagement and coordination
between the Air Force and Combatant Commands (COCOM), as well as OSD
validation of the Air Force decision, requires additional attention.
On December 18, 2012, in section 2814 of the National Defense
Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2013, the Air Force was
directed to submit a report and include the efficiencies and
effectiveness associated with the AFMC reorganization, as well as the
extent to which the proposed changes were coordinated with OSD.
Critical decisions of a strategic nature need to be properly
coordinated with the COCOMs. As Secretary of Defense, how will you
direct your staff to ensure the Air Force seeks OSD validation prior to
releasing decisions such as these?
Mr. Hagel. It is my understanding that each Service has a
decisionmaking methodology and process for managing its operations,
organizational structure, and basing decisions. OSD oversees these
efforts, which involve key stakeholders including the COCOM. For
reorganization decisions such as these, I think it is important that
the Secretary of Defense allow the Military Departments the latitude to
make proposals to streamline management functions while also preserving
core capabilities. OSD oversight of this process ensures that affected
stakeholders have the opportunity to provide their perspective on the
implications of proposed changes. If confirmed, I will ensure my staff
and the combatant commands continue to appropriately examine the Air
Force approach to basing decisions.

taiwan relations act
21. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and
the Six Assurances of 1982 have contributed to the peace and stability
of the Asia-Pacific region for the past 3 decades. With the military
balance--including air superiority--gradually shifting in China's
favor, what are your plans to implement the security commitment the
United States has for Taiwan under this framework?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that the Taiwan Relations Act has contributed to
peace and stability in the region for over 30 years. In my view, the
increasing complexity and sophistication of the military threat to
Taiwan from China means that Taiwan must devote greater attention to
asymmetric concepts and innovative technologies to maximize Taiwan's
strengths and advantages. If confirmed, I would work closely with
Congress, throughout DOD, and with our interagency partners to ensure
the continued effective implementation of all of the relevant
provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.

22. Senator Nelson. Mr. Hagel, as Taiwan is likely to retire some
of its older fighter aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe
that sales of advanced aircraft are a next step in this commitment?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I would work closely with Congress,
throughout DOD and with our interagency partners to ensure the
continued effective implementation of all of the relevant provisions of
the Taiwan Relations Act. If confirmed, I will look at what specific
capabilities will help Taiwan meet its self-defense needs in light of
the security situation in the Taiwan Strait and the evolving military
capabilities on the mainland.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Claire McCaskill
contracting reform
23. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Hagel, in 2011, in its final report to
Congress, the Commission on Wartime Contracting found that as much as
$60 billion, roughly $12 million ``every day for the past 10 years,''
was lost to waste or fraud through contracts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In addition to the financial costs, the Commission found that poor
planning, management, and oversight of contracts damaged the United
States' strategic and diplomatic objectives overseas. Building on the
Commission's recommendations, last year I offered legislation, along
with our former Senate colleague, Jim Webb, to reform wartime
contracting practices within DOD, the Department of State, and the U.S.
Agency for International Development (USAID). Major provisions of this
legislation were signed into law as part of the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2013.
Section 843 of the new law requires the Secretary to establish a
chain of authority and responsibility for policy, planning, and
execution of operational contract support. Do I have your commitment to
direct the needed resources to look at our overreliance on contractors
and our loss of core capabilities in certain areas and to report back
to me on the responsibilities you lay out after this review?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. If confirmed, you have my commitment to look at the
Department's reliance on the use of contractors in contingency
operations and to assess what core capabilities should be retained in
DOD.

24. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Hagel, section 846 requires the
Secretary of Defense to conduct a risk assessment of certain types of
contracting, including not only private security contractors, but also
contracts for training, intelligence, and a host of other problem
areas. You have your pick of poster child case studies in Iraq and
Afghanistan to know this is a problem. DOD does not operate in a vacuum
in wartime. Do I have your commitment to work with the State Department
and USAID, who are also subject to this provision, and to conduct this
assessment based not just on whether you are legally entitled to
contract something out, but on whether it makes sense in the long term,
for both our military mission and our own future capabilities to do so?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. If confirmed, I will work with State Department and
USAID in conducting the required risk assessment of contingency
contracting from not just a legal perspective but also from the
perspective of our long-term capability needs.

f/a-18
25. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Hagel, the F/A-18 program has been a
model acquisition program, and continues to deliver Super Hornets on-
time and on-schedule at less than half the cost of an F-35. The fact
is, the Super Hornet is an aircraft that has performed superbly in
virtually every combat operation and delivers nearly all of the
capability.
As the F-35 program continues to slip, we are nearing the end of
the production line for the Super Hornet, which is currently scheduled
to shut down in 2014. I am concerned that the United States could be
left with a gap in the defense industrial bases' ability to produce
strike fighters and eliminates DOD's ability to rely on the F/A-18
lines to manage future F-35 cost, performance, and schedule risks. As
Secretary of Defense, how would you address this gap?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will assess the strike fighter
capability mix, the progress of the F-35, and the state of the F/A-18
production line to determine if a gap exists and evaluate the options
to address it for feasibility and affordability.

26. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Hagel, international sales of the F/A-18
could help mitigate the risk of the closing of domestic strike fighter
production line that can address our own strike fighter shortfall. Will
you ensure that DOD actively supports international sales of the F/A-
18?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department actively
supports foreign military sales of U.S. defense products including the
F-18.

sexual assault
27. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Hagel, DOD under Secretary Panetta's
leadership has implemented a number of initiatives to try to curb
sexual assaults in the military--a problem he has stated could be six
times greater than reported--and we have seen both military and
civilian leaders acknowledge that sexual assault is a problem that
affects the recruitment, retention, and readiness of our armed forces.
This committee has taken up the issue of sexual violence in the
military and has implemented some reforms in the NDAA, most recently in
fiscal year 2013.
We have seen some promising programs developed by the Services, as
well. You mentioned in one of your responses to the advance policy
questions that you look forward to hearing about the outcome of the Air
Force's pilot program that assigns an attorney to each victim of sexual
assault who requests one to represent them through the process. I have
been impressed by the training for special investigators going on at
the Army's Military Police School at Fort Leonard Wood in Missouri.
This course has been recognized as the ``gold standard'' for special
investigator training, which both DOD and Congress have encouraged the
other Services to follow.
As a former prosecutor, I understand how critically important the
investigation process is to the outcome of sexual assault cases. The
investigation process is also key for victims, as victims may feel more
comfortable coming forward to report their cases if they have
confidence that the military justice system is working and that
perpetrators will be brought to justice.
While I recognize each of the Military Services have a unique
history and culture, that should not be an excuse for refusing to adopt
best practices to combat a problem they all share. Will you push the
Services to adopt best practices in their efforts to combat sexual
assault?
Mr. Hagel. It is my understanding that the Services are sharing
information about their processes and working to adopt these best
practices across the Services. If confirmed, I will work to continue
and expand this important effort.

28. Senator McCaskill. Mr. Hagel, will you review whether the
Services have done enough, in your view, to address the problem of
sexual assault within the military?
Mr. Hagel. Sexual assault is a horrible crime and cannot be
tolerated, ignored, or condoned in DOD. If confirmed, I will be fully
committed to combating this crime and determined in reducing the
instance of sexual assault, with a goal of eliminating it from the
military.
I know that the over the past year, the Department has developed
and implemented several new policies and procedures to prevent the
crime of sexual assault, support victims, strengthen investigations,
and hold offenders appropriately accountable. I also know that these
efforts are not enough.
The Department must continue its multi-discplinary approach in
combatting sexual assault. Prevention efforts are important, so that
the crimes do not happen in the first place. These efforts must ensure
that every servicemember, from top to bottom in our military ranks,
knows that dignity and respect are core values we must all live by.
But accountability is key and people who violate the standards of
acceptable behavior must be held appropriately accountable for their
actions. I believe a positive first step was elevating the initial
disposition of the most serious sexual assault cases to the level of
colonel or Navy captain, or higher. Military commanders are essential
to making sexual assault prevention and response efforts successful.
I look forward to learning more about the Department's ongoing
program to develop Special Victims Capabilities across each of the
Services, a program legislated in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, and
which is under development in the Department in the form of special
training and standardized procedures for investigators, prosecutors,
paralegals, and victim witness liaisons. This program's objective is to
enhance the quality of investigations and accountability in sexual
assault cases and I fully support it.
I also look forward to hearing more about the impact of the Air
Force's pilot program, implemented in January, which assigns an
attorney to a victim of sexual assault who requests one to represent
them. I believe this could be a very good way to improve
accountability. It will improve victim confidence and increase the
number of victims who are willing to report; thereby increasing the
number of cases that can be investigated and the number of cases in
which offenders can be held appropriately accountable.
If confirmed, I will be resolute in advancing the Department's
prevention, investigation, accountability, victim support and
assessment programs in order that we address the problem of sexual
assault in a persistent, comprehensive, and effective manner.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mark Udall
alternative energy programs
29. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that the U.S.
military's dependence on foreign oil represents a national security
risk?
Mr. Hagel. I am concerned about the Nation's dependence on foreign
oil. At the same time, U.S. military forces need to be able to buy fuel
wherever they operate. I support efforts to reduce the military's
energy needs and diversify supplies in order to increase military
effectiveness.

30. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, do you support the continuation of
DOD's energy conservation and alternative energy development programs?
Mr. Hagel. I support the continuation of energy initiatives that
improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Defense mission. The
Department has a long history of harnessing innovation to meet defense
challenges in ways that can benefit the civilian economy, and there is
potential for such gains in this case.

31. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, do you believe those programs
represent a strategic investment that will benefit U.S. national
security and increase our military capabilities?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. Energy efficiency and alternative energy programs
are critical for cost savings, operational effectiveness, and our
strategic national security goals. The Department has a long history of
harnessing innovation to meet defense challenges in ways that can
benefit the civilian economy, and there is potential for such gains in
this case.

africa
32. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, what specific actions should be taken
by DOD to address the wave of extremism in the Sahel region of Africa?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the United States should continue to support
France's strong actions to counter al Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic
Maghreb's effort to establish a safe haven in Mali, including by
providing DOD assistance. The Departments of Defense and State should
also continue contributing to the robust international support to the
African-led International Support Mission in Mali (AFISMA). AFISMA will
help to degrade the threat posed by al Qaeda and allied terrorist
groups and put Mali on a path to stability.
Elsewhere in the Sahel region, the United States should continue to
work with regional partners to strengthen their security capacities and
create the conditions to apply region-wide pressure on extremist
groups.

33. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, what methods would you prescribe to
prevent additional countries and national governments in North Africa
from falling to extremists?
Mr. Hagel. Extremists in North Africa clearly pose a significant
threat to regional stability. If confirmed, I will work with the
Secretary of State, other interagency counterparts, international
partners and allies, and countries across the region to build the
capacity of their militaries to counter these threats and to assist
North African governments in improving governance and security for
their populations. This includes preventing the expansion of terrorist
networks and then degrading and, ultimately, defeating terrorist
groups.

pakistan
34. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that there are steps
that the United States should take to further pressure Pakistan to
withdraw their tacit support for terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba
and the Haqqani Network in order to enhance the prospects for a stable
peace in the region?
Mr. Hagel. The ability of militant and terrorist networks to
operate on Pakistani soil poses a threat to the United States,
Pakistan, and other countries in South Asia. Therefore, the United
States should continue to work to ensure that Pakistan meets its
commitments, including supporting a durable settlement in Afghanistan,
pressuring the Haqqani Network, and not allowing Pakistani territory to
be used to launch terrorist attacks on other countries. Our approach
should apply diplomatic pressure where needed and ensure our security
assistance, which is an important tool, is not unconditional but
conditions advance U.S. strategic interests.

military healthcare
35. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, as Secretary of Defense, would you
continue to prioritize funding for military suicide prevention
programs, as well as for improved treatment for physical and
psychological injuries?
Mr. Hagel. I am deeply concerned about the significant rise in
military suicides and am firmly committed to prioritizing funding for
the full range of the Department's mental and physical health programs.
These programs include: suicide prevention programs, such as the Army's
Shoulder to Shoulder and Navy's Combat and Operational Stress Control
resilience and fitness programs; peer-to-peer programs such as the
Vets4Warriors which focuses on our Reserve members; transition and
family support programs, such as Recovery Care Coordination; and
quality of life programs, such as those offered through Military
OneSource. In addition, I will continue ongoing collaboration with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, with continued emphasis on the Military
Crisis Line, to ensure that our members receive support as they
transition back to their civilian lives. Finally, and most importantly,
I agree with Secretary Panetta that there is a significant leadership
role and responsibility for preventing suicides and building the
resilience of the force. If confirmed, I will continue to look for
opportunities to improve our military and civilian leaders' ability to
understand the needs of distressed servicemembers and reduce stigma so
that they can be properly guided to the support they need.

role of the reserve component
36. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, would you agree that, over the last
decade, the National Guard and Reserves have demonstrated their value
to the military mission in support of domestic disaster relief, combat
operations, and in a variety of other roles at home and abroad?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. The National Guard and Reserves have played an
integral role during the past decade, mobilizing in unprecedented
numbers for the wars in Afghanistan. They have also been critical to
Homeland defense and security, highlighted by their heroic efforts
during Hurricane Sandy.

37. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, please discuss your views of the
Reserve and National Guard and the role they should play in the coming
years.
Mr. Hagel. The Reserve components have served with distinction over
more than a decade of war and continue to be a relevant and cost effect
part of the Total Force. In a time of declining budgets and complex
contingencies, I believe that the Department will continue to call on
both Active and Reserve components to accomplish the domestic and
overseas requirements of the new strategy. I understand that the
Department is still in the process of finding the proper Active
component/Reserve component mix that will most effectively accomplish
our new strategy in a constrained fiscal environment. If confirmed, I
will work with our military leaders on this important issue.

russian policies
38. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, since Vladimir Putin was reelected as
Russia's president, the Russian Federation has sent mixed signals for
what its defense and foreign policies will be going forward. The
creation of a so-called ``Eurasian Union''--which would consist of
Russia and other former Soviet republics--was a key component of
President Putin's campaign platform, and is viewed by some as an
attempt by Russia to ``re-Sovietize'' the region, which would pressure
U.S. allies in the region. Former Senator John Kerry (nominated to be
Secretary of State) has reaffirmed the U.S. Government's unwavering
support for the independence of these countries and their right to
choose ``political, military, [and] economic'' alliances ``free from
coercion''. One such U.S. strategic partner, Azerbaijan, recently
allowed a lease with Russia for the Gabala Radar station--the last
Russian installation on Azerbaijan's soil--to expire due to a
disagreement over the cost of the lease, continuing a trend of moving
away from Moscow's orbit. As Secretary of Defense, what will be your
policy to ensure that the independence of U.S. strategic partners in
the region is preserved?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will support continuing engagement with
the leaders of the defense and security institutions of former Soviet
Republics to advance reform and defense modernization goals, to
contribute to regional stability and security, and to advance our
shared security interests. It is possible for countries in the region
to preserve their independence while also having a constructive,
positive relationship with the United States, Russia, and other
countries. As sovereign independent nations these countries must pursue
the bilateral and multinational relationships that they assess are in
their own national interests, but I would work to ensure the United
States is the partner of choice. Working with the Department of State
and other U.S. agencies, I would, if confirmed, continue to support
partners in the region building their government institutions,
practices, and capabilities to enable them to exercise the full measure
of responsibilities and opportunities of independent, sovereign
countries.

cooperative threat reduction
39. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, do you support the work conducted
under the Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR) programs which seek to
eliminate threats, demilitarize systems, and to secure stocks of
existing weapons of mass destruction (WMD)?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I believe that the Cooperative Threat Reduction
Program is a vital mechanism for partnering with other nations to
counter the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. The program is
now global and focused on core U.S. priorities, including nuclear
security, countering biological threats, and destroying chemical
weapons. If confirmed, I will continue to support the work of this
vital program.

40. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, how would you characterize your own
views on the importance and priorities of the CTR program, originally
undertaken in the former Soviet Union, and more recently expanding into
other territories including Africa and the Middle East?
Mr. Hagel. In the immediate aftermath of the Cold War, I believe
that it made good sense for the CTR program to focus on reducing the
threat posed by the former Soviet Union's nuclear arsenal. Based on
information currently available to me, I believe that the program's
recent expansion into new geographic areas, including Africa, the
Middle East, and Southeast Asia also makes good sense, as does a new
focus on biological threats. In my view, CTR remains a very important
tool in reducing risks to the United States.

nuclear modernization
41. Senator Udall. Mr. Hagel, do you support the restoration of
funding appropriations to maintain the U.S. nuclear triad, and for key
nuclear infrastructure programs such as the Chemistry and Metallurgy
Research Replacement Nuclear Facility in the fiscal year 2013
appropriations bills?
Mr. Hagel. I support the President's commitment to a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. I
believe that maintaining the triad and modernizing our nuclear forces
and the nuclear weapons infrastructure are national security
priorities. If confirmed, I will give sustained attention to these
issues.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Kay R. Hagan
sexual assault/domestic violence
42. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, as you and I discussed earlier this
week, the number of sexual assault and domestic violence cases reported
in the military every year is appalling. Studies show that there are
3,200 reported cases every year, but even more astonishing is that the
actual number is estimated at 19,000 cases. This means that somewhere
around 80 percent of all cases go unreported.
A Government Accountability Office (GAO) report concluded that most
victims stay silent because of ``the belief that nothing would be done;
fear of ostracism, harassment, or ridicule . . . or labeled trouble
makers.'' That same report goes on to say that some victims go silent
because they do the math: only 8 percent of cases that are investigated
end in prosecution, compared with 40 percent for civilians arrested for
sex crimes.
This year's NDAA included provisions to combat this problem,
including enhanced education, training, and awareness for our troops
and the leadership. While this is a positive step, just having a zero-
tolerance policy and getting out the message is not always enough.
If confirmed, do you pledge to ensure the NDAA sexual assault
provisions are implemented as rapidly as possible?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

43. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, how do you intend to further prevent
sexual assault and domestic violence?
Mr. Hagel. Sexual assault is a horrible crime and it cannot be
tolerated, ignored, or condoned in DOD. If confirmed, I will be fully
committed to combating this crime and determined in reducing sexual
assault, with a goal of eliminating it from the military.
I know that the over the past year, the Department has developed
and implemented several new policies and procedures to prevent the
crime of sexual assault, support victims, strengthen investigations,
and hold offenders appropriately accountable. I also know that these
efforts are not enough.
The Department must continue its multi-disciplinary approach in
combating sexual assault. Prevention efforts are important, so that the
crimes do not happen in the first place. These efforts must ensure that
every servicemember, from top to bottom in our military ranks, knows
that dignity and respect are core values we must all live by.

44. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, how will you approach fostering an
environment where victims feel safe to come forward to report these
crimes?
Mr. Hagel. I believe a first step in this area is an Air Force
pilot program, implemented in January, which assigns an attorney to a
victim of sexual assault who requests one to represent them. I believe
this could be a very good way to increase accountability. It will
improve victim confidence, increase the number of victims who are
willing to report; thereby increasing the number of cases that can be
investigated and the number of cases in which offenders can be held
appropriately accountable. If confirmed, I will continue to study the
impact of this pilot program and look for other initiatives that may be
helpful.

45. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, how do intend to increase
accountability at all levels--not only of the perpetrators, but also of
their leadership?
Mr. Hagel. Accountability is key and people who violate the
standards of acceptable behavior must be held appropriately accountable
for their actions. I applaud Secretary Panetta's decision last year to
elevate the initial disposition of the most serious sexual assault
cases to the level of colonel or Navy captain, or higher. Military
commanders are essential to making sexual assault prevention and
response efforts successful.
I also look forward to learning more about the Department's ongoing
program to develop Special Victims Capabilities across each of the
Services, a program legislated in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, and
which is under development in the Department in the form of special
training and standardized procedures for investigators, prosecutors,
paralegals, and victim witness liaisons. This program's objective is to
enhance the quality of investigations and accountability in sexual
assault cases. I fully support it.

camp lejeune water contamination
46. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, historic and recent public statements
made by the leadership of the U.S. Marine Corps cite that at the time
of the drinking water contamination period aboard Camp Lejeune, there
were no regulatory standards governing the organic chemicals which
fouled the water aboard the base. Yet, recent Department of the Navy
and Marine Corps documents uncovered by former marines and their
families affected by the contamination indicate there was indeed a
Naval regulatory standard in place for total organics in potable water
as early as 1963 (NAVMED P-5010-5 and BUMED 6240.3B and beginning in
1972, version C).
As Secretary of Defense, what steps would you take to ensure the
Department of the Navy and Marine Corps are truthfully conveying
pertinent facts, disseminating important developments to the Camp
Lejeune community, and allowing the community a voice in the matter to
ensure total transparency regarding this issue?
Mr. Hagel. The health and well-being of our servicemembers, their
families, and civilian employees is of the utmost importance to me. If
I am confirmed, I will be committed to finding answers to the many
questions surrounding the historic water quality issue at Camp Lejeune,
including ensuring appropriate oversight of these efforts. I will work
with the leadership of the Navy and Marine Corps to engage the proper
experts and review all the facts pertaining to the Bureau of Medicine
Instruction to which you refer, ensuring that accurate information is
provided to all who believe they may have been exposed to contaminated
water at Camp Lejeune. The Department will continue to understand the
meaning of ongoing scientific efforts and provide comprehensive
science-based answers to our servicemembers, their families, and
civilian employees.
I applaud Congress' efforts to support families through the passage
of the Honoring America's Veterans and Caring for Camp Lejeune Families
Act of 2012 and I pledge to aggressively support the Department of
Veterans Affairs efforts to properly implement the legislation.

biofuels
47. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, in August 2011, the Departments of
the Navy, Agriculture, and Energy signed a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) to invest $510 million to spur production of advanced aviation
and marine biofuels under the Defense Production Act. The joint-MOU,
where each Department contributes $170 million, requires substantial
cost-sharing from private industry of at least a one-to-one match.
Critics of the MOU claim the Department of Energy (DOE) should be
the only Government agency involved in the promotion of advanced
biofuels. While DOE must certainly play an important role, I believe
the Navy and the Department of Agriculture also need to be involved.
From my perspective, leveraging the unique capabilities of each
agency--in partnership with the private sector--exemplifies the type of
innovative approach needed to solve our country's most vexing
challenges.
As the end-user of this fuel, do you believe there are significant
benefits of having the Navy participate in this initiative?
Mr. Hagel. I have not reviewed all the details of this initiative;
however, all of the Military Services require fuel to operate, so all,
including the Navy, have an interest in promoting military energy
security and have the potential to benefit from such an initiative. I
agree that it is important for the Department to leverage the expertise
of civilian agencies that have the lead or an interest in this area.
The Defense Department has a long history of harnessing innovation to
meet defense challenges in ways that can benefit the civilian economy,
and there is potential for such gains in this case.

48. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, would you agree that leveraging the
unique capabilities of these three agencies enhances the prospects for
programmatic success?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #47.

49. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, in this budgetary environment, I
understand that difficult decisions need to be made about funding
defense programs. However, as the largest single consumer of fuel in
the world, DOD uses approximately 120 million barrels of oil each year
and spent over $17 billion in fiscal year 2011 on fuel alone. This
dependency on a single source of energy jeopardized our military's
readiness. When the price of oil goes up $1, it costs the Navy an
additional $30 million and the entire DOD over $100 million. In 2011,
the Navy was forced to pay an additional $500 million because the price
of fuel was higher than budgeted. Costs overruns could force the
military to curtail training and less urgent operations--resulting in
increased risk to future missions.
Do you believe that developing a commercially viable biofuels
industry will help DOD diversify its fuel sources, reduce the risk of
energy volatility, and ultimately produce cost savings for the Navy?
Mr. Hagel. I believe it is in the long-term energy security
interests of the United States to promote a commercially viable
biofuels industry. A commercially competitive industry could help to
reduce market volatility and reduce risk. If confirmed, I will look
into the role biofuels could play in increasing military capabilities
and lowering costs and risks for the Navy and other military
departments.

lithium
50. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, DOD has indicated that sustaining
domestic capacity of lithium metals is critical because of the
military's reliance on rechargeable lithium batteries in the field and
the importance of lithium to developing next generation batteries. Do
you believe it is in our national security interest to secure domestic
production of lithium metal and reduce our reliance on imports from
China?
Mr. Hagel. My understanding is the Department is examining a range
of options to ensure adequate and sustainable supply of lithium metal.
If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the Department has access to
lithium metals, using all authorities available.

51. Senator Hagan. Mr. Hagel, will you consider using authorities
under the Defense Product Act to accomplish this goal?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #50.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Joe Manchin III
downsizing the force
52. Senator Manchin. Mr. Hagel, if you are confirmed as Secretary
of Defense, you will oversee the military's largest personnel
downsizing in a generation. This, I believe, is one of the most
important tasks facing the next Secretary, especially with the high
rate of veterans' unemployment. I am very concerned about telling
servicemembers, many who deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple
times, their services are no longer needed as the force downsizes. If
confirmed, what approach would you bring to overseeing this massive
personnel drawdown?
Mr. Hagel. The Department must take care of its people, not only
while they are serving, but it is an obligation that continues through
the transition to civilian life. We, as a Nation, owe it to them for
the sacrifices they have made.
It is my understanding that the Department has worked with the
Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of Labor, the Small Business
Administration, and the Department of Education to redesign the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP). The redesigned TAP curriculum
contains a Department of Labor sponsored employment workshop, a
Veterans Affairs benefits briefing and registrations, a financial
planning workshop and Service-specific training to equip members with
the tools needed to successfully pursue their post military goals. The
Department is also working with other agencies to meet the mandates of
the VOW to Hire Heroes Act.
If confirmed, I will look at the services available for our men and
women, both those that continue to serve and those that transition to
civilian life.

dod audit
53. Senator Manchin. Mr. Hagel, in your advance policy questions
you provided the following statement regarding the Pentagon's audit
objectives: ``Yes. I support the effort and will maintain the
Department's commitment to producing audit-ready financial statements
by the congressional deadline of September 2017, with an audit
beginning by the end of calendar year 2017.'' Will you do everything in
your power to speed this process up?
Mr. Hagel. Improving the Department's financial management
capability is an important priority and, if confirmed, I will ensure
that senior leaders throughout the Department are focused on this goal
and hold them accountable. While I will push for this effort to be
completed as soon as possible and by the dates we have set, the
Department must also be careful not to take manual or ``heroic'' steps
to achieve this goal in an inefficient manner. I understand Congress
has, in fact, directed DOD not to follow such an approach.

military families
54. Senator Manchin. Mr. Hagel, DOD will face difficult budgetary
choices in the future. Priorities will need to be evaluated and some
programs will face cancellation or reduction. After a decade of war it
is not only our soldiers that feel the stress, but so do their
families. How will you help ensure programs for military families
continue to be a high priority for DOD?
Mr. Hagel. I share the concern of our senior military leaders that
fiscal constraints will affect the very necessary programs needed to
support the families of our servicemembers. If confirmed, I will seek
to prioritize funding for family readiness programs to ensure that the
quality of support for our military families is not negatively affected
by budget reductions while also identifying the most effective programs
and best practices. If confirmed, I will work through a newly formed
Task Force on Common Services for military families to seek to protect
funding for family readiness programs.

u.s. role in the pacific
55. Senator Manchin. Mr. Hagel, there has been an increase in
tension in the East China Sea around the Senkaku Islands in recent
months. In your view, what is the role of the United States in
territorial disputes in Asia?
Mr. Hagel. I support the President's policy that while the United
States does not take sides over competing claims, the United States
opposes any and all forms of coercion to resolve disputes or apply
pressure (including economic measures). In addition, I believe that the
United States should continue to make clear that we will meet our
Treaty commitments.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Jeanne Shaheen
sequestration
56. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, in your responses to the advance
policy questions, you support Secretary Panetta's assessment of the
damaging effects that sequestration would have on the entire DOD and
defense industries. Please describe the negative impact to military
families should Congress fail to reach an agreement.
Mr. Hagel. Sequestration will reduce the operations and maintenance
(O&M) funding that is used to train our troops, to run our bases, and
to run many of our family support programs. While the Department is
still finalizing its assessment of specific impacts, I believe the
these cuts in O&M funding will likely force cuts in our civilian
workforce that will lead to cuts in the hours, services, and staffing
available at clinics, family support centers, libraries, and athletic
facilities. Furthermore, I believe the Department has already concluded
sequestration will force significant cuts in the maintenance of DOD
facilities, which directly affects quality of life.
If confirmed I will make it a priority to minimize the impact of
sequestration on our military families. Sustaining family support
programs in these days of extreme budget uncertainties will be
challenging, but it is an integral part of our military readiness. If
confirmed, I will seek to minimize funding cuts to family support
programs to the greatest extent possible.

57. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, please describe the negative impact
to our defense industrial base should Congress fail to reach an
agreement.
Mr. Hagel. Sequestration would significantly curtail important
industrial base capabilities and skills which, if lost, would be
difficult, expensive, and perhaps even impossible to replace. My
understanding is that the Department has worked diligently to preserve
those truly unique industrial base assets. Sequestration would render
these careful efforts largely ineffectual. I believe the Department is
still assessing the impact on specific weapons programs and service
support contracts, and that those impacts will vary from case to case,
but each such program will be cut by about 10 percent.

women's healthcare
58. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, there have been a number of
positive steps taken over the last year with respect to eliminating
inequalities facing women in our military. One of which was our effort
to bring female servicemember reproductive health care in line with
Federal standards, to ensure women in uniform have the same access to
care as their civilian counterparts. I was encouraged that we were able
to change this policy during last year's NDAA, and I look forward to
its full implementation.
It is my understanding that the Surgeon's Generals of each of the
Services will issue guidance to their Departments to ensure that
doctors and nurses are aware of new medical options available and are
prepared to advise their patients. I also understand that the Sexual
Assault Prevention and Response Office will issue guidance to victim
advocates to ensure they are aware of this policy change and are
prepared to brief victims on the full range of medical options now
available. Do you commit to implementing this measure, which is now
law, to ensure that our service women have the same health care as the
civilians they protect?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring that our female
servicemembers are afforded the same reproductive health care options
as women in the civilian population. I will work with the Services to
guarantee that all medical personnel are aware of the new options and
that every victim has all resources available. I assure you that I will
fully implement all laws protecting women servicemembers' reproductive
rights. My goal is to ensure the health care provided to our
servicemembers remains world class and contemporary.

lesbian/bisexual/gay/transgendered military families
59. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, as the implementation of the repeal
of Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy continues, concerns have been raised
about remaining inequalities faced by Lesbian/Bisexual/Gay/
Transgendered (LBGT) military families. We have a case in New Hampshire
which demonstrates the pain and injustice inflicted by the Defense of
Marriage Act (DOMA). Charlie Morgan is a chief warrant officer in the
Army National Guard. She served her country in the Active Army, the
Reserve and the Guard, and most recently, she was deployed to Kuwait.
Unfortunately, she has been diagnosed with inoperable breast cancer and
due to DOMA, her spouse, Karen, is denied any survivor benefits, and
she is prohibited from health coverage worth well in excess of $10,000
a year. She also cannot get a base pass that would let her escort her
4-year-old daughter to medical appointments on base. Though I recognize
that certain restrictions on monetary benefits apply to LGBT families
under DOMA, will you commit to ensuring that LGBT families are fully
incorporated into military communities and social programs?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. As I have said, I know firsthand the profound
sacrifice our servicemembers and their families make. We must always
take care of our people. That is why, if confirmed as Secretary of
Defense, I will do everything possible to the extent permissible under
current law to provide equal benefits to the families of all our
servicemembers, as members of our military community.

submarines
60. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, recent operations in Libya,
Somalia, and around the globe highlight the value submarines continue
to bring to the fight in both our conventional and covert operations.
Can you discuss the importance of our undersea warfare capability,
particularly with respect to the capabilities the Virginia-class
submarines bring to the Navy?
Mr. Hagel. U.S. undersea warfare capabilities are unparalleled in
the world and give us an asymmetric advantage against our adversaries
in both peace and war. Our U.S. Navy dominates the undersea domain,
using attack and guided missile submarines for a variety of clandestine
missions, including intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance,
indications and warning, and special operations forces insertion and
recovery. Submarines operate covertly in places that overt units
cannot, providing unequaled capability for intelligence collection.
Ballistic missile submarines, the most survivable leg of the
nuclear triad, are vital to the national mission of strategic
deterrence, and under New START will comprise an increasing percentage
of our operationally deployed weapons.
To maintain our undersea dominance, we must continue a vigorous
submarine building program. The Virginia-class program is the Navy's
most successful shipbuilding program, consistently providing submarines
ahead of schedule and under budget.

pacific versus atlantic focus
61. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, obviously, our strategic shift
towards the Asia-Pacific region prioritizes assets in that area of
responsibility (AOR). However, as recent operations in Libya and Mali,
as well as challenges throughout the Mediterranean, the Middle East,
and North Africa demonstrate, we must maintain the capability to
quickly respond to contingencies on the Atlantic side as well.
Considering the uncertain and complex world of threats we face, how
important is it to maintain flexibility and balance to ensure that our
shift does not leave us vulnerable on the Atlantic side of the country?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that our military forces need to remain
flexible, agile, and balanced in order to be ready for challenges
around the world. I think that DOD recognizes the complexity and
uncertainty of the global security environment and avoids predicting
with certainty how the future will unfold. As outlined in the January
2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, the Department is developing an
adaptable and technologically-advanced Joint Force capable of
responding to a wide range of contingencies. Regardless of where U.S.
military forces may be positioned or stationed, one of the key
advantages of our military is that we can bring to bear effective
capabilities virtually anywhere throughout the world to address the
threats countering our interests.

israel
62. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, the Senate Armed Services Committee
(SASC) has been a strong proponent of U.S.-Israeli cooperation on
missile defense and has provided significant funding for cooperative
efforts, like the Arrow system, David's Sling, and the Iron Dome. Last
year, the SASC provided $211 million to help Israel procure additional
Iron Dome defense systems in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013. What is
your view on the importance of these cooperative programs?
Mr. Hagel. I strongly support U.S.-Israel cooperative efforts on
missile defense, including Iron Dome. U.S. cooperation with Israel,
enabled by congressional support, has led to the development of one of
the most comprehensive missile defense architectures in the world. Each
of the Israeli programs--Iron Dome, David's Sling, and Arrow--fill a
critical requirement in a multi-layered architecture that has been
designed to protect the Israeli populace from existing and emerging
threats.

63. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, will you commit to continuing these
programs?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, if confirmed, I will seek to continue these
programs and to expand them as appropriate. As we saw in Operation
Pillar of Defense in Gaza, these programs are a lifesaving investment
in Israel's future and our defense relationship.

servicemember reintegration
64. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, you noted in your response to the
advance policy questions that you are committed to working with State
and local governments as well as private and community organizations to
support reintegration of returning servicemembers, particularly those
with combat injuries. Several States have established successful
programs designed to augment reintegration services provided through
DOD's Yellow Ribbon Reintegration Program (YRRP). New Hampshire's
Deployment Cycle Support program is an example of these efforts that
combine State and local as well as public and private funds to provide
comprehensive assistance to military families. What steps can DOD take
to better support these State and local efforts to ensure their
continued success?
Mr. Hagel. I am very familiar with the congressionally-mandated
YRRP established in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2008 that assists National
Guard and Reserve members as they transition between their military and
civilian roles, providing servicemembers and their families with access
to programs, services, resources, and referrals during all deployment
phases.
I am also aware that there are several State programs that go
beyond YRRP with strong networks of community-based service providers,
and partnerships with State and local governments that are key in
ensuring resources are readily available to servicemembers and their
families when they need them.
I understand that one of the initiatives of the YRRP Center for
Excellence includes evaluating State-based outreach and reintegration
efforts to identify best practices in order to share those initiatives
nationwide. Additionally, the Center for Excellence is evaluating and
substantiating various Service curricula at YRRP events and post-event
survey data to disseminate best practices. They are also creating on-
line toolkits for use across all components at YRRP events.
If confirmed, I will review the Department's support to YRRP
efforts within the Department and across the various State programs to
ensure we are maximizing our combined efforts and sharing best
practices as much as possible.

defense industrial base
65. Senator Shaheen. Mr. Hagel, it is critical that DOD and the
Services have an overarching direction and comprehensive policy for
maintaining the manufacturing and engineering capabilities that are
necessary to ensure we have production lines for building ships, combat
vehicles, and even engines and transmissions for our current and future
weapons systems. What is your view of the status and health of the
defense-related industrial base, and can you give your assurances that
you will work to ensure these capabilities remain viable and
competitive in the near- and long-term?
Mr. Hagel. I am committed to a healthy industrial base, and I am
concerned that changes in the defense market may impact that base. If
confirmed, I will work to ensure critical defense industrial base
capabilities remain viable and competitive in the near- and long-term.
The Department is dependent on a strong industrial base for the wide
range of products and services needed to support the missions of our
forces, and to provide for the innovation and technical excellence that
provides technological superiority.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand
afghanistan
66. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, I was a cosponsor of the Afghan
Women and Girls Security Promotion Act in the 112th Congress, both the
standalone version and the bill in the form of an amendment that was
included in the final version of the NDAA. I would like to know what
actions you will take to follow the amendment's directive and execute
as robust a report as possible on the efforts made by the U.S.
Government to ensure the security of Afghan women and girls during and
after Afghanistan's transition process?
Mr. Hagel. Promoting and protecting the security of Afghan women
and girls has been a priority of both the Defense and State Departments
in Afghanistan. If confirmed, I will continue to work with the State
Department to monitor progress throughout the transition and provide
Congress with information that is responsive to the NDAA.

67. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, the Special Inspector General
for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) has reported that some of the $1
billion in fuel purchases from Russia and Turkmenistan were blended
with Iranian oil. What measures are going to be put into place to
ensure that we are not violating our own sanctions on Iran?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the SIGAR reported that there may be Iranian
oil in some products we have purchased. I understand that our contracts
for fuel in Afghanistan, including contracts for fuel purchased in
Russia and Turkmenistan, require certifications that Iran was not a
source of the oil. If I am confirmed, I will ensure that we have
appropriate processes in place to preclude the purchase of fuel that
may have come from Iran and to enforce our own sanctions against Iran.

women in the military
68. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, Secretary Panetta recently
lifted the ban on women serving in direct combat roles. I applaud that
decision and am happy to hear that you plan to continue its
implementation, if confirmed. The military you served in with such
distinction in many ways looks very different than the military of
today. Today, women make up nearly 15 percent of the Armed Forces. More
than 283,000 women have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. More
than 800 women have been wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan, and more than
140 women have died. Two women have earned Silver Star medals. Why do
we need to wait until 2016 for the Services to complete their
assessment when so many women are already serving on the front lines?
Mr. Hagel. As I've said, I strongly support Secretary Panetta's
decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat roles. While there
are women serving on the front lines, the rescission of the Direct
Combat Rule and Assignment Policy requires the Services to review the
requirements and standards for all combat positions. It is my
understanding that this process takes, at a minimum, 2 years in order
to review tasks, develop testing, and validate the tests which will
result in gender neutral standards.

69. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, I understand and appreciate that
you support the announcement made last week regarding the policy of
opening combat roles to women. I wholeheartedly support this overdue
change in policy as women already have been fighting and dying on the
frontline. I just as strongly believe that military standards should
not be lowered for women seeking these roles and we will see
extraordinary women meeting those standards and strengthening our
national security. I am concerned, however, about the potential for the
goal posts being moved back, or arbitrary standards set, which would in
effect keep combat roles closed to qualified women. How will you ensure
this policy is implemented as intended and as rapidly as feasible?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the military and civilian leadership are
committed to implementing the rescission as quickly as possible and, if
confirmed, I assure I will work to have it implemented expeditiously. I
will ensure that all standards reflect legitimate requirements for
combat roles. In short, if a female soldier has the full skills and
capabilities required to perform in a position, I will make sure she
does.

70. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, we know that women are already
participating, unofficially, with many combat units and special
operations units. With the lifting of the combat exclusion ban, what
will happen to the women already serving with ground combat troops?
Mr. Hagel. It's my understanding that women who served or are
serving in units under an exception to the ground combat exclusion do
so in an official capacity. It's also my understanding that women
currently serving with ground combat troops will continue to serve with
ground combat troops.

71. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, will their combat service now be
recognized as such?
Mr. Hagel. It's my understanding that women's service in combat is
already being recognized. If confirmed, I expect we will continue to
recognize their service and achievements based on the contributions
they make toward mission accomplishment.

72. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, will they be eligible to compete
now for combat arms leadership positions?
Mr. Hagel. On January 24, 2013, Secretary Panetta rescinded the
1994 Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule and directed
the integration of women into previously closed positions by January 1,
2016. If confirmed, I will continue implementation of that new policy.
Within this policy I expect women will be able to compete for
leadership positions where they are qualified and meet the standards.

73. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, sexual assault is an appalling
problem in our military that continues to threaten the military's core
value of protecting all members of the Armed Forces. It has been
speculated that lifting the direct ground combat exclusion for women
will help mitigate the sexual assault problems in our military by
eliminating gender classes in the military. Do you agree with this
theory, and if so, will you use it as leverage to ensure combat roles
are opened to women swiftly and equally across the Services?
Mr. Hagel. I have not had sufficient time to study this particular
theory. As I have previously stated, sexual assault has no place in our
military or anywhere in our society and I will work tirelessly to
resolve that issue holding all commanders fully accountable.

74. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, lifting the combat exclusion ban
has raised the question of whether women should be required to register
for the Selective Service. Selective Service requirements are
determined by law; would you support Congress' decision to include
women in the mandatory registry for Selective Service at age 18?
Mr. Hagel. This is an issue that concerns DOD, although it is not
responsible for administering the Selective Service System. If
confirmed, I will look forward to participating in any interagency
discussion of the merits of extending selective service registration to
women.

75. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, we have been told many times
that commanders will be held responsible if there is a climate in their
units that contributes to sexual assault or harassment. But I am
concerned that measurable mechanisms for holding leaders accountable in
addressing sexual violence issues have not been devised. DOD needs to
develop a process for more directly holding leaders accountable for
enforcing DOD's sexual abuse and harassment policies. The Defense
Advisory Committee on Women in the Services even recommends that
effectiveness in combating sexual harassment and assault should be a
part of individual performance evaluations of all servicemembers and
not just leaders. Accountability seems to be lacking in many respects.
Case in point: Right now there appears to be no one person assigned to
oversee the implementation of Secretary Panetta's directives on sexual
assault prevention and response.
When it comes to issues of sexual violence in the military, what do
you believe is the best mechanism for evaluating leaders?
Mr. Hagel. The men and women who are serving their country face
many challenges both on and off the battlefield. They should never have
to fear the threat of sexual assault from a fellow soldier or superior.
Accountability is always the most important tool for leader
evaluation. One of the most effective mechanisms across all Services is
the command climate assessment. This tool provides timely feedback as a
modality to determine if leaders have reinforced a culture of mutual
respect and created an atmosphere that reinforces that sexual assault
has no place within our ranks. The results from the assessment are key
indicators whether leaders are taking responsibility for good order,
morale, and discipline.

76. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that
effectiveness in combating sexual harassment and assault should be part
of individual performance evaluations for commanders?
Mr. Hagel. Accountability is always the most important tool for
leader evaluation. One of the most effective mechanisms across all
Services is the command climate assessment. This tool provides timely
feedback as a modality to determine if leaders have reinforced a
culture of mutual respect and created an atmosphere that reinforces
that sexual assault has no place within our ranks. The results from the
assessment are key indicators whether leaders are taking responsibility
for good order, morale, and discipline.

77. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, in your opinion, what
consequences should follow if a commander is found to be unresponsive
or ineffective on this issue?
Mr. Hagel. I will hold all commanders responsible for this issue.
In order to successfully address this issue, I will continue to
advance the positive steps taken by Secretary Panetta to change the
policies and the culture that has discouraged victims from speaking out
and trusting that there are resources in place to support and protect
them.
Among the initiatives that have already been taken by this
administration, I feel strongly about efforts to raise the awareness of
this issue and elevate its importance to the Department, including
elevating disposition authority for the most serious cases, requiring
commanders to conduct annual organizational climate assessments, and
enhancing training programs for sexual assault prevention.
If confirmed, I will work closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff to
ensure that all of our commanders are responsive and establish
appropriate repercussions for those commanders who do not fully support
this goal.

women's security
78. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, on December 19, 2011, the United
States released its new National Action Plan (NAP) on U.N. Security
Council Resolution 1325 on Women Peace and Security (WPS). The plan
released by the administration is the first ever U.S. national action
plan and Executive Order to implement these goals to establish women as
influential and active agents in the prevention and resolution of
conflicts. On August 10, 2012, the United States released the first-
ever U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Gender-based Violence
Globally, and President Obama signed an accompanying Executive Order
directing all relevant agencies to implement the Strategy. The Strategy
underscores the U.S. Government's commitment to preventing and
responding to gender-based violence.
We know that all too often violence against women is used as a tool
of war, yet U.N. peacekeepers and regional forces are under-trained and
under-equipped in addressing violence against women. What actions will
you take to implement this Executive Order?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that, in the first year of implementation,
the Department made noteworthy progress on the NAP for WPS objectives,
both internally and with a range of foreign defense partners. First and
foremost was Secretary Panetta's decision to rescind the restriction on
women in direct combat, a decision I applaud. Externally, in bilateral
and multilateral engagements, I am told combatant commands and our
Regional Centers are focused on building the capacity of partner
militaries to promote and strengthen gender equality.
I understand that the Department is developing a DOD Instruction to
institutionalize the NAP's priorities. If confirmed, I would continue
this progress in implementing the NAP and ensure the Department
continues to lead by example on WPS issues.

79. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, are there assets, such as excess
defense articles, that the United States can contribute to peacekeeping
forces, such as those in the Congo, in order to specifically help women
facing significant and constant threats of sexual violence?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I plan to fully support the Department's
efforts to implement the U.S. Strategy to Prevent and Respond to
Gender-based Violence Globally and associated Executive Order. In this
context, training of peacekeepers is critical and I believe it is
important that DOD peacekeeping training continue to include human
rights training and targeted instruction on prevention of and response
to sexual and gender based violence. If confirmed, I will also continue
to leverage Department authority to provide excess defense articles to
equip peacekeeping contingents, where appropriate.

cyber
80. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, in your responses to the advance
policy questions, you have said that ``recruiting, training, and
retaining military and civilian personnel needed for cyber operations
will be a challenge''. One noted expert recently told the press that of
the 10,000 necessary top cyber personnel, DOD has or can recruit only
2,000.
Why don't we begin an aggressive program of recruiting National
Guard and Reserve cyber experts--a cyber corps--which would leverage
the training and hiring of the private tech sector? The additional
benefit from using the Guard is their ability to operate both in the
military and Homeland defense space so that they can address the
spectrum of threats to our national interests.
Mr. Hagel. I believe that the National Guard and Reserve are a
tremendous resource of talent and of surge capacity for DOD, and these
skilled personnel can contribute greatly to the cyber mission. We are
already using Guard and Reserve personnel in this mission area. It will
not only be critical to recruit the right talent, but we must take a
strategic approach to leveraging our National Guard and Reserve Forces
as part of our overall structure. If confirmed, I will ensure that we
appropriately draw upon a broad pool of our Nation's cyber experts in
support of our critical cyber mission.

81. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, I also understand that the
pipeline of cyber personnel has to start in early education in order to
interest and educate the right number of future cyber warriors. Why
don't we make Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)
aptitude and interest a significant focus of our Reserve Officers'
Training Corps (ROTC) selection?
Mr. Hagel. The Reserve Officers' Training Corps (ROTC) is vital to
training the exceptional officers upon which our military relies,
including in cyber skill sets. I believe that we should explore many
approaches to build the critical technical skills DOD needs, and this
should include exploring STEM related incentives in our ROTC program.

new york installations
82. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, I represent New York, home to
our Nation's number one terrorist target. In the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2013, I worked to ensure the second WMD civil support teams for both
New York and Florida were authorized, and that funds have been
appropriated. Both of these units are fully trained and ready to deploy
in the event of a terrorist attack, yet DOD and the National Guard
Bureau are trying to disestablish our second teams. While I recognize
the need for cost savings, these teams cost so little and yet provide
so much to our country. Given the importance of these teams to our
national security, do I have your commitment to follow clear
congressional direction, which has authorized and fully funded these
teams?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that WMD civil support teams are vital to our
national security. I am not familiar with the funding for these teams,
but I will look into this matter if confirmed.

83. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, I understand that the Army must
cut its forces, but it is taking only two of its eight Brigade Combat
Teams (BCT) slated for reduction out of Europe, and the rest from
Continental United States (CONUS). Will you consider further cuts
outside the CONUS (OCONUS), perhaps using rotational units?
Mr. Hagel. The additional BCT reductions must be made consistent
with our global strategy and treaty obligations. The three remaining
BCTs not stationed in the United States, one in Korea and two in
Europe, provide vital forward presence, partnership opportunities,
deterrence, and rapid response. I will certainly work with my staff and
the Secretary of the Army and Chief of Staff of the Army to see what
other options may be feasible and affordable while still providing the
requisite reassurance to our allies.

84. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, what metrics and methodology
will DOD use in approaching reductions in overseas personnel and
infrastructure, while concurrently taking actions which reduce force
structure in the United States?
Mr. Hagel. The Department will seek to balance posture reductions
in a way that aligns with our national strategic interests. As we
consider options, we will balance our strategic and operational
priorities against the need to reduce costs.

85. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, the Army has reiterated the
importance of rotary wing aviation in Iraq and Afghanistan as a
critical asset to reducing the amount of casualties during ground
convoys because of improvised explosive devices (IED). As the Army
downsizes, do you see the number of Combat Aviation Brigades decreasing
as well?
Mr. Hagel. As it downsizes, the Army must maintain the proper
balance amongst all of its capabilities--Ground Combat capabilities,
Combat Support capabilities, Sustainment and Logistics capabilities,
and Institutional capabilities. Army Aviation must be part of this
balance. I don't know to what extent Aviation will be affected, but I
will review with the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of
the Army their plans for the Army drawdown and ensure that I and my
staff continue to be comfortable with the Army's plan.

86. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, we've seen from Air Force 2013
Force Structure proposal, a disconcerting strategy which shifts more
flying missions and iron to the Active component, while placing the Air
Guard with fewer assets. The Guard getting unmanned missions is a
welcome development, but the reduced manning requirements and the
ability of the Air Guard to provide support to Governors with fewer
numbers of critical assets, such as C-130s, remains a concern. It may
also place a chill on Air Guard recruiting given the decreasing
opportunities for pilots. What is your strategy to maintain a strong
balance in flying missions and assets for the Air Guard over the next 4
years and beyond?
Mr. Hagel. Since its inception, the Air Force has relied on the
Total Force--made up of the Active, Reserve, and Air Guard components.
Over the past 2 decades, the Air Force has become a more integrated
force, both operationally and organizationally, as all three
components--Active, Reserve, and Air Guard--have trained, deployed, and
conducted the full range of missions together. I understand the Air
Force continually reevaluates the mix between Active and Reserve
components through an institutionalized process that includes
representatives from all three components. If confirmed, I intend to
work with Air Force leadership to understand and evaluate this process
myself.

87. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, how will you assure that the Air
National Guard has a greater voice in decisionmaking, rather than
simply being handed decisions from the Air Force?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the work currently under way between the
Department and the Council of Governors to develop a mutually agreed
upon consultative process will ensure that the concerns of States are
taken into consideration in future National Guard force structure,
basing and budgeting decisions. I intend to continue with this effort
and am committed to working closely with the Council of Governors.

88. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, with the downsizing of the
military, and last year's request from the administration for Base
Closure and Realignment (BRAC) authorization, I anticipate that we will
be discussing a new round of domestic base closings in this year's
posture hearings. How will the metrics rolled out by the Air Force and
Army respectively, in the last year and a half, inform any BRAC
decisions?
Mr. Hagel. It is my understanding that BRAC recommendations must
result from a process that meets the requirements of the specific BRAC
legislation. Therefore, metrics developed outside the BRAC statutory
process can be used only if authorized in the legislation.

89. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, you have said that you view
cyber threats as one of the top security threats to the United States.
Yet last year the Air Force cut its cyber research budget, and in the
coming year, there is a plan to make the research budget pay for the
operating costs at the Air Force Research Lab in Rome, New York. I am
very concerned that such steps point to a hollowing out of our cyber
preparedness, rather than taking the threat seriously. I hope to work
with you to reverse this trend. Even in a budget scarce environment,
cyber research pays tremendous dividends. Can I count on your support
for increased cybersecurity research?
Mr. Hagel. In today's complex global environment, cyber threats
pose an increasingly serious challenge to national security. DOD
organizations, including the Air Force Research Lab, provide for the
development of vital capabilities needed for both today's warfighter
and for the future strategic environment. If confirmed, I will work
with Congress and the Services to ensure that DOD continues to assess
and invest in critical cybersecurity research activities.

coordination with the department of veterans affairs
90. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, I am concerned about the
transition our warriors face as they leave the DOD and enter the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). While there have been improvements
in the last few years, I am concerned there is still a gap. I am
especially concerned about the issues our female warriors face as they
make this transition, especially those who have been sexually assaulted
while serving. I want to ensure they are getting the information, care,
and assistance they need while not being revictimized by the system.
If confirmed, what are your plans for increasing coordination with
the VA to ensure our troops, especially women, are getting the
important transition information and assistance they need so that no
one falls through the cracks?
Mr. Hagel. I am committed to ensuring every servicemember receives
the training, education, and credentials he or she needs to
successfully transition to the civilian workforce. I believe we must
embed servicemembers' preparation for transition throughout their
military lifecycle. I understand that the Department has redesigned the
Transition Assistance Program (TAP) to ensure all servicemembers are
``career ready'' upon separation. The redesigned TAP complies with the
VOW to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 that mandates all servicemembers
separating from title 10 Active Duty (including reservists and
guardsmen) participate in the program to ensure they are better
prepared when leaving the military for civilian life.
If confirmed, I will engage Department of Veterans Affairs
Secretary Eric Shinseki in a specific dialogue on the unique issues
facing the transition of our female servicemembers. I will also
continue the practice of holding regular Secretarial-level meetings and
will closely monitor the progress of the many important joint
initiatives between the two Departments.

directed energy
91. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, the Center for Strategic and
Budgetary Assessments recommended last year a much greater investment
into directed energy weapons. While DOD has already spent billions of
dollars over several decades on science and technology efforts related
to directed energy, several recent demonstrations by the Navy using
solid state lasers on surface ships indicate that we may be reaching
the point where as a Nation we can begin to realize a return on the
substantial investment and transition this capability from science and
technology to development as a weapon system. I understand that
shipboard directed energy weapons could provide an affordable solution
to significant capability challenges associated with sustaining our
forward presence in strategically critical areas such as the South
China Seas, the Sea of Japan, and the Straits of Hormuz. What is your
view of current DOD efforts to weaponize directed energy technologies?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that the Department has embarked on a
deliberate path to develop the technologies to weaponize Directed
Energy. If confirmed, I will continue to push for directed energy and
other emerging technologies through robust research and development to
continuously improve the capabilities we will field for our forces.

92. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, should the Navy formally
consider initiating a development program of record for high energy
solid state lasers to improve the affordability and capability of our
surface ships?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that the Navy has and will continue to
assess the solid state laser research and development efforts to
determine transition opportunities given the remaining technical risk,
costs and capability limitations that must be addressed prior to
establishing a program of record.

93. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, should such a program, if
undertaken, include contributions from willing and technically capable
allies?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

asia pivot
94. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, the President had announced an
Asia pivot, and between North Korea's missile threats and China's
increased aggressiveness with respect to its neighbors, we have a
number of challenges to react to. But at a time of declining budgets,
how would you balance this pivot against the continuing concerns in the
Middle East and the growing threat in Africa?
Mr. Hagel. As described in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, the
Department is rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific while maintaining
focus on the Middle-East. I think that the significant U.S. military
presence and activities in Asia are a clear demonstration of the
enduring U.S. commitment to the region and to addressing current and
emerging challenges in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, if confirmed as
Secretary, I would take every step to maintain the ability of America
to conduct successful combat operations in more than one region at a
time, ensuring that we have the ability to meet threats around the
world, as in the Middle East and North Africa, when they arise. Our
global posture, engagement with allies and partners, and investment in
flexible defense architectures for high-demand capabilities, such as
ballistic missile defense, are of great importance.

95. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, how would this impact decisions
over weapon systems and force structure?
Mr. Hagel. While rebalancing, it will be important for the
Department to protect new capabilities and investments to respond to
the changing character of warfare; to preserve lessons, capabilities,
and expertise built over the past 10 years; and to maintain a
technological edge to meet future challenges.

cutting forces/hollow force
96. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, you have stated that a hollow
force is one that has been rendered incapable of performing the mission
that we expect it to conduct. With a hollow force, units do not have
the resources, personnel, equipment, and training necessary to make
them capable or ready to execute the defense strategies that secure our
country. As the military draws down after a decade of war, what
strategic approach would you implement to ensure we retain the
appropriate balance of training, readiness, and modernization to
prevent the force from becoming hollow?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that last year the President approved the
Department's Strategic Guidance which provided priorities as well as
force sizing direction. This was designed to ensure the Department
could meet the missions we foresee and respond to the unexpected in a
balanced way. However, any dramatic changes to the resources of the
Department, such as with sequestration, would force military and
civilian leaders to reevaluate that strategy.

97. Senator Gillibrand. Mr. Hagel, as conventional warfare becomes
more technology-based, how do you believe that we should retain talent,
especially in the fields of information technology and cyber warfare
when the technology sector is able to provide pay and benefits that far
exceed what the Government can offer?
Mr. Hagel. Maintaining personnel critical technical skills will be
an increasingly important challenge for DOD. Although the private
sector may be able to offer better pay and benefits in some cases, my
experience with DOD personnel has shown me again and again not only
their talent but their commitment to their national security mission.
In order to recruit and retain these talented individuals in
information technology and cyberspace, I will use every tool I have
afforded by OPM. In addition to many opportunities that the private
sector cannot offer, DOD can focus on new ways to recruit, train, and
retain talented cyber professionals. These include scholarships,
partnerships, ensuring that technical people stay in mission essential
technical jobs, and working creatively with the National Guard and
Reserve components. If confirmed, I will work with DOD and
congressional leaders to address this challenge.
______

Question Submitted by Senators Kirsten E. Gillibrand and Richard
Blumenthal
autism
98. Senator Gillibrand and Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, we have
worked very hard this year to pass a bipartisan, bicameral provision
funding autism services under TRICARE. Unfortunately we only funded a
1-year project. We understand that you were also supportive of early
intervention and treatment of autism. We'd like to work with you to
find a way to permanently fund Tricare's coverage of autism services.
Mr. Hagel. As I understand it, the TRICARE program provides medical
benefits under the basic program and provides non-medical support
benefits (including respite care) to Active Duty Families under the
Extended Health Care Option (ECHO). TRICARE has always covered medical
benefits such as speech and physical therapy, to individuals with an
Autism diagnosis under the medical benefit. In addition, TRICARE has
implemented coverage of Applied Behavioral Analysis (ABA) as a medical
benefit, and is reviewing additional provider treatment options for
medical care. This medical care will be provided by authorized TRICARE
providers who are licensed or certified to provide ABA therapy. If I am
confirmed, I look forward to working with you on this important issue
that affects so many families.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Richard Blumenthal
vietnam era veterans
99. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, an estimated 70,000 veterans who
served in the Vietnam war suffered from undiagnosed at the time Post
Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) during their service and were given
less-than-honorable discharges. I understand that less than 2 percent
of those who have applied for discharge upgrades have been successful
before the Army's records correction boards. In contrast, today's
military personnel are properly and, if appropriate, given a medical
discharge, which entitles them to disability compensation, medical
care, and support. If confirmed, will you review the decisions and
guidance of the Army records correction boards with regards to the
denial of Vietnam veterans' requests for discharge upgrades?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I understand that the Boards for the Correction of
Military Records all operate under procedures approved by the Secretary
of Defense and if confirmed, I will ensure that those procedures
protect all veterans suffering from PTSD.

military-to-military relations
100. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, as a component of the Northern
Distribution Network (NDN), Azerbaijan provides ground and naval
transit for roughly 40 percent of the International Security Assistance
Force (ISAF) coalition's supplies bound for Afghanistan. Azerbaijan has
extended important over-flight clearance, landing, and refueling
operations for U.S. and NATO flights to support ISAF. In 2012, more
than 150 aeromedical evacuation flights of U.S. Air Mobility Command
were flown over Azerbaijan, rushing more than 2,200 patients to a
higher level of medical care. How do you assess current U.S.-Azerbaijan
military-to-military relations and what will be your policy to expand
this strategic partnership?
Mr. Hagel. My assessment is that the U.S.-Azerbaijan defense
relationship is strong--but still has room to grow. If confirmed, I
will build on existing cooperation and ensure DOD continues to engage
in regular consultations at high levels with Azerbaijani counterparts
to identify areas where we can strengthen our cooperation and
partnership. That growth will be based on shared interests and
willingness to cooperate, available resources, and capacity to absorb
new programs. I will also continue our engagement with Azerbaijan aimed
at supporting Azerbaijan's defense reforms, its ability to interoperate
with NATO, to deploy forces in support of coalition operations, and its
capacity to address terrorism and other transnational threats and
secure its maritime borders and energy infrastructure. I would look for
the United States to be Azerbaijan's partner of choice and help
Azerbaijan's defense establishment contribute to regional security and
stability.

101. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, in September 2012, Secretary of
Defense Leon Panetta invited the Chinese PLA to observe the Rim of the
Pacific (RIMPAC) military exercise that will take place in 2014. In
2012, RIMPAC involved participants from more than 20 countries. If
confirmed, would you consider extending a similar invitation to observe
RIMPAC to Taiwan?
Mr. Hagel. The United States is firm in its commitment to Taiwan's
self-defense needs under the Taiwan Relations Act. That relationship
includes defense exchanges and other interactions consistent with our
unofficial relationship and as provided for in the Taiwan Relations
Act. If confirmed, I will work to identify appropriate exchanges and
interactions to assist Taiwan's self-defense capabilities, and
contribute to peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

102. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed as Secretary of
Defense, what additional steps would you take to strengthen our
military-to-military relationship with Israel?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will consider what additional steps
could further strengthen our military relationship with Israel,
including but not limited to missile defense, intelligence sharing,
counterterrorism, and maritime security. I know that over the past 4
years the administration has taken unprecedented steps to expand our
cooperation with Israel. Today, with congressional support, the United
States provides Israel over $3 billion annually in Foreign Military
Financing (FMF), which is the backbone of our commitment to Israel's
defense. This financial support is complemented by extensive military-
to-military cooperation, including joint exercises. If confirmed, I
will seek to ensure that we build on this cooperation and expand it
into new areas as the United States and Israel address emerging threats
at this time of historic change in the Middle East. I believe we have a
tremendous opportunity for further expansion of our missile defense
efforts as well as cooperation in areas like space and cyberspace.
The foundation for successful cooperation is the close personal
relationships U.S. military and defense civilian leaders have with
Israeli military and defense leadership. Secretary Gates and Secretary
Panetta, as well as the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have all
developed very close relationships with their counterparts. Continuing
with this tradition will be one of my highest priorities if I am
confirmed. This will be vital to ensuring that we understand Israel's
defense requirements, and to finding ways to address mutual threats
that meet our common interests.

103. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, what role does Israel's
participation in the Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) program have in
maintaining Israel's qualitative military edge in the region?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that the JSF will be a core component of
Israel's qualitative military edge (QME). Israel's QME is predicated
upon its ability to defend itself, by itself, from any and all threats
in the region--whether the threat comes from state or non-state actors
or a coalition of states. Air superiority is one of the most important
components to Israel's QME, and the unique capabilities of the JSF will
ensure Israeli air superiority for decades. Israel will be the only
nation in the region with a fifth generation fighter aircraft, and
Israel's JSF will be tailored to meet its specific security
requirements.

reserve component mobilization
104. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, following the September 11,
2001, terrorist attacks against the United States, President Bush
issued a partial mobilization of the Reserve components, authorizing
the involuntary mobilization of up to 1 million members of the National
Guard and Reserves at any one time for repeated service of up to 2
years. National Guard units like the 143rd Military Police Company out
of West Hartford and the 1048th Transportation Company out of Stratford
have served in Afghanistan for repeated deployments. I know the
sustainability of an operational reserve is something that concerns
you. In 2007, you introduced an amendment limiting the deployment of
servicemembers serving in Iraq to 12 months. While the National Guard
and Reserve have served with distinction, the operational reserve has
without question had impacts that need to be addressed here at home.
What is your vision for maintaining readiness levels within the Reserve
component without continued Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO)
funding post-2014?
Mr. Hagel. I appreciate Congress' efforts in the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2012 to increase authorities to fully use the Reserves in a
planned and programmed manner. Without OCO, the required Reserve
component readiness funding would need to be included in the
Department's annual baseline budget to align resources with the
Department's long-term mission needs.

105. Senator Blumenthal. Mr. Hagel, what mobilization authority is
appropriate to use as we continue our counterterrorism efforts with the
Reserve component?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, and in light of the new strategy, I will
consider the question of additional mobilization authorities, but at
the present time I believe that appropriate policies and procedures are
in place and current laws are adequate.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mazie K. Hirono
u.s.-pacific ties
106. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, given the increasingly complex
interrelationships of military, economic, political and diplomatic
policies relevant to regional security issues, what is your view on the
role for DOD institutes like Hawaii's Asia-Pacific Center for Security
Studies (APCSS) in advancing some of the goals of the rebalance to the
Pacific and also in accomplishing a U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM)
objective of developing professional and personal ties among with our
allies throughout the region? APCSS brings together military and
civilian representatives of the United States and Asia-Pacific nations
to address regional and global security issues through its
comprehensive program of executive education and conferences.
Mr. Hagel. APCSS contributes to advancing America's Pacific
rebalance by enhancing professional and personal ties with partners
throughout the region, strengthening defense institutional capacity,
promoting critical thinking on regional security issues, and providing
a venue for communication and exchange of ideas involving military and
civilian participants. I agree that APCSS has a unique convening
ability to bring together influential civilian and military
decisionmakers from governments in the region with business and civil
society leaders.

107. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, in your response to an advance
policy question concerning additional steps the United States should
take to defend against the North Korean ballistic missile threat, you
state that the ``United States should also seek to enhance bilateral
and trilateral missile defense cooperation with our ROK [Republic of
Korea] and Japanese allies particularly in the area of information
sharing.'' Last year, the Korean public's opposition, inflamed by
heightened tensions with Japan, largely led to the failure of the ROK
Government to sign an agreement with Japan that would allow the two
countries to exchange key military intelligence. If confirmed, what
would you do to enhance bilateral and trilateral defense cooperation
with these allies?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will continue to explore ways to deepen
our alliance cooperation with Japan and South Korea, emphasize and
encourage trilateral cooperation, and, where possible, support efforts
to strengthen ties between the two countries. I understand there are
significant cooperative efforts already underway, including the Defense
Trilateral Talks, which recently were conducted at the assistant
Secretary level in Tokyo, and I would continue these initiatives, if
confirmed. Deeper trilateral cooperation enhances our Alliance
capabilities, sends a powerful message to the region, and serves to
reinforce deterrence against possible aggression.

108. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, in your response to the advance
policy question on the status of the U.S.-China relationship, you
recognize the fact that ``China is rapidly modernizing its military and
increasingly asserting claims to territory''. If confirmed, how should
the United States respond to China's increasingly aggressive actions
over the Senkaku Islands and what steps will you take to assure our
Japanese allies of America's commitments to defend Japanese territory
under Article V of the Treaty of Mutual Cooperation and Security.
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will continue our longstanding
commitments to all of our Treaty allies, including Japan. My
understanding is that the administration has made clear that while the
United States takes no position on the sovereignty of the Senkaku
Islands, our Treaty commitments apply to all territories under the
administration of Japan. I would support continuing this policy and
communicate it clearly to all parties involved in this issue. If
confirmed, I also would continue U.S. efforts to promote the peaceful
handling of the Senkaku Island dispute by all parties while at the same
time ensuring that the United States maintains the ability to fulfill
all of its security commitments.

109. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, in 2011, while I was attending the
Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Hawaii, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton appeared at the East-West Center in Honolulu and
gave an address titled ``America's Pacific Century''. In her remarks,
she stated that the United States has ``a strong relationship with
Taiwan, an important security and economic partner . . . .'' In what
specific ways will you build on this existing foundation and further
enhance this important relationship as Secretary of Defense?
Mr. Hagel. The United States is firm in its commitment to Taiwan's
self-defense needs under the Taiwan Relations Act. This could include
the provision of defense articles and services, consistent with the
Taiwan Relations Act, as well as training opportunities designed to
improve Taiwan's self-defense capabilities.

110. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, what is your current assessment of
our relationships with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines,
and Taiwan? Please describe your goals should you be confirmed as
Secretary of Defense for each of these relationships.
Mr. Hagel. My understanding is that our relationships with these
allies and partners remain extraordinarily strong, and, if confirmed, I
would ensure that we continue to prioritize our critical alliances and
partnerships in the Asia-Pacific region.
Japan is the linchpin of our presence in Asia. Japan is an
increasingly critical partner in missile defense, humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief, maritime security, and other important
areas. If confirmed, I would continue the work of my predecessors to
broaden and deepen this critical alliance to ensure that it is capable
of responding to the security challenges of the 21st century.
The United States has a similarly robust relationship with the
Republic of Korea (ROK). My understanding is that we have a
comprehensive agenda aimed at facilitating the smooth transfer of
wartime operational control in 2015, and ensuring the ROK Government
has the capabilities necessary to defend the peninsula. If confirmed, I
would continue these important efforts, and would also continue to
stress the importance of trilateral ties between Japan, the ROK, and
the United States.
The U.S.-Australia alliance is very strong, reflecting the enduring
bonds forged through the sacrifices of United States and Australian
forces in every major conflict of the last 100 years. The joint U.S.-
Australia force posture initiatives in northern Australia reflect a
reality we all recognize: security and prosperity of our two great
nations is inextricably linked to the security and prosperity of the
Asia-Pacific region. If confirmed, my goal would be to continue to
invest in this critical relationship.
I understand that our alliance with the Philippines has matured
substantially during the Obama and Aquino administrations. Over the
past few years, our defense relationship has developed in many
important dimensions. If confirmed, I would continue this trend by
exploring options for increased rotational presence for U.S. forces in
the Philippines while continuing to support the Philippines'
development of a minimum credible defense capability.
The Taiwan Relations Act provides that the United States ``will
make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in
such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.'' That policy has contributed to
peace and stability in the region for over 30 years and is consistent
with longstanding U.S. policy, which calls for a peaceful resolution of
the Taiwan issue in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of
the Taiwan Strait. If confirmed, I would work closely with Congress,
the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and the Department's interagency
partners to ensure the continued effective implementation of all of the
relevant provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.

women in combat
111. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, in light of DOD's recent
announcement with regard to the role of women in combat, I'd like to
ask about the priority you will give to developing implementation plans
to move forward with the U.S. NAP on WPS released by the White House in
December 2011. It is my understanding that the Department of State and
USAID have released implementation plans building on the NAP.
If the White House plan envisions an active role in this regard by
DOD, I would be interested in your vision for moving forward in this
regard.
Mr. Hagel. I understand that, in the first year of implementation,
the Department made noteworthy progress on the NAP for WPS objectives
both internally and with a range of foreign defense partners. First and
foremost was Secretary Panetta's decision to rescind the restriction on
women in direct combat, a decision I applaud. Externally, in bilateral
and multilateral engagements, I am told combatant commands and our
Regional Centers are focused on building the capacity of partner
militaries to promote and strengthen gender equality.
I understand that the Department is developing a DOD Instruction to
institutionalize the NAP's priorities. If confirmed, I would continue
this progress in implementing the NAP and ensure the Department
continues to lead by example on WPS issues.

family programs
112. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, last year I attended a graduation
ceremony at Pearl Harbor-Hickam Air Force Base. The graduates were 4-
year-olds from military families involved in a YMCA [Young Men's
Christian Association] program. These kids reminded me that when our
men and women in uniform are deployed, their families serve too. In the
House of Representatives, I was the Co-Chair of the House Impact Aid
Coalition. Impact Aid helps support local school districts that educate
military-connected children. Please elaborate on how you will work to
provide child care and educational opportunities to the children of
military families.
Mr. Hagel. I fully support the Impact Aid program, and these funds
are primarily delivered through the Department of Education to local
school districts. In addition, DOD has been providing hundreds of
millions of dollars to local school districts through a
congressionally-directed program to rebuild locally owned schools
located on military bases that are falling into disrepair. More
directly, DOD has spent billions of dollars on a multi-year program to
rebuild Department owned schools that are in failing condition.
I believe that it is the duty of the Department to prepare military
families to cope with the challenges that military service brings In
order to build and sustain resilient military families, the Department
must continue to focus on programs that enhance their social,
financial, educational and psychological well-being.
I believe there are opportunities to improve the efficiency and
accessibility of the resources and programs that the Department, other
Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Department partners
like the YMCA provide our servicemembers and their families. If
confirmed, I will explore these opportunities and how we can better
coordinate efforts to more effectively provide programs to our military
families.

recruit readiness
113. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, recently, a group of retired
generals and admirals called Mission Readiness found that 75 percent of
young Americans ages 17 to 24 are unable to join the military,
primarily because they are poorly educated, physically unfit, or
involved in crime. As Secretary of Defense, how will you work with
other Federal agencies to combat these problems and improve the pool of
potential recruitments?
Mr. Hagel. Today's enlistment qualification standards are well-
defined, supported by years of experience, and have stood the test of
time. They are driven by the need to provide the Services with men and
women who are prepared to adapt to the rigors of military life and meet
performance requirements. It is imperative we maintain the highest
standards for these reasons.
If confirmed, I will work closely with organizations such as
Mission Readiness, the National Prevention Council and the First Lady's
office to address these issues. I will explore opportunities in the
Department to pilot healthy initiatives at several military
installations to serve as a model for the department, and the Nation.

energy security
114. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, across the globe resource scarcity,
political and social upheaval, and other factors are changing the
nature of the threats our Nation faces. These new challenges are
particularly pronounced when we consider the global energy markets on
which we rely. Prices are set based on global demand--not U.S.
strategic and operational concerns--and many of the source nations are
not our closest allies. Do you view U.S. energy security as a vital
component to our overall national security?
Mr. Hagel. Energy security is central to national security. DOD can
play a role in promoting U.S. energy security in two ways.
First, DOD can improve the energy security of military operations
and defense facilities. The Department has a long history of harnessing
innovation to meet defense challenges in ways that can benefit the
civilian economy, and there is potential for such gains in this case.
Second and more broadly, a core mission for DOD is preventing
conflict, through deterrence and forward presence, partnerships with
other nations, and a range of other activities. The Department also
plays a supporting part in whole-of-government efforts to build peace,
stability, and prosperity around the world. I view the Department's
shaping and prevention efforts as vital to our overall national
security, given the complexity of current and emerging threats and
challenges. In that context, energy security is both part of the
challenge and the response for DOD.

115. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, what role, if any, do you believe
that DOD has in supporting efforts to increase U.S. energy security?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #114.

116. Senator Hirono. Mr. Hagel, Congress has included provisions in
past NDAAs to give the Secretary of Defense the guidance, tools, and
support for initiatives intended to improve the military's energy
security and reduce fuel costs. These include section 526 of the Energy
Independence and Security Act, establishment of an Office of
Operational Energy Plans and Programs headed by an assistant secretary,
and other provisions. If confirmed, do you intend to continue to
encourage the Services to utilize these authorities to meet their
operational and installation energy needs effectively?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Tim Kaine
atlantic-pacific military presence
117. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, in 2012, DOD released its new
strategy, noting a rebalance to Asia while also maintaining our
commitments in the Middle East. This strategy is heavily dependent on
the maritime forces of the Navy and the Marine Corps. What is your view
on the necessity of maintaining our naval power projection in the
Atlantic in order to maintain our presence in the Middle East,
especially given the threat of Iran to the region?
Mr. Hagel. Today, the United States must be able to project naval
power globally, with a strategic emphasis on rebalancing to the Asia-
Pacific region and maintaining presence in and around the Middle East.
Our Atlantic fleet will continue to play a vital role in meeting our
global demands. If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the
Navy, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine
Corps, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure a strong
and sustainable Navy and Marine Corps that can prevail in light of
current and projected challenges.

118. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, please describe your view on our
naval presence, given the current defense strategic guidance and
ongoing conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa region.
Mr. Hagel. Historically, the Nation has used globally deployable
Naval forces to provide presence and power projection capabilities in
multiple regions, often shifting between regions on short notice in
response to emerging security threats. Naval presence will continue to
be vital if we are to rebalance toward the Asia Pacific while
maintaining our defense commitments in the Middle East and elsewhere.
If confirmed, I would work with the Secretary of the Navy, the Chief of
Naval Operations, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, and the Chairman
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to ensure a strong and sustainable Navy
and Marine Corps that can prevail in light of current and projected
challenges.

shipbuilding
119. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, State shipbuilding plans are
critical to meet our strategic needs, as well as critical to maintain
our defense industrial base and supply chain. Given the affordability
challenges facing the defense industry, you have the responsibility to
ensure that you set the course for our Navy's force structure and
maintain the Nation's security, all while balancing cost and risk of
shipbuilding efforts. Would you agree to work closely with me, with
this committee, and with this Congress in addressing our shipbuilding
needs?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

120. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, will you remain committed to
ensuring that the vessels we build for our sailors and marines are the
finest this Nation can produce and that they meet military
classifications for warships?
Mr. Hagel. I am committed to ensuring that survivability shall be
addressed on all new surface ship, combat systems and equipment
designs, overhauls, conversions, and modernizations in order that the
design is provided a balance of survivability performance, risk, and
cost within program objectives.

121. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, will you agree to analyze all
avenues of optimal program management and cost control measures in
shipbuilding in order to allow shipbuilders to optimize design and save
taxpayers' dollars?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

defense industrial base
122. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, numerous studies by the Defense
Business Board, GAO, and others point to a need for increased
collaboration between industry and DOD. This becomes ever more
important as the need for efficiencies increases and the number of
industry participants decreases. DOD must provide our servicemembers
with the best equipment possible. Enhancing innovation for defense
applications through the current acquisition system may be an ongoing
challenge in this fiscal environment. How will DOD sustain and improve
capabilities that have been developed through collaborative innovation
with industry?
Mr. Hagel. Industry is our partner in defending this Nation and I
fully recognize the vital role it plays in our national security. If
confirmed, I will assess our current programs regarding collaborative
efforts with industry, particularly in the areas of research and
development, to leverage the innovation of the private sector.

123. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, what is your assessment of the
health of the defense industrial base and areas that require more
attention?
Mr. Hagel. I believe in a strong, healthy industrial base, and I am
concerned that changes in the defense market may impact that base. If
confirmed, I will ensure the Department has a process to assess
fragility of the capabilities needed provide our military with the best
equipment in the world.

veteran assistance
124. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, you noted in your advance policy
questions your commitment to improving the care veterans receive as
they transition from Active Duty to civilian life. In the past few
years, we have seen a high rate of unemployment among veterans, as well
as increasing rates of suicide among this population. In your view,
what are the most critical areas of improvement for veterans care?
Mr. Hagel. This is a far ranging issue that will warrant
significant attention from me, if confirmed. It is my understanding
that our current focus areas are providing: a seamless transition of
health information from DOD to the Department of Veterans Affairs,
timely processing of disability claims, and transitional support such
as employment assistance and related help. If confirmed, I will
evaluate the entire domain of veteran's transition for effectiveness
and where we need more improvement.

125. Senator Kaine. Mr. Hagel, what are the areas of potential
collaboration among public and private sector entities?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that there are numerous areas where public
and private collaborations could advance solutions for some of our most
pressing issues with veterans care. These include opportunities to
collaborate in: scientific research; improving access to mental health
care and piloting new and innovative models of care; ensuring that
military training in medical triage and care provision translates to
employment in the private sector through collaboration with
professional organizations, certification bodies, and academic training
programs (e.g., medics serving as EMTs); and developing evidenced-based
care guidelines and treatment protocols for psychological health and
Traumatic Brain Injury.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Angus S. King, Jr.
concern about the industrial base
126. Senator King. Mr. Hagel, last year, the Chief of Naval
Operations (CNO), Admiral Jonathan Greenert, testified before this
committee about the consequences of sequestration for shipbuilding.
Admiral Greenert said that if sequestration kicks in, we will lose
capabilities in some of our shipyards and we would be looking at a
fleet of 230 ships compared to the current fleet of 285 ships. He went
on to say, ``I'm very concerned about an industrial base that would be
able to adjust from sequestration. It would be very difficult to keep a
shipbuilder that could be efficient in building the types of ships we
need.'' In short, he described the very type of irreversible
consequences that we must avoid. I am proud of the workers at Bath Iron
Works in my home State, but this issue is larger than that because the
six remaining shipyards that build Navy ships are truly strategic
assets that once lost, cannot be restored in a timely manner. Do you
agree with the CNO's assessment and share my alarm that sequestration
will result in greater per unit costs, an unacceptable danger to our
industrial base, and a smaller Navy fleet?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, I agree that the industrial base is a strategic
asset that needs to be protected and that sequestration may have
irreversible impacts in the long term. Sequestration budget cuts would
certainly reduce ship procurement and maintenance, impacting fleet
size. Sequestration would also implement automatic spending cuts
without regard for strategy or priorities, so the Navy would be forced
into a position where they could not execute contract options that were
negotiated to minimize unit costs and stabilize workload in the
shipyards. If confirmed, I will work with Congress to avert
sequestration and work with the Navy to protect the industrial base.

ddg-51 destroyer program
127. Senator King. Mr. Hagel, the enacted NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013
authorized a multi-year procurement of up to 10 DDG-51 destroyers
during the next 5 years beginning in fiscal year 2013. The
Appropriations Committees of both the House of Representatives and the
Senate adopted fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations bills also
included funding to support a 10-ship program. Multi-years present
unique opportunities to procure required major defense systems more
cost effectively than through annual procurements. I realize that
enactment of the fiscal year 2013 defense appropriations legislation is
required before the Navy can execute this vital multi-year procurement
and achieve cost savings while also helping to stabilize our
specialized shipbuilding industrial base. Will you let the leadership
on both sides of the aisle in the Senate and the House of
Representatives know how critical it is that we enact a fiscal year
2013 Defense Appropriations Bill?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will certainly continue to stress to
Congress the importance of receiving an enacted fiscal year 2013
Defense Appropriations Bill. A year-long CR reduces the Department's
funding flexibility by spending money on last year's priorities not
this year's--an untenable position. It also pushes the Department to
use month-to-month contracts and prohibits doing ``new starts'' in
military construction or acquisition programs.

berry amendment
128. Senator King. Mr. Hagel, according to the Berry Amendment, DOD
cannot procure clothing items unless they are produced in the United
States. Congress first established this domestic preference for DOD
procurement in 1941, and for decades the military branches complied by
issuing American-made uniforms, including athletic footwear, for our
troops. In recent years, however, DOD has circumvented this policy by
issuing cash allowances to soldiers for their own purchase of training
shoes.
New Balance makes a compliant athletic shoe. New Balance has 5,000
pairs of Berry-compliant footwear sitting on their shelves, as we
speak. Next year, enforcing compliance with Berry would actually save
money. Currently, the Navy gives a $68 cash allowance to recruits, and
Berry-compliant shoes from New Balance cost $68. Next year, the
allowance will increase to $74, but the Berry-compliant shoe cost will
remain the same. That's a $6 savings per pair of running shoes.
Will you review this policy and work to assure that compliant gear
is purchased and U.S. jobs are protected?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will review the Department's policies
pertaining to the athletic running shoes provided to military enlisted
recruits and will ensure the Department meets its obligations under the
Berry Amendment.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator James M. Inhofe
taiwan relations
129. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and
the Six Assurances of 1982 have contributed to the peace and stability
of the Asia-Pacific region for the past 3 decades. With the military
balance--including air superiority--gradually shifting in China's
favor, what are your plans to implement the security commitment the
United States has for Taiwan under this framework?
Mr. Hagel. In my view, the increasing complexity and sophistication
of the military threat to Taiwan from China means that Taiwan must
devote greater attention to asymmetric concepts and innovative
technologies to maximize Taiwan's strengths and advantages. If
confirmed, I would work closely with Congress, throughout DOD, and with
our interagency partners to ensure the continued effective
implementation of all of the relevant provisions of the Taiwan
Relations Act.
I believe that we should make available to Taiwan those defense
articles and defense services which enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability, today and into the future. If
confirmed, I will look at what specific self-defense capabilities
Taiwan needs in light of the security situation in the Taiwan Strait
and the evolving military capabilities on the mainland.

130. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, as Taiwan is likely to retire some
of its older fighter aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe
that sales of advanced aircraft are an important next step in this
commitment?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #129.

east china sea
131. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, last August, Taiwan President Ma
Ying-jeou proposed an East China Sea Peace Initiative to address the
ongoing dispute between Japan and China over the Senkaku or Diaoyutai
Islands. While Taiwan also claims sovereignty over the islands as part
of the Republic of China, it ``calls on all parties concerned to
resolve disputes peacefully based on the U.N. Charter and relevant
provisions in international law.'' In its proposal, Taiwan goes on to
call on all parties to:

1. Refrain from taking any antagonistic actions;
2. Shelve controversies and not abandon dialogue;
3. Observe international law and resolve disputes through peaceful
means;
4. Seek consensus on a code of conduct in the East China Sea; and
5. Establish a mechanism for cooperation on exploring and
developing resources in the East China Sea.

Do you believe that such an initiative is a constructive and
necessary step in resolving the dispute in a peaceful and comprehensive
manner?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, working with the Secretary of State and
other interagency counterparts, I would carefully consider any
initiative that seeks to reduce tensions and facilitate a diplomatic
solution to the current tensions.

east asia
132. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, Myanmar has been invited as an
observer to the Cobra Gold exercises in 2013. Do you believe inclusion
of the Burmese military is timely?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that plans call for two Burmese military
officers to be included in the Cobra Gold Observer Program as a way to
promote the Burmese military's exposure to the international community
and international norms of behavior. I believe that this step is timely
and sensible. I also agree with the current Department stance that
future participation should be contingent on continued progress by the
Government of Burma in consolidating democratic reforms, improving its
human rights record, promoting national reconciliation, and suspending
military ties to North Korea.

133. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you envision that the Burmese
will be brought into security partnerships with the United States
bilaterally or through multilateral arrangements with regional
militaries?
Mr. Hagel. I support the administration's approach of cautious and
calibrated engagement with the Burmese military through bilateral and
multilateral arrangements. If confirmed, I will consult with Congress
regarding the scope and scale of bilateral engagement. I also agree
with the current policy that a normalization of defense relations with
Burma can only occur if the Government of Burma continues its efforts
to democratize, improves its human rights record, implements national
reconciliation efforts with its various ethnic groups, and suspends
military ties to North Korea. I also support robust multilateral
engagement of the United States with the Association of Southeast Asian
Nations (ASEAN) and its ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting-Plus (ADMM+)
efforts, of which Burma is a member and will be chair in 2014.

134. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, will a reduction of DOD's budget
impact security cooperation and regional security in East Asia?
Mr. Hagel. As the President has stated, the United States is a
Pacific power with enduring interests in the peace and security of the
region. If confirmed, I will work to uphold and prioritize our security
commitments in the Asia-Pacific region. However, sequestration's
effects would be disastrous for the Department and would necessitate a
review of the new defense strategy.

135. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, will budget cuts impact our ability
to perform humanitarian relief missions or participate in military
exercises like Thailand's Cobra Gold?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I would continue ongoing efforts to ensure
that the United States remains the security partner of choice in the
Asia-Pacific region. However, sequestration would necessitate a
reevaluation of the U.S. defense strategy and any further reductions
could require adjustments to overall implementation of the strategy.

iran
136. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the Iranian regime continues to
threaten neighbors--our allies in the region like Azerbaijan. There
were news reports throughout the past year that Azerbaijan's security
services arrested several activists belonging to the Iranian
intelligence service and Hezbollah. These operatives were suspected of
planning terrorist attacks against foreigners in the capital Baku,
including the U.S. and Israeli embassies. The United States has long-
term interests in the Caspian region and the South Caucasus. Azerbaijan
and the United States cooperate in countering terrorism, nuclear
proliferation and narcotics trafficking, and promoting security in the
wider Caspian region and beyond. As a key component to the NDN,
Azerbaijan provides ground and naval transit for roughly 40 percent of
the ISAF coalition's supplies bound for Afghanistan. Azerbaijan
expressed its commitment to support U.S. and NATO efforts in
stabilizing Afghanistan beyond 2014 and is among first eight non-NATO
potential operational partners. Azerbaijan has been extending important
over-flight clearance, landing, and refueling operations for U.S. and
NATO flights to support ISAF. In 2012, more than 150 aero-medical
evacuation flights of U.S. Air Mobility Command have flown over
Azerbaijan, rushing more than 2,200 patients to a higher level of
medical care. The United States has also energy interests in the region
and our energy companies have interests in exploring Caspian Sea oil
resources and deliver them westwards to provide for energy security to
our European allies.
If confirmed, what do you think DOD should do to strengthen the
security of our regional allies, like Azerbaijan, that face pressure
and open threats from Iran on a daily basis, and what are the areas you
think we should look into to expand security and defense cooperation
with Azerbaijan to ensure it has adequate means to defend its
territory?
Mr. Hagel. I have deep concerns about Iran's destabilizing
activities and recognize the many shared interests between the United
States and Azerbaijan. If confirmed, I would continue the Defense
Department's high level engagement with its counterparts in Azerbaijan.
In particular, I would seek to strengthen existing areas of partnership
and identify new areas of cooperation in support of Azerbaijan's
defense reforms, its ability to interoperate with NATO and deploy to
coalition operations, its capacity to address terrorism and other
transnational threats and to secure its maritime borders and energy
infrastructure. I would look for the United States to be Azerbaijan's
partner of choice and help Azerbaijan's defense establishment
contribute to regional security and stability, such as by continuing to
encourage Azerbaijan's significant support to international efforts in
Afghanistan.

military suicides
137. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, I am very concerned about the
significant rise in military suicides. According to the most current
published DOD Suicide Event Report, 301 suicides occurred among
military servicemembers in 2011. DOD recently reported 349 suicides in
2012--more than the total number of deaths incurred in combat. Do you
believe DOD is doing all it can to prevent the tragic number of
suicides in the Military Services?
Mr. Hagel. The Department is doing all that it can given the
complex nature of suicide and society's limited base of knowledge in
this realm. Suicide among our Nation's military is clearly tragic and
will require solutions that are informed by evidence of effectiveness.
There is some proof that peer support and call lines help. There is
also a need to continue the focus on resilience building and leadership
education.

138. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what will you do to get this
problem fixed?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I am committed to seeing that programs
that focus on resiliency and leadership education continue and are
further evaluated with additional research. Furthermore, I understand
that the Department is in the process of drafting its first
comprehensive suicide prevention program policy. It would be a top
priority to review and implement this program policy as soon as it is
ready.

139. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, is DOD fully funding the Services'
suicide prevention programs and research programs that inform us about
effective prevention strategies?
Mr. Hagel. I am not currently familiar with the details of our
research program spending in this area, but I share the views of the
leadership of the Army and the entire Department that this is a top
priority. If confirmed, I will review these research programs for
efficiency and effectiveness in identifying strategies to prevent
suicides and will work to ensure that sufficient funding is available
for this important effort. As with other programs, sequestration could
have a damaging impact on our efforts in this area.

140. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, how will you continue
to fund these efforts under sequestration and a year-long Continuing
Resolution?
Mr. Hagel. The impact of sequestration combined with a year-long
Continuing Resolution will present the Department with very serious
funding challenges. I am deeply concerned about the significant rise in
military suicides and am firmly committed to ensuring that the
Department have the funds necessary to provide high-quality behavioral
health care to servicemembers and their families. But protecting these
vital personnel programs will require sacrifices in other important
areas.

impact of sequestration on the defense health program and family
support programs
141. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, in your advance policy questions
you agreed with the Joint Chiefs when they said that a full-year
Continuing Resolution and sequestration would ``damage our readiness,
our people, and our military families.'' Additionally, you stated:
``Sustaining family programs in the current fiscally constrained
environment will be challenging, but it is of vital importance.''
Under sequestration, do you agree that morale will suffer and
beneficiaries may not be able to get the health care and support
services they need?
Mr. Hagel. I share the concern of our senior military leaders that
the morale of the force will be affected in ways that are unpredictable
if sequester goes into effect and disrupts our training, readiness, and
family support programs. If confirmed, I will attempt to ensure that
reductions do not break faith with our troops and they continue to
receive the health care and support services they need.

142. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you ensure that
defense budget cuts will not hinder or harm the extraordinary care and
support that our wounded warriors and their families receive?
Mr. Hagel. I want to make it clear that if confirmed I will make it
a priority to minimize the impact of sequestration on our wounded
warriors and their families. However, sequestration provides no
exemption for military health care funding, and across the board cuts
to those programs are required by law if sequester takes place. If
confirmed, I will seek to protect funding for wounded warrior care to
the greatest extent possible, subject to those constraints.

budget
143. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, during a series of video interviews
with the Financial Times on August 29, 2011, you were asked about the
prospect of sequestration and its impact on DOD. When asked about the
impact of an automatic $600 billion cut to DOD (beyond the $487 billion
already proposed by the President in April 2011), you appear to
disagree with Secretary Panetta's assessment that such cuts would be
devastating. Instead you stated that you feel DOD is ``bloated'' and
that ``the Pentagon needs to be pared down''.
In an exchange with Senator Blunt at your confirmation hearing, my
colleague asked you to provide some specific examples of what you were
referring to when you identified the DOD budget as being ``bloated.''
During the hearing, you failed to provide any specificity, so please do
so now of where you believe defense spending is excessive and what
accounts and programs you believe should be cut.
Mr. Hagel. I have never said that I support sequestration. I do not
nor have I ever supported sequestration. I support the 2011 Budget
Control Act. I stand by my view that inefficiency and waste exists in
DOD that could and should be reduced or eliminated. The record shows,
in my view, that both the Department's leadership and Congress have
expressed similar views. In his May 2010 speech at the Eisenhower
library, then-Secretary Gates launched an effort to cut inefficiency
and waste in the Department that had grown up over the previous decade
of rising budgets.
As he noted at the time, inefficiency is not just about money. He
cited in that speech a ``top-heavy hierarchy'' in DOD that was out of
step with the 21st century. Following that speech, the Department began
reducing unneeded senior executive and general officer positions to
reduce layers of management.
In the Department's next two budget submissions for fiscal year
2011 and fiscal year 2012, they produced separate justification books,
which the Committee has on file, detailing plans to cut inefficiency
and lower-priority programs by $178 billion and then another $60
billion, respectively. I believe many of those reductions, in areas
such as information technology, smarter acquisition, streamlined
management, and reorganizations, are underway but not yet fully
realized.
Notwithstanding these efforts by the Department, Congress was able
to find additional savings and reduced defense spending below the level
requested by the Department in both of these fiscal years by
approximately $20 billion per year.

143a. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe military resources
should drive strategy or should strategy drive resources?
Mr. Hagel. I believe strategy should drive our resource decisions,
but our strategy must also be realistic and resource-informed.

144. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that DOD should
pursue a National Security Strategy that assumes a relatively high
degree of risk for our military?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the Department has developed a strategy that
meets the challenges of the current and future security environment
that both minimizes risk and complies with the fiscal constraints
imposed by the Budget Control Act (BCA). I also believe that by ending
the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and rebalancing to a strategic
posture that modernizes alliances, builds partner capacity and
maintains a ready, agile and responsive force, we reduce the risk to
our military.

145. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, if it is determined that the
reductions being proposed need to be revised and that additional
resources are necessary to meet our national security needs, do you
believe you would have the flexibility to advocate for a decrease in
the $487 billion reduction to defense budgets if you determined a
significant adverse impact to national security?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will continue to work with OMB and
Congress to seek the resources necessary to provide the military
capabilities the defense of our Nation requires. However, the mechanism
of sequestration enacted in the Budget Control Act and the lack of a
full year appropriation are my immediate concerns as they would
severely limit the Department's flexibility to ensure the military has
the funds it requires to fulfill its mission.

146. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, over the past 4 years this
administration has pursued the systematic disarming of U.S. military
power under the guise of defense budget cuts in order to maintain
significantly higher levels of funding for non-security-related
domestic programs. In a letter I sent to Secretary Panetta earlier this
month, I reiterated that we are in full agreement that any additional
cuts to defense spending, especially those of the magnitude of
sequestration, would be unacceptable and will result in serious and
lasting harm to the capabilities and readiness of our military. Do you
agree that sequestration would have lasting harm to the capabilities
and readiness of our military?
Mr. Hagel. The combined impacts of a Continuing Resolution and
Sequestration will have a devastating impact on our readiness,
especially given that we have a shorter period of time and limited
flexibility to manage where the reductions are taken. Based on my
assessment to date, sequestration would harm military readiness and
disrupt each and every investment program. Some of the more notable
impacts of sequester would be reduced global activities, less training
which would decrease readiness, disruption of investment programs,
limits on military construction, and forced furloughs and hiring
freezes for civilian workers.

147. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that averting
sequestration should be our highest priority?
Mr. Hagel. Adverting sequestration, as well as providing the
Department a fiscal year 2013 appropriations bill, should be Congress'
highest priority.

148. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that Congress and the
administration have a shared responsibility in averting sequestration?
Mr. Hagel. The ability to avoid sequestration and to pass a full-
year appropriations bill for DOD is within the power of Congress. It is
my desire that Congress and the administration reach an agreement on a
balanced package of deficit reductions that leads to detriggering of
sequestration and regular appropriation bills.

cybersecurity
149. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, in your advance policy questions
you stated that it is ``your understanding that the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) has the lead for domestic cybersecurity.''
Cyberspace perhaps more so than any other domain is not bound and has
little regard to geographical boundaries. When it comes to the defense
of the Homeland from a foreign attack what role do you believe DOD
should play?
Mr. Hagel. DOD has the responsibility to defend, deter, and when
directed by the President, take action to defend the United States, its
allies, and its interests in cyberspace as in all domains. I agree that
threats in cyberspace can cross both physical boundaries and particular
departmental responsibilities, and, therefore, believe it is critical
for the Department to work closely with both the public and private
sectors. To support DOD national security responsibilities, I believe
that the Department must maintain a close partnership with DHS.

149a. Senator Inhofe. Do you believe DOD should be the principal
U.S. Government agency responsible for protecting the United States
against foreign cyber-attacks to the Homeland?
Mr. Hagel. It is my understanding that DOD has the mission to
defend the Nation in cyberspace and that DHS should be the lead for
coordinating the cybersecurity of U.S. critical infrastructure. I
support these roles and relationship.

150. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, I understand there is some
confusion over the role DHS would play in such an attack on the
Homeland in cyberspace. Do you believe that DHS should have anything
more than a supporting role to DOD in a cyberattack against the
Homeland?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that DOD has the mission to defend the
Nation in cyberspace, and that this includes a close partnership with
DHS in its role of leading efforts for the cybersecurity of U.S.
critical infrastructure, and non-DOD unclassified government networks.
I believe that DHS plays a vital role in securing unclassified Federal
civilian government networks and working with owners and operators of
critical infrastructure to secure their networks through risk
assessment, mitigation, incident response capabilities, and sharing
cyber threat and vulnerability information. DOD supports DHS in its
domestic role.

151. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, who, in your opinion, should be
that principal agency with the responsibility of coordinating the
defense of the Homeland from a foreign cyberattack and the response?
Mr. Hagel. I support the current administration approach, in which
DOD has the responsibility to defend, deter, and, when directed by the
President, take action to defend the United States, its allies, and its
interests in cyberspace as in all domains. I also support DOD's
partnership with DHS in its role leading efforts for the cybersecurity
of U.S. critical infrastructure.

152. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, capabilities-wise, do you agree
that DOD and the National Security Agency have the most comprehensive
set of resources to defend the Nation from a foreign cyberattack?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. At the same time, I believe that DOD should work
closely with other departments and agencies that have unique
responsibilities, capabilities, and expertise, such as DHS and the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.

153. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that establishing
bureaucracies and duplicative efforts at DHS would be unwise?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that departments and agencies should not set up
unnecessary bureaucracies or duplicative efforts. In the cyber domain,
I believe that DOD and DHS should continue to team together to address
cyber threats, understanding that each has specific roles and missions,
and that DOD has the mission to defend the Nation in cyberspace.

154. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, a recent Wall Street Journal
article titled ``Banks seek U.S. Help on Iran Cybersecurity'' states
that ``major U.S. banks are pressing for government action to block or
squelch what Washington officials say is an intensifying Iranian
campaign of cyberattacks against American financial institutions.'' The
article asserts that some of the financial institutions are concerned
by the lack of U.S. Government response arguing that the banks ``can't
be expected to fend off attacks from a foreign government.'' According
to the article, ``U.S. officials have been weighing options, including
whether to retaliate against Iran.''
What role do you believe DOD should play in events such as the
recent/ongoing Iranian attacks on the financial sector and do you
believe there is an offensive role DOD should be able to utilize via
cyberspace?
Mr. Hagel. Although I am not aware of the specific details of these
events, DOD plays a critical role in a whole-of-government effort to
address threats to both our national and economic security. The
President has made clear that the United States will respond to hostile
acts in cyberspace as we would any other threat to our country, and
that the United States reserves the right to use all necessary means,
including military means as a last resort, to defend our Nation and our
interests. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department develops the
necessary cyber capabilities to defend and, if directed by the
President, conduct offensive operations.

155. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, I was concerned to read in your
advance policy questions that you seem to believe that we are deterring
and dissuading our adversaries in cyberspace. In a letter sent to
Senator McCain last year by General Alexander, the Commander of U.S.
Cyber Command, he asked a similar question to which Gen. Alexander
simply stated ``No . . . much remains to be done across both the public
and private sector.''
Do you agree with General Alexander's assessment? If not, why not?
Mr. Hagel. I do believe that the United States has successfully
deterred major cyber attacks. However, I agree with General Alexander
that there is much more to be done to protect the Nation from cyber
threats. If confirmed, I am committed to continuing DOD efforts to
strengthen the Department's cyber capabilities and support
cybersecurity efforts across the public and private sector. One such
opportunity would be to pass legislation that allows for increased
information sharing on cyber threats and the development of critical
infrastructure cybersecurity standards in partnership with the private
sector.

156. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what role do you believe offensive
cyber capabilities should play in cyber deterrence?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that an important element of deterrence is to
develop and maintain a wide variety of capabilities, including cyber
capabilities, that can impose costs on a potential adversary. If
confirmed, I will ensure that DOD provides the President with a broad
range of military options.

157. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the mission to
defend the Homeland will require both offensive and defensive cyber
forces and tools?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I believe the Department must provide a wide range
of credible capabilities in all domains, both offensive and defensive,
to defend the Nation.

national missile defense
158. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you still support the Missile
Defense Act of 1999?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, I co-sponsored the National Missile Defense Act of
1999, and I continue to support the law.

159. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that protection of the
United States from the threat of ballistic missile attack is a critical
national security priority?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

160. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree it is necessary to
modernize and expand our national missile defense, formally known as
the GMD system, to keep pace with the growing threat?
Mr. Hagel. I support the continued modernization, and expansion if
necessary, of the GMD system and the other missile defense efforts that
can contribute to the protection of the homeland in the future.

missile defense in europe
161. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the deployment of
SM-3 interceptors in Poland and Romania, as currently planned, is
provocative for the Russians?
Mr. Hagel. While the Russians have argued that the later phases of
the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA) could undermine their
strategic deterrent, the United States has repeatedly stated that the
EPAA is not directed at Russia and will not have the capability to
undermine Russia's ICBM forces. I agree with this view.

162. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you support President Obama's
commitment to deploy SM-3 missiles in Romania and Poland as currently
planned?
Mr. Hagel. I support the President's approach to missile defense in
Europe, including the deployment of the Aegis Ashore sites in Romania
and Poland as currently planned. If confirmed, I will ensure the
Department continues to support the implementation of the European
Phased Adaptive Approach.

163. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the United States
should provide legal assurances to Russia that would limit U.S. missile
defense capabilities?
Mr. Hagel. The President is on record as saying, and I agree, that
the United States cannot accept any limits on its BMD systems.

164. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree to inform this
committee about ongoing discussions with the Russians concerning
potential limits to U.S. missile defense capabilities or cooperation
with Russia in missile defense?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will keep Congress apprised as required
by the 2013 NDAA.

nuclear weapons
165. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you support modernization of the
nuclear triad and the nuclear weapons complex, as per the stated intent
of the President in his Message to the Senate on the New START treaty?
Mr. Hagel. I support the President's commitment to a safe, secure,
and effective nuclear deterrent as long as nuclear weapons exist. I
believe that modernizing nuclear forces and infrastructure is critical
and should be a national priority. I also believe that there is a
continuing need to sustain the skilled workforce that underpins
deterrence capabilities.

166. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that restoring NNSA's
production infrastructure is necessary to allow excess warheads to be
retired along with other potential stockpile reductions to the
nondeployed stockpile over time?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that modernizing the nuclear weapons
production infrastructure is very important, and that doing so is
necessary to reducing the stockpile hedge over time.

167. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe it is important to
have the capacity to surge production in the event of significant
geopolitical surprise?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that a modernized nuclear weapons
infrastructure that would allow production of additional warheads is
important to hedge against significant, unforeseen changes in the
international security situation.

168. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what do you believe should be the
proper role of DOD in determining the annual funding requests for NNSA
Weapons Activities?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that the Nuclear Weapons Council (NWC)
provides a statutory forum wherein the Department of Energy's National
Nuclear Security Administration and DOD come together to make
programmatic and funding decisions and, as appropriate, recommendations
for the Secretaries to coordinate requirements and expenditures. If
confirmed, I look forward to working with the NWC and the Secretary of
Energy to best coordinate our requirements in a fiscally responsible
manner to continue to meet the Nation's security needs.

arms control compliance
169. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that any outstanding
nuclear weapons treaty compliance concerns should be addressed before
the United States pursues further nuclear arms reduction negotiations
with Russia?
Mr. Hagel. Compliance with legal obligations is central to the
effectiveness of arms control treaties, and concerns about non-
compliance must be addressed. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD
works with the Department of State and other interagency partners in
assessing and responding to compliance concerns. While resolution of
such issues with Russia is clearly important, I do not believe that
discussions of possible further nuclear arms reductions need await
resolution of all compliance issues.

dod financial management system
170. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, are you committed to modernizing
DOD's financial management systems?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I understand that implementation of modern,
integrated business systems is well underway and I will continue to
monitor and support these efforts. They must contribute to improved
efficiency and must also sustain the quality and fidelity of financial
information that we need to manage with.

171. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, would you emphasize
financial management improvement and audit readiness as a top priority?
Mr. Hagel. Improving the Department's financial management
capability is an important priority and if confirmed, I will ensure
that senior leaders are focused on this goal and hold them accountable.

budget cuts and operational readiness
172. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, does the fiscal year 2013 defense
budget of $525.3 billion with $88.5 in OCO funding, affect DOD's
ability to ``respond to every contingency'' as you highlighted in your
opening statement?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, the Department's ability to respond to
contingencies is directly related to the funding it receives which is
translated into military capabilities. I believe the Department can
implement the administration's present strategy within the budget it
has requested. That said, if sequestration occurs, the Department would
need to significantly revise the defense strategy and, in all
probability, would need to make some hard choices about which of our
current national defense capabilities we could afford to retain.

aging military equipment
173. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the Chief of Staff of the Army, and
the Commandant of the Marine Corps have stated that they need at least
2 years of OCO funding after withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan in
order to reset their equipment. If confirmed, will you be prepared to
continue requesting OCO funding until all equipment has been reset?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I believe that it will require considerable time to
repair equipment returning from operations in Afghanistan because of
the nature of the repairs and difficulty of removing the equipment from
Afghanistan.

end strength reductions
174. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do the planned reductions to Army
and Marine Corps end strengths affect DOD's ability to ``respond to
every contingency'' as you highlighted in your opening statement?
Mr. Hagel. Current reductions in the Army and Marine Corps are
being carefully managed in order to balance risk with the right mix of
capabilities necessary to fulfill all of the missions required by the
Defense Strategic Guidance. Currently, reductions are predicated on the
U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM) plans to continue off-ramping forces
heading to Afghanistan. This risk we can manage. However, I am very
concerned about the risk to the Nation given the possibility of
sequestration and the potential for a full year Continuing Resolution.
If not resolved, the fiscal situation could have significant impact on
the ability of the Department to do what is required by the Defense
Strategic Guidance. It is not the planned cuts to the Army and Marine
Corps that cause significant risk, but rather the ones that we may be
forced to make due to the uncertain fiscal environment.

defense budget priorities
175. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, during your testimony you stated
that, if confirmed, you will confine the dollars we are going to spend
in the defense budget for defense purposes, in support of the
warfighter. Do we also have your assurance that you will submit a
budget that reflects this commitment?
Mr. Hagel. I believe a fundamental foundation of any defense budget
submission is to provide the best support we can to our warfighters and
ensure their capabilities, readiness and agility are sustained. If
confirmed, I will uphold this commitment.

industrial base
176. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what is your definition of the
industrial base?
Mr. Hagel. The defense industrial base is a diverse and dynamic set
of companies that provide both products and services, directly and
indirectly, to national security agencies, including the military. The
defense industrial base includes companies of all shapes and sizes from
some of the world's largest public companies to small businesses.

177. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, what will be your
approach to preserving the industrial base?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will ensure the Department continually
assesses the health of the industrial base. I will work closely with
industry and Congress and will be prepared to act to preserve needed
skills and manufacturing capabilities, as resources permit.

acquisition reform
178. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, it seems that every time we have a
change in administrations or the Secretaries of Defense, another
acquisition study is commissioned, usually ignoring the 300 plus
studies that have already produced a report. If confirmed, what will be
your approach to ensuring the acquisition system produces affordable
capabilities that are responsive to the needs of the warfighter?
Mr. Hagel. I understand the Department has undertaken a series of
``Better Buying Power'' initiatives as a broadbased collection of
comprehensive, detailed, initiatives to improve acquisition practices
and ensure the Department is procuring affordable, technically
achievable capabilities on cost and schedule. If confirmed, I will
examine these initiatives to ensure that they adequately address the
problems with the Department's acquisition system.

green agenda
179. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, following up on your testimony, you
stated in response to questions posed by the committee on your
priorities for defense investments in energy technologies that ``my
broad priorities for defense energy investments will be those that:
increase military capabilities, provide more mission success, and lower
total cost.''
With the budget cuts DOD is facing, how will your priorities impact
DOD's current plan to invest $9 billion over the next 5 years on energy
technology investments and an additional $4 billion for renewable
energy facility projects?
Mr. Hagel. I have not yet reviewed the Department's budget related
to energy technologies. If confirmed, I will ensure that investments in
the operational energy area drive enhanced military capabilities,
facilitate mission effectiveness, and lower costs.

180. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, what criteria would
you establish to focus investments on your priorities?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, my main criteria will be to ensure that
DOD investments enhance readiness and warfighting effectiveness and
increase our national security.

181. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that defense funds
should be used to develop a commercial biofuels refinery?
Mr. Hagel. The Nation's long-term energy security would benefit
from a competitive, domestic renewable fuels industry; as a major
consumer of liquid fuels, the Department would benefit, as well. That
said, I am not yet in a position to comment on the trade-offs between
the value of this investment and the other priorities of the
Department.

182. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that critical
operations and maintenance funds intended for the training, equipping,
and readiness of our Armed Forces should be used to pay for alternate
fuels that exceed the cost of traditional fossil fuels?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the Department's primary operational energy
goal should be to ensure operational military readiness. I understand
that most of the Department's investments in alternate fuels since 2003
have been for the purpose of ensuring that military platforms can
operate on a wide range of fuels, providing useful military flexibility
if and when they become commercially available and cost competitive
with petroleum products.

183. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, will you pledge to work with
Congress to ensure that all investments and purchases of renewable
energy technologies and alternate fuels are supported by specific
congressional authorizations for that purpose?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department's energy
investments comply with congressional authorizations.

184. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, according to a recent report by a
major oil and gas company, the United States will be energy self-
sufficient in 2030. Other reports by respected organizations have
agreed. Do you agree that the United States could become energy
independent in the next 20 years?
Mr. Hagel. I am greatly encouraged by the recent developments in
the U.S. energy sector and the benefits for our economy.

185. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, how do you foresee this impacting
U.S. foreign policy?
Mr. Hagel. Reducing the Nation's dependence on foreign oil is an
important national security imperative. That said, because oil prices
are set on a global market and will be for the foreseeable future, the
stability of global oil markets will continue to be important for the
U.S. economy.

u.s. africa command
186. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the outgoing Secretary of Defense
has been a strong supporter of U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and
critical engagement and operations ongoing throughout the continent of
Africa. AFRICOM has less than 5,000 boots on the African continent to
cover 54 countries and over 12 million square miles. Its forces are
completely shared with U.S. European Command (EUCOM). How will the
United States be able to adequately support AFRICOM operations given
the cuts in EUCOM personnel, coupled with additional cuts in DOD
funding?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that our low-cost, small-footprint presence
and operations in Africa are appropriate to promoting our interests and
addressing threats to us and our partners. U.S. forces are managed
globally to address ongoing needs anywhere, so forces that operate in
and around Africa extend beyond those assigned to EUCOM. Moreover,
since the attacks on our diplomatic facilities in Benghazi, I
understand that the Department has undergone a rigorous evaluation of
our military posture across the region, to including assessing EUCOM
and AFRICOM force posture. If confirmed, I would continue to ensure
that we appropriately manage the allocation of U.S. military forces
across the globe, including in Africa, to ensure we are best
positioning ourselves on any given day for contingencies that may
arise.

187. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the President's new strategy calls
for a ``rebalancing'' of resources to the Asia Pacific theater,
maintaining focus on the Middle East, and ``evolving'' force posture in
Europe. Do you believe the President's new Asia-focused strategy puts
our operations at high risk for Africa and South America?
Mr. Hagel. I agree with the Defense Department's new strategy and
move to rebalance to the Asia-Pacific region while maintaining focus on
challenges in the Middle East. The strategy also makes it clear that we
will still have interests we need to protect in other regions of the
world and that we will do so through continued partnership, rotational
presence, and smaller foot-print activities. If confirmed, I will make
sure that we are always mindful of how we address threats, manage risk,
and promote our interests in all parts of the world , and what role the
U.S. military and DOD play in that as part of an overall U.S. effort.
However, we may have to seek different approaches to pursuing our
interests in these other regions if the size of our overall defense
budget declines further.

188. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the headquarters for AFRICOM is in
Stuttgart, Germany. Would you consider moving AFRICOM out of Germany
and somewhere in Africa?
Mr. Hagel. I understand the Department has just completed a study
that compares the costs and benefits of moving the AFRICOM
headquarters. In the end Secretary Panetta considered both cost and
operational factors and decided to keep the headquarters in Stuttgart,
Germany. When assessing possible relocation to the African continent
the Department considered the difficulties in determining a
representative country on such a diverse continent, diplomatic
challenges, high costs of infrastructure, security concerns and
mobility and access challenges. It was decided that a move to the
African continent was not feasible at this time.

budget cuts and operational readiness
189. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, you stated in responses to
questions posed by the committee in regard to the Joint Chief's
concerns about a hollow force that ``the concerns the Joint Chiefs have
expressed about readiness come from a variety of factors, including the
challenges of recovering from 10 years of operational stress, of
transitioning to a broader range of operations, and of doing all of
this in the face of fiscal austerity and budget uncertainty.'' How do
you plan to monitor risk and the potential mismatch between constrained
resources and demands of operational plans?
Mr. Hagel. I am deeply impressed by the caliber and capabilities of
our military forces. It is vitally important that they be ready to
respond to the Nation's needs, and I am concerned that further budget
cuts will negatively affect readiness. If confirmed, I will get regular
updates by the Joint Chiefs on where we must devote the Department's
attention and resources to ensure the readiness of the force.

190. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you believe there currently
exists a mismatch between readiness requirements and military strategy
when assessing the resources available? Please explain.
Mr. Hagel. Maintaining ready forces is a priority. If confirmed, I
will work with the Joint Chiefs to better understand the basis of their
assessment and how we can most effectively address the readiness
challenges our military faces.
My sense is that the concerns the Joint Chiefs have expressed about
readiness come from a variety of factors, including the challenges of
recovering from 10 years of operational stress, of transitioning to a
broader range of operations, and of doing all of this in the face of
fiscal austerity and budget uncertainty. If confirmed, I will carefully
monitor how all of these factors are posing risks to readiness and will
work closely with the military and civilian leadership of the
Department to mitigate those risks to the greatest extent possible.

191. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, as to the mitigation of risk of a
hollow force, do you believe the President will provide you the
discretion to request higher defense budgets than are currently
proposed by the administration over the next 10 years?
Mr. Hagel. I will always give the President my most honest and
informed opinion about all necessary requirements for America's
national security.
I understand the administration has developed Strategic Guidance
consistent with the funding limits of the budget control act. Any
changes to those limits, such as sequestration, will cause a dramatic
change in the force and require a different strategy or different
resources. Additionally, unexpected demands for forces will likely
result in a request for additional funding, as they always have.

geographic risk posed by the revised military strategy
192. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, in your response to the committee
on a question regarding the revised military strategy announced by the
President in the wake of the administration's decision to cut defense
budgets by $487 billion over 10 years, you state: ``By emphasizing the
Asia-Pacific while also focusing on the Middle East, rebalancing will
necessarily accept risk in other areas given the resource-constrained
environment.'' How do you believe the President's military strategy is
taking risks in regions other than Asia and the Middle East?
Mr. Hagel. By prioritizing resources for Asia and the Middle East,
the current defense strategy accepts some risk in terms of the
military's ability to address security challenges elsewhere. I believe
this risk is manageable at the levels of defense spending provided for
in the Budget Control Act. Regardless of where U.S. military forces may
be positioned or stationed, one of the key advantages of our military
is that we can bring to bear effective capabilities where needed to
address threats to our interests. If confirmed, I would work with the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Services to ensure that
readiness is one of our top priorities, so that our forces are ready to
respond to the full range of contingencies that may threaten our key
interests.

193. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what specifically are the risks for
Africa and South America?
Mr. Hagel. In Africa, partner states accept a greater share of the
burden to counter the growing capacity of violent extremist
organizations and ensure regional stability. While we believe this
African-led approach manages the threats to U.S. interests, the limited
defense capacities of most African states and the modest investments in
the African security sector are a source of risk. In South America,
transnational criminal organizations undermine peace and security
across the region and into the United States. As in Africa, partner
states in South America will accept a greater share of the burden to
address transnational criminal organizations.

194. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, why do you believe this risk is
necessary?
Mr. Hagel. Not all problems are best met with military tools. Many
of our national security objectives around the world, and notably in
Africa and South America, are best secured through diplomacy and
economic development. I believe DOD's current strategic approach
balances the risk of overwhelming these two regions with U.S. military
presence with the need to be ready to respond to crises that may emerge
there, using globally agile forces.

195. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what do you believe was lacking in
our military strategy for Asia that required a rebalancing?
Mr. Hagel. As the United States draws down from more than a decade
of war in Afghanistan, we face an inflection point allowing for a
transition from fighting today's wars to preparing for tomorrow's
challenges. The President has been clear that U.S. economic and
security interests are inextricably tied to the Asia-Pacific. The
emerging economic and political dynamism in the Asia-Pacific requires
strong and continuous U.S. commitment and the rebalance is a whole-of-
government effort to renew and deepen U.S. engagement throughout the
region. The rebalance will inform the allocation of activities and
resources to the Asia-Pacific, where the Department will contribute to
peace and prosperity in the region. If confirmed, I will continue the
Department's efforts and activities to seek greater engagement with
allies and partners to build capacity for security cooperation, build
mutual trust, understanding, and norms among countries in the region.

196. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what does rebalancing mean for the
U.S. military effort in the Asia-Pacific region in terms of force
structure changes, additional or modified military capabilities, and
defense budget modifications?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will focus on strengthening our
relationships, building the capacity of key allies and partners, as
well as maintaining the United States' ability to deter conflict and
respond to any potential contingencies in the Asia-Pacific region. The
rebalance renews emphasis on air and naval forces while maintaining
distributed ground forces. The rebalance also requires the Department
to develop new capabilities in order to maintain a technological edge,
our freedom of action, and ability to project power in the region. I
would work closely with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Services, and Office
of the Secretary of Defense leadership to assess any additional changes
in resources, force structure, equipment, and training.

197. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the January 2012 Defense Strategic
Guidance says that ``our posture in Europe must evolve.'' What is your
assessment of the specific programs and strategic efforts that DOD is
executing, or has planned, to evolve our posture in Europe?
Mr. Hagel. I support the Department's current approach to posture
in Europe and its emphasis on maintaining our Article 5 commitments to
Allied security and promoting enhanced capacity and interoperability
for coalition operations. For instance, I strongly support ongoing
efforts related to the European Phased Adaptive Approach, the
establishment of an aviation detachment in Poland, and enhanced
training and exercises with European allies and partners through
rotational deployments from the United States. All of these efforts
introduce more modern capabilities appropriate for future challenges
and demonstrate our commitment to NATO and the strength of the
Alliance.

198. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, how do you believe our evolving
force posture in Europe will affect our commitment to NATO?
Mr. Hagel. The Department's evolving defense posture in Europe
focuses on enhancing interoperability and training and introducing
modern capabilities more appropriate for future challenges. These
evolutions demonstrate our commitment to NATO and the strength of the
Alliance. Regardless of the rebalance, NATO is already adapting to meet
new and emerging threats, to acquire the core enabling capabilities
needed to respond to the full range of contingencies, and to better
align U.S. and NATO training and education efforts in order to solidify
and maintain the gains realized from having operated together in
Afghanistan. As Secretary Panetta has said, ``Europe is our security
partner of choice for military operations and diplomacy around the
world.'' Our investment in Europe is, therefore, crucial.

iran ministry support
199. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, Iran's Foreign Ministry was quoted
as being hopeful your appointment would improve relations between
Tehran and the United States ``We hope that practical changes will be
created in the U.S. foreign policy and the U.S. officials' approach
will change to respect the Nations' rights. We hope that the U.S.
officials will favor peace instead of warmongering and recognize the
rights of nations instead of interfering in the countries' internal
affairs.''
You stated in October 2009 that ``President Obama's approach to
achieving a Middle East peace is connected to other vital regional and
global issues--like helping forge an emerging Arab consensus on peace,
combating terrorism, and future relationships with Iran and Syria.
These issues are all in the long-term interests of Israel, the U.S.,
the Middle East, and the world.''
In describing the President's approach, what specifically were you
referring to regarding future relationships with Iran and Syria?
Mr. Hagel. While I cannot speak to the motivations of the Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesperson behind making those statements, there
should be no doubt that I fully support and--if confirmed--will
faithfully execute the President's multi-vector strategy towards Iran.
This strategy has included tough-minded diplomacy, crippling sanctions,
and serious contingency planning with the objective of preventing Iran
from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
My comments in 2009 reflected my support for the President's use of
diplomacy as an effective tool of statecraft. This approach allowed the
United States to test the intentions of the regimes in Iran and Syria,
expose them before the world, and when they failed to seize the
opportunities presented to them, build a global coalition against them.

200. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, how would these relationships with
these two terrorist regimes be in the long-term interests of Israel and
the United States?
Mr. Hagel. Much has changed since 2009 in Iran and Syria. With that
in mind, I believe that only after there is a change in regime in Syria
and serious changes in the regime's behavior in Tehran, can we
conceivably think about long-term relationships with these two
countries that could be beneficial to the interests of the United
States and the State of Israel. At the same time, I think the United
States should continue to reach out to the people of Syria and Iran--as
the best long-term investment for our and Israel's interests. Both
societies are tremendously important to the stability of a region that
is of great interest to the United States.

201. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, how would you assess the success of
the President's approach to date in the region?
Mr. Hagel. I think the President's approach to the region has had
some great success during the first term. President Obama responsibly
drew down our presence in Iraq, crippled al Qaeda, isolated and
weakened Iran, strongly supported the security of the State of Israel,
and focused on transforming our relationship with peoples of the
region, while advancing our core interests. That said, much remains to
be done during the second term, and--if confirmed--I look forward to
advancing our interests in the vitally important region of the Middle
East.

north korea
202. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, you wrote that ``Kim Jon Il's
government is a genuinely rogue regime whose nuclear ambitions and
capacity for mischief have been more or less contained, though
imperfectly, through the U.N. and a mature diplomatic structure that
includes the United States, Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.''
Given North Korea's ballistic missile launch in December and recent
threats to conduct further nuclear testing, do you still think that the
diplomatic structure is effectively containing North Korean nuclear
ambitions?
Mr. Hagel. North Korea's December Taepo Dong II missile launch and
recent threats to conduct a third nuclear test underscore the growing
North Korean threat to international peace and security. U.S.
diplomatic efforts following the December missile launch, particularly
with China, resulted in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2087, which
affirms the international community's opposition to North Korea's
provocations. The tightened sanctions in the resolution will help
impede the growth of North Korea's weapons of mass destruction program.
If confirmed, I will continue to ensure our military provides the
deterrence and defense necessary to protect our allies and our
interests. This posture is also the best way to create conditions where
diplomacy has the best possible prospects to succeed.

203. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you see the future force
structure of U.S. forces in Korea decreasing below the current size?
Mr. Hagel. To secure peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula
and in Northeast Asia, it is important that the United States and the
Republic of Korea (ROK) maintain a robust combined defense posture. If
confirmed, I will work with ROK leadership to ensure that the United
States maintains an appropriately sized and ready force to respond to
evolving threats in the region.

204. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you think any capabilities need
to be added to our force structure in the Asia-Pacific theater to
ensure regional stability in light of increased North Korean
belligerence?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will maintain the U.S. commitment to the
defense of the ROK using globally available U.S. forces and
capabilities that can be deployed to augment the combined defense in
case of crisis. If confirmed, I would ensure that we have the
capabilities necessary to deter, and, if necessary, defeat, North
Korean aggression.

taiwan
205. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, tensions in the Asia-Pacific have
increased significantly due to more aggressive posturing of China in
places like Scarborough Reef and the Senkaku Islands as China continues
to pursue increased military capabilities. Do you fully support the
Taiwan Relations Act of 1979?
Mr. Hagel. I fully support the Taiwan Relations Act. In my view,
the increasing complexity and sophistication of the military threat to
Taiwan from China increasingly means that Taiwan must devote greater
attention to asymmetric concepts and innovative technologies to
maximize Taiwan's strengths and advantages. If confirmed, I would work
closely with Congress, the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and our
interagency partners to ensure the continued effective implementation
of all of the relevant provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.

206. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do you support the sale of F-16C/Ds
to Taiwan, why or why not?
Mr. Hagel. With respect to advanced fighter sales, I believe that
we should make available to Taiwan those military capabilities that
would allow the Taiwan Armed Forces to execute its missions effectively
not only for today, but well into the future. If confirmed, I will look
at what specific capabilities those are--or should be--in light of the
security situation in the Taiwan Strait and the evolving military
capabilities on the mainland. In addition, if confirmed, I will work
with the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command to identify appropriate
military training and exercise opportunities that will advance U.S.
interests, enhance Taiwan's defense capabilities, and contribute to
peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

207. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, would you support the sale of F-35s
to Taiwan?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #206.

208. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, how would you strengthen the U.S.
security relations with Taiwan?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that the Taiwan Relations Act has contributed to
peace and stability in the region for over 30 years. In my view, the
increasing complexity and sophistication of the military threat to
Taiwan from China means that Taiwan must devote greater attention to
asymmetric concepts and innovative technologies to maximize Taiwan's
strengths and advantages. If confirmed, I would work closely with
Congress, the Commander, PACOM, and our interagency partners to ensure
the continued effective implementation of all of the relevant
provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act. I believe that we should make
available to Taiwan military capabilities that would allow the Taiwan
Armed Forces to execute its missions effectively not only for today,
but well into the future. If confirmed, I will look at what specific
capabilities those are--or should be--in light of the security
situation in the Taiwan Strait and the evolving military capabilities
on the mainland. In addition, if confirmed, I will work with the
Commander, PACOM to identify appropriate military training and exercise
opportunities that will advance U.S. interests, enhance Taiwan's
defense capabilities, and contribute to peace and stability in the
Taiwan Strait.

209. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, does the United States need to
maintain a two carrier presence in the Pacific at all times and can
this be done if sequestration goes into effect?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the
Navy, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Pacific Command to ensure that we
allocate our naval resources at the level of presence necessary to
support our strategic goals, striking a balance between carrier
presence in the Pacific Ocean and other regions. The current budget
uncertainty, combined with ongoing high demand in the Gulf, has made
sustaining two carriers in the Pacific challenging; further significant
cuts in the defense budget would make it, extraordinarily difficult
especially if preserving other U.S. interests--particularly Gulf
presence.

support for israeli security and regional stability
210. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, given the high demand and low
density of our missile defense assets globally, do you support the
allocation of a TPY-2 radar and a BMD-capable ship to the defense of
Israel?
Mr. Hagel. I support strong missile defense cooperation with
Israel, including the deployment of the U.S. TPY-2 radar and
operational cooperation and support, including ship-based. In addition,
the United States and Israel have a long history of cooperative
research and development on missile defense. If confirmed, I will
continue to support a robust missile defense cooperative relationship
with Israel.

iran
211. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, will a two-carrier presence in the
Gulf be sustainable given expected severe defense budget cuts?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that it is critical that the U.S. military
maintain a robust presence in the region to counter Iran, reassure our
partners, and build partner capacity. Our carrier presence is a key
element of this presence. If confirmed, I will work with the combatant
commanders to revalidate our posture and ensure it best addresses the
threats, challenges, and opportunities in the region to preserve all
options for the President while balancing other national security
needs. Current budget uncertainty and further significant cuts in the
defense budget would make sustaining this critical Gulf presence, and
preserving other U.S. interests, extraordinarily difficult.

212. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, do we have enough missile defense
assets in the Middle East to adequately protect our partners and allies
from an Iranian ballistic missile attack?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the phased adaptive approach takes the
appropriate steps to protect our interests in the region. If confirmed,
I will make it a priority to assess the adequacy of our missile defense
posture in the Middle East to protect our deployed forces, allies, and
partners from attack, and will seek adjustments as appropriate. I will
also work to strengthen our cooperative relationships in the Middle
East, and encourage our partners to continue to make investments in
missile defense.

listening to commanders on the ground
213. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, our commanders on the ground in
both Iraq and Afghanistan asked for a surge to achieve national
security objectives - and you disagreed with both of them.
How much weight will you give your combat commanders on the ground
when you make future decisions or recommendations to the President?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I would of course place great weight on
the assessments and recommendations of combatant commanders and theater
commanders on how best to achieve our military and national security
objectives in their theater. If confirmed, it would be my
responsibility to weigh their recommendations against global risk and
force posture, and to offer that judgment to the President alongside
theirs. If confirmed, I will honor the principles, enshrined in law,
that allow the Chairman and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to voice their
best military advice to the President. I will continue to foster an
environment that welcomes critical thinking and diversity of views from
theater commanders, combatant commanders, and the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, as better and wiser strategic choices will result.

russia reset
214. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, the administration has made major
efforts towards resetting our relationship with Russia. However, on
major issues such as Syria, Russia remains uncooperative. What is your
assessment of the reset with Russia with respect to military-to-
military relations?
Mr. Hagel. Although we do not see eye-to-eye with Russia on every
issue, there are many areas of cooperation that have been positive,
including transit into and out of Afghanistan, support on sanctions
against Iran, and increased transparency on military reform and
modernization.

215. Senator Inhofe. Mr. Hagel, what areas do you see for future
increased military cooperation with Russia?
Mr. Hagel. The enhanced bilateral military relationship we have
developed with Russia under the reset is worthwhile. If confirmed, I
would seek to continue it, while considering what adjustments may be
needed. My understanding is that DOD has been pursuing several areas of
increased cooperation with Russia, with a focus on developing
transparency by providing a reliable and predictable channel of
communications between our militaries. If confirmed, I would seek to
increase U.S. consultations with Russia on its internal defense reform
efforts, such as modern military recruitment, compensation and benefits
systems, and developing noncommissioned officers. Assisting the Russian
military to enact reforms in these areas will help make it a more
confident, secure and stable organization. If confirmed, I would also
seek to pursue cooperation with Russia on strategic issues critical to
both of our Nations, such as counterterrorism and missile defense.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator John McCain
afghanistan
216. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, in an interview with the Financial
Times on August 29, 2011, you are quoted as saying, ``I disagreed with
President Obama, his decision to surge in Afghanistan, as I did with
President Bush on the surge in Iraq.'' Do you unequivocally stand by
your statement that you disagreed with President Obama's decision to
surge troops in Afghanistan?
Mr. Hagel. I did disagree with President Obama's decision to surge
troops to Afghanistan. Notwithstanding any past differences in view, if
confirmed, I will work with our military commanders and Joint Chiefs to
ensure that President Obama has the best possible advice in developing
and implementing a strategy that best protects our national interests.

217. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, do you advocate the full withdrawal
of U.S. forces by the end of 2014?
Mr. Hagel. I support the President's plan to transition full
security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces by the
end of 2014, and to retain an enduring commitment in the future. As the
President has stated, a residual force after 2014 would focus on two
primary missions: to deny safe haven to al Qaeda and its affiliates;
and to train, advise, and assist the Afghan forces so they can maintain
their own security. I further support the President's position that any
residual U.S. force would have to be at the invitation of the Afghan
Government and would need to be guaranteed certain legal protections,
which will be negotiated under the Bilateral Security Agreement.

syria
218. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, more than 60,000 Syrians have been
killed in some 22 months of conflict between the rebels and the Assad
regime. You are quoted in an August 29, 2011, interview with the
Financial Times, as saying, ``I think Syria, the outcome there has far
more important consequences for America's national interests than
Libya.'' Should the United States provide at least the same level of
support to anti-Assad forces as we provided to anti-Qaddafi forces?
Mr. Hagel. I continue to believe that the United States has
significant national security stakes in the outcome in Syria. I believe
that the steps taken by the administration to date, including
political, diplomatic and economic pressure, as well as assisting the
unarmed opposition, have been appropriate. If confirmed I will support
the President's ongoing reassessment of the continuously changing
dynamics on the ground in Syria, to determine what additional steps may
be appropriate.

219. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, are U.S. forces capable of
executing, without operational support from international partners, no
fly zones in Syria?
Mr. Hagel. While I have not been briefed in detail on U.S.
capabilities for such a mission, I am confident that the U.S. military
could enforce a no-fly zone over Syria. However, because Syria has an
advanced air defense network, I understand that such a mission could
involve a significant number of and risk to U.S. forces.

220. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the United States
should deny Assad his use of air power?
Mr. Hagel. The President has said Assad must go, and a democratic
political transition should remain our goal. If confirmed, I will
support the current focus on weakening the Assad regime through
political, diplomatic, and economic pressure, as well as assisting the
unarmed opposition. Regarding any additional options, military and non-
military, if confirmed, I will support the President's continuing
reassessment of what additional steps may be appropriate.

221. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the United States
should provide arms, intelligence, or other military support to Syrian
rebels?
Mr. Hagel. I do not believe that providing lethal support to the
armed opposition at this time would improve the terrible situation in
Syria; however, this question should continue to be re-evaluated over
time. The Syrian people are in urgent need of assistance during this
difficult period, and the United States is helping to address those
basic needs by providing medical assistance, humanitarian assistance,
and political support on the international stage.

iraq
222. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, do you regard the 2007 Iraq surge
as a mistake?
Mr. Hagel. When former President Bush announced his decision to
surge troops to Iraq in 2007, I was against it. I thought the Bush
administration had not defined a clear end state for the war in Iraq,
and under these circumstances I did not believe that adding more U.S.
troops was worth the likely cost in American lives. It is now clear
that a combination of steps including the surge, improved counter-
terrorism techniques, and the Anbar Awakening, contributed to reducing
violence in Iraq. The cost of the surge in American lives was almost
1,200 dead and thousands wounded. What is still not clear, however, is
what role the surge played relative to the other steps that we took, or
what would have happened if we had not undertaken the surge; those are
questions for historians.

223. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, could the other factors that
contributed to the stability of Iraq circa 2007, such as the Anbar
Awakening, have succeeded without the surge?
Mr. Hagel. The Anbar Awakening was an important development--along
with the Shia militant ceasefire--that was a result of the decision of
the Iraqi people to take back their country from extremist forces. Many
of the Anbar Awakening tribes fought alongside our troops, and they
should be commended for their efforts. Over 100,000 young Sunis were
paid by the United States between $350 and $500 per month of helping
us. Our troops benefited from the Awakening and in turn the Awakening
forces were further bolstered by the support offered by our troops. But
ultimately, it is difficult to make a judgment on the causal
relationship between the surge and the Anbar Awakening. Again, this
will be a question best reserved for history to make an ultimate
judgment.

224. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, you advocated the complete
withdrawal of all U.S. forces from Iraq by 2011, rather than
negotiating an agreement for an enduring presence of U.S. forces. The
President ultimately did exactly what you recommended--reportedly
against the advice of his military leaders. Do you believe that Iraq is
more stable and better off today as a result?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, I fully supported the withdrawal of all U.S. combat
forces from Iraq by December 2011 in accordance with the November 2008
U.S.-Iraq Security Agreement. It was the right decision and it gave the
Iraqis the chance to take full ownership and responsibility for their
country. Iraq is better off today because of it. The drawdown has
allowed us to chart a new path in our strategic partnership with a
sovereign Iraq based on mutual interests and mutual respect.
While Iraq is a better place today, it is clear that Iraq has a
long way to go to move beyond a history of violence and instability.
Iraq continues to face security challenges, but our focus must be on
the future. A normalized relationship between our two countries, based
on mutual respect and mutual interests, is the best way to advance
U.S., Iraqi, and regional interests. If confirmed, I will continue
Secretary Panetta's work to strengthen our military-to-military
relationship with Iraq, and further its re-integration into the region.

dod budget
225. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, if additional resources are
necessary to meet our national security needs, would you advocate for a
restoration of some of the $487 billion the President plans to cut from
future defense budgets?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will work with the President, OMB, and
Congress to provide the military capability necessary to defend our
Nation. I recognize that the Budget Control Act of 2011 requires that
to be done within constrained resources. I believe we can defend the
Nation within those limits. If confirmed, I would expect to consult
with the President and Congress as circumstances change. However, I do
believe that if significant multi-year reductions in funding take place
(such as those required by sequestration), the Department would need to
revise the defense strategy.

226. Mr. Hagel, do you agree with former Secretary of Defense
Robert Gates that a 10 percent, or approximately $50 billion, cut to
defense spending in 1 year ``operationally would be catastrophic''?
Mr. Hagel. As both Secretaries Gates and Panetta repeatedly stated,
sequestration--both the size and the arbitrary manner of these cuts--
would be devastating to the Department. It would harm military
readiness and disrupt each and every investment program. Based on my
assessment to date, I share their concern. I urge Congress to eliminate
the sequester threat permanently and pass a balanced deficit-reduction
plan.

force structure and end strength
227. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, do you support the President's plan
to reduce military force structure over the next few years, including
reducing Army end strength to approximately 490,000 soldiers by 2017?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will be committed to maintaining the
best Army in the world--capable and ready--an Army that will support
the mission requirements associated with our defense strategy. In the
future our Army will not be sized for large-scale, long-duration
stability operations, but instead have the agility to respond where the
Nation needs it. I support an Army that is sized according to the
defense strategy and the mission requirements that support that
strategy.

228. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, given our poor track record of
predicting future requirements for ground forces, what do you believe
to be the justification for reducing the size of the Army and Marine
Corps so dramatically?
Mr. Hagel. Our force structure and end strength levels should
support the overall national security and defense strategies. The
defense strategy places emphasis on a smaller, leaner force that is
agile, flexible, and ready to deploy quickly; not a force that is sized
for large, protracted stability operations. You are right that we have
a poor track record in predicting the future. But we have shown that we
can rapidly grow our ground forces, if necessary. We also plan to
preserve readiness in our Reserve Forces.

229. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, the President has exempted military
personnel accounts from cuts related to budget sequestration. Do you
agree that cutting training and equipment funding without proportional
cuts to military personnel accounts will lead to a hollow force?
Mr. Hagel. In general, I agree that we must maintain the right
balance of end-strength, modernization, and training to guard against a
hollow force. However, in the case of the blunt instrument of
sequestration, I support the President's exemption of military
personnel accounts in fiscal year 2013 due to the fact that across-the-
board reductions would be inadvisable for the morale of the force and
not cost-effective.

230. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, in the context of overall budget
reductions, not specifically budget sequestration, would you recommend
curtailing civilian personnel by amounts proportional to cuts made to
the military personnel accounts?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that Secretary Panetta has directed an
internal scrub to see where savings can be made in civilian personnel
accounts. To me this is a prudent review, and something the Department
should do continuously. However, it is not clear that a reduction of a
certain percentage of uniform personnel can be met with a corresponding
reduction in civilian personnel. The two serve different functions, and
in some cases, for example cyber efforts, we foresee a growth in
civilian personnel. But if confirmed, this is an area I intend to look
at closely.

231. Senator McCain. Mr. Hagel, do you intend to comply with
section 955 of the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013, which directs savings in
civilian personnel and service contractor workforces of DOD?
Mr. Hagel. If I am confirmed, I will ensure the Department complies
with section 955.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Saxby Chambliss
gulf region military posture
232. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hagel, in hindsight it appears your
assessment was wrong on both the effectiveness of the Iraq surge and on
our method of withdrawal. Some argue that our departure from Iraq and
our subsequent disengagement have opened the door to greater Iranian
influence in Iraq and strengthened Teheran's position in the Middle
East. What alterations, if any, are necessary to our military force
posture in the Gulf Region to deter Iranian regional ambitions and
support international diplomatic efforts to stop Iran's effort to
acquire nuclear weapons?
Mr. Hagel. In my view, our military posture in the Middle East
region remains strong and is a critical component of the President's
multi-vector strategy to ensure Iran does not acquire a nuclear weapon.
If confirmed, I will continue to work with the Joint Chiefs and the
CENTCOM Commander to ensure that the Department is fully prepared and
adequately postured for any military contingencies in this critically
important region, particularly with respect to Iran and the President's
firm commitment to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

military readiness depots
233. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hagel, Georgia is home to two of our
critical defense depots--Warner Robins Air Logistics Complex and Marine
Corps Logistics Base-Albany. One sequestration scenario directs the
Military Services to cancel vital 3rd and 4th quarter depot-level
maintenance activities. This will have an immediate and lasting impact
on military readiness and make it difficult to recover a force that has
seen combat for the better part of 2 decades. Furthermore, thousands of
highly-skilled workers would lose their jobs; and thousands of hours
would be lost for flight time, drive time, and repairs that would
ensure our military's equipment is ready when the Nation calls upon
them. Describe in detail how you will ensure that depots accomplish
their mission and not lose the continuity that is vital to the success
of our force readiness if sequestration occurs.
Mr. Hagel. The work done by the skilled workforce at our defense
depots is critical to the Defense Department. I agree with Secretary
Panetta that the effects of sequestration will be devastating and will
lead to a decline in military readiness. If confirmed, I will work with
the Secretaries of the Military Departments, Joint Chiefs, and Military
Services to sustain readiness as best we can. However, this will be
extremely difficult given the impact of sequestration, especially when
combined with the effects of a year-long Continuing Resolution. If
sequestration occurs, it will likely not be possible to keep our depots
fully operating, and this will impact our future readiness.

general/flag officer reform
234. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hagel, historically, during military
draw-downs, enlisted personnel percentages take the brunt of the
attrition while a disproportionate amount of general and flag officers
remain in place. It seems we have an excessive number of general
officers in the ranks. If confirmed, will you take a closer look at the
number of general/flag officer authorizations in the military and the
size of their support staffs?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that the Track Four Efficiency Study,
initiated by Secretary Gates and continued by Secretary Panetta,
identified both Service and joint general and flag officer positions
for elimination, realignment, or reduction. Execution of these
modifications is planned to continue over the next 2 years.
If confirmed, I would support continued efforts to ensure we
maintain the appropriate level of leadership across our joint force,
seeking efficiencies as mission and force structure changes allow.

dod financial accountability
235. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hagel, in the current fiscal
environment it is imperative that we maintain proper financial
accountability in DOD. DOD is required to have an auditable financial
statement by 2017, an objective that Secretary Panetta accelerated to
2014. What specific steps would you take for DOD to reach this goal by
that date?
Mr. Hagel. I agree financial management improvement is an important
priority and support the Department's current plan to have the
budgetary statement ready for audit by 2014 and the full set of
statements ready by 2017. If confirmed, I intend to review the
Department's progress with my senior leadership team on a regular basis
and work through them to remove any institutional barriers to achieving
this goal.

post-2014 afghan bilateral security agreement
236. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hagel, under the strategic partnership
agreement signed by the United States and Afghanistan in May 2012, both
countries are obligated to negotiate a bilateral security agreement
within 1 year. The talks will set conditions for U.S. forces in
Afghanistan after 2014 as part of a train, advise, and assist mission.
Oversight is key for this process to be successful. We owe it to our
military forces to have an organized, methodical plan in order to not
squander the incredible effort expended by the United States in
Afghanistan. Will you ensure that Congress is involved in the
development process with the bilateral security agreement so that the
administration is not planning in a potentially disastrous vacuum?
Mr. Hagel. I agree on the importance of the Bilateral Security
Agreement (BSA) for setting the parameters for our forces in
Afghanistan after 2014 and with the need to maintain regular
communication with Congress as the BSA negotiations proceed. If
confirmed, I will support the administration's sustained engagement
with Congress throughout the Bilateral Security Agreement negotiation
process.

237. Senator Chambliss. Mr. Hagel, from your viewpoint, what
conditions need to be set in a post-2014 Afghanistan with U.S. and
coalition involvement for the Afghanistan Government to continue to be
successful?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that improvements in security conditions,
enabled by continued development of the Afghan National Security
Forces, will continue to be critical. Good governance, including
sustained efforts to end corruption, is also important to ensure that
security gains result in sustainable Afghan self-reliance and
governance. Regional peace and deepened cooperation between Afghanistan
and its neighbors will also be important for long-term success. If
confirmed, I will monitor conditions in and around Afghanistan closely
and will continue to assess progress in consultation with commanders on
the ground and the Joint Chiefs, to ensure that we are helping to set
the conditions for continued success in Afghanistan beyond 2014.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Roger F. Wicker
use of military force
238. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, in your responses to the advance
policy questions, you state that one of the key lessons learned from
the Iraq war is the need to think more carefully before using military
force, especially regarding the need to plan for all phases of
operations before beginning a preemptive conflict.
You have stated repeatedly that the United States should keep all
options on the table, to include the use of preemptive military force,
to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Some military theorists
argue that such an attack, even if successful, has the potential to
result in a variety of reactions from Iran, including direct attacks on
U.S. and allied military forces, attempts to interrupt the flow of
commerce through the Strait of Hormuz, and the use of Iranian special
operations forces and proxies to conduct destabilizing operations in
vulnerable regional countries. Arguably, the second and third order
effects of such an attack would be far more widespread than those
resulting from the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003.
You also noted in your answers to the advance policy questions that
you do not feel knowledgeable enough about how the U.S. military has
implemented the lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan to make
recommendations on additional changes. Why do you believe an attack on
Iran is now a viable option, whereas in 2006, you felt differently?
Mr. Hagel. I am fully committed to the President's policy of
preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, and believe all
options should be on the table to achieve that goal. A military attack
on Iran would most likely have significant consequences, as you have
described. But as I've also said, the military option should be the
last option considered. However, a nuclear-armed Iran would have far-
reaching and unacceptable consequences on regional stability, and on
the security of the United States.

239. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, do you feel the U.S. military is
adequately prepared to deal with the repercussions from a strike
against Iranian nuclear facilities? If not, what changes would need to
be implemented?
Mr. Hagel. While I do not currently have access to the information
needed to answer this question, I have great confidence that General
Mattis, the Joint Chiefs, and Secretary Panetta have ensured that the
U.S. military is prepared to deal with any repercussions from a strike
against Iranian nuclear facilities. If confirmed, I will work with the
CENTCOM Commander to refine planning as necessary over time, to ensure
that our forces remain ready to take any actions the President directs
and to defend themselves and the United States.

240. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, how would you engage regional
partners to limit the potential destabilizing effects of a strike on
Iranian nuclear facilities?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will continue to promote and advance the
Department's military-to-military and defense relations with our key
partners in the region. These relationships are critical to advance
U.S. strategic interests, including preventing Iran from acquiring a
nuclear weapon, supporting the security of the State of Israel, and
building the capacity of partner nations to meet common challenges and
address future contingencies, if required.

241. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, do you believe you possess the
requisite knowledge about the state of the U.S. military and our allies
and that you are ready now, given the current state of affairs with
Iran, North Korea, and China, to effectively advise the President on
the employment of U.S. military forces towards achieving U.S. strategic
objectives?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. If confirmed, advising the President regarding the
employment of military forces will be my most important duty. I believe
I currently have the judgment and experience necessary to advise the
President on such matters and have a clear understanding of the role of
our military and alliances in achieving national security objectives.
If confirmed, I will ensure that my first priority and responsibility
is to match this prior experience with deeper knowledge of the current
plans and capabilities of our military.

u.s. shipbuilding industry
242. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, would you agree to
work closely with this committee and with this Congress in addressing
the urgent need to increase our shipbuilding rates?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

243. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you remain
committed to ensuring that the vessels we build for our sailors and
marines are the finest this Nation can produce and that you will never
agree to procuring vessels that do not meet the current military
classifications for warships?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I am committed to ensuring the Navy's
fleet is appropriately sized and possesses the capabilities necessary
to fulfill its role in defending U.S. interests both in peace and
wartime. Recognizing the challenges faced within the Department of Navy
to build and maintain an affordable and balanced fleet, I am committed
to ensuring that survivability shall be addressed on all new surface
ships, combat systems and equipment designs, overhauls, conversions,
and modernizations in order that the design is provided a balance of
survivability performance, risk, and cost within program objectives.

244. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you agree to
analyze all avenues of cost reduction in shipbuilding, including multi-
year procurements, block buys of material for multiple ships, and level
loading the funding profiles to allow shipbuilders to optimize design
and material procurement prior to the start of construction?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

245. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, can you provide a rationale for the
Defense Logistics Agency's (DLA) move toward a proposed noncommercial
model?
Mr. Hagel. I don't have insight into the specifics of what the DLA
proposed model is; however, it is my understanding that the DLA is
looking at ways to strengthen its relationships with suppliers to
mitigate contract risks. If confirmed, I will be able to look into the
details of the specific objectives and actions.

246. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, what additional oversight would
such a model provide to ensure the prevention of waste, fraud, and
abuse?
Mr. Hagel. At this time I don't have insight into the DLA model.
However I believe it is important that we have transparent contracting
practices that reduce risk and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.

taiwan and u.s.-china relations
247. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, during an official visit to China
in September 2012, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta extended an
invitation to his Chinese counterpart, General Liang Guanglie on the
People's Liberation Army's (PLA) participation in the biennial RIMPAC
in 2014. RIMPAC is the world's largest international maritime warfare
exercise, which in 2012 involved over 40 ships and submarines, more
than 200 aircraft, and 25,000 personnel from more than 20 countries
from the Pan Pacific region.
The Taiwan Strait has long been a potential flashpoint in the
region. Taiwan, one of America's important strategic allies in the
region, has been constantly under the threat of a growing PLA. If the
PLA is to be invited to RIMPAC, I believe we should consider involving
Taiwan as well. Would you consider inviting Taiwan's navy to
participate in RIMPAC?
Mr. Hagel. The United States is firm in its commitment to Taiwan's
self-defense needs under the Taiwan Relations Act. That relationship
includes defense exchanges and other interactions consistent with our
unofficial relationship and as provided for in the Taiwan Relations
Act. If confirmed, I will work to identify appropriate exchanges and
interactions to assist Taiwan's defense capabilities, and contribute to
peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

248. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and
the Six Assurances of 1982 have contributed to the peace and stability
of the Asia-Pacific region for the past 3 decades. With the military
balance--including air superiority--gradually shifting in China's
favor, what are your plans to implement the security commitment the
United States has for Taiwan under this framework?
Mr. Hagel. In my view, the increasing complexity and sophistication
of the military threat to Taiwan from China means that Taiwan must
devote greater attention to asymmetric concepts and innovative
technologies to maximize Taiwan's strengths and advantages. If
confirmed, I would work closely with Congress, throughout DOD, and with
our interagency partners to ensure the continued effective
implementation of all of the relevant provisions of the Taiwan
Relations Act.

249. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, as Taiwan is likely to retire some
of its older fighter aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe
that sales of advanced aircraft and submarines are an important next
step in this commitment?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that we should make available to Taiwan those
defense articles and defense services which enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability, today and into the future. If
confirmed, I will look at what specific capabilities those are--or
should be--in light of the security situation in the Taiwan Strait and
the evolving military capabilities on the mainland.

export control reform
250. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, during his tenure as Secretary of
Defense, Robert Gates championed export control reform. Specifically,
he called for streamlining the foreign military sales, release, and
disclosure processes. It is vital that our partners and allies have
more certainty of timelines for delivery of critical defense articles
and services; however, this is not always the case when our processes
get bogged down. Is this something you will also champion if confirmed
as Secretary of Defense?
Mr. Hagel. I fully support the reform efforts because I believe
they are absolutely necessary to meet 21st century national security
challenges. Secretary Gates played a key role in setting the
administration's export control reform objectives: a single list, a
single licensing agency, a single primary enforcement coordination
agency, and a single U.S. Government-wide information technology
licensing system. The administration has made progress in this reform
effort, but the work continues. DOD has been fully engaged in revising
the U.S. Munitions List and I understand that it plans to continue to
focus on completing this important work with our interagency partners
to produce a list that is more transparent and predictable for
government and industry and which focuses on protecting the most
important technologies.
I also fully support ongoing efforts within the Department to
streamline and improve U.S. technology security and foreign disclosure
processes so that decisions are made in a timely fashion and enable us
to focus on the protection of the technologies that are most important,
while providing important capabilities to our allies and partners.
Finally, if confirmed, I would support implementation of the steps that
the Department has taken to continue to improve the Foreign Military
Sales process.

energy certification
251. Senator Wicker. Mr. Hagel, section 2830 of the Military
Construction Authorization Act for fiscal year 2012 requires DOD to
submit to Congress a report on the cost effectiveness of certain green
building standards. Part of the report by DOD found that the adoption
of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design certifications by
certain departments of DOD is not the most cost effective practice for
energy and water savings. As Secretary of Defense, what policies would
you implement to ensure that DOD's green building policies meet the
military's primary missions of energy and water savings and do not
arbitrarily discriminate against American products such as domestic
wood?
Mr. Hagel. While I am not completely familiar with the different
green building standards that are available, I do think we need to
adhere to the general philosophy of minimizing life-cycle costs and
incorporating features in building construction that result in reduced
operating costs and lower utility bills. I will support policies to
this effect. I will not support policies that arbitrarily discriminate
against American products.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Kelly Ayotte
medium extended air defense system
252. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, section 221 of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2013 prohibits the use of any funding for Medium Extended Air
Defense System (MEADS). Are you aware of this provision?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

253. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you ensure that
DOD fully complies with this law?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department fully
complies with this law.

254. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, how much fiscal year 2012 MEADS
funding remains unobligated and how much has been obligated/expended
for MEADS under the terms of the Continuing Resolution?
Mr. Hagel. It is my understanding that of the $390 million in the
U.S. fiscal year 2012 funding provided to the NATO management office
for MEADS, a total of $335 million has been fully obligated to fund
data analysis, archiving the technology and design, capturing
performance results, formal contract closeout; and if necessary for
termination liabilities for contracts and/or subcontracts. $55 million
of fiscal year 2012 funding was also provided to the U.S. Army for
management and oversight of sensitive technologies in MEADS. The
Department is consulting with our partners, Germany and Italy, in order
to complete as much of the remaining design and development effort as
possible while allowing for contract closeout. I understand that $210
million of the total fiscal year 2012 funds has been expended as of
February 1, 2013. No fiscal year 2013 funds are authorized and none
have been obligated or expended under the CR.

255. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, for what purpose were these funds
obligated?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #254.

joint land attack cruise missile defense elevated netted sensor system
256. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, can you provide an update on the
deployment status of Joint Land Attack Cruise Missile Defense Elevated
Netted Sensor System (JLENS)?
Mr. Hagel. I understand JLENS is still in development, and that the
Department recently completed a study on JLENS location and operational
use. It is my understanding a JLENS deployment site was selected and
planning is underway for preparing the site. If confirmed, I will
review the status of these preparations with the Secretary of the Army
and the Commander of U.S. Northern Command.

257. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you commit to
ensuring that JLENS will be deployed in a timely fashion?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #256.

258. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what combatant commands have a
validated requirement for JLENS or have expressed an interest in JLENS?
Mr. Hagel. It is my understanding that because of the unique
capabilities of JLENS to detect a range of air threats, CENTCOM, U.S.
Southern Command, U.S. Pacific Command, and U.S. Northern Command have
expressed interest in this capability.

f-35 joint strike fighter
259. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your assessment of China
and Russia's development of fifth generation fighters?
Mr. Hagel. I have not reviewed the breadth of the programs in
detail, but both China and Russia are pursuing advanced fighter
aircraft. We are examining ways to respond to these efforts to upgrade
their capabilities.

260. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the F-35 JSF is
necessary in an increasingly contested operating environment?
Mr. Hagel. My view is we cannot let any nation achieve parity with
the United States in our ability to control the air. I understand the
F-35 will bring advanced capability to the warfighters in a contested
environment and ensure the United States can act in our national
interest around the globe.

261. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you continue the
development and procurement of the fifth generation JSF, including the
Marine Corps variant?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will review the F-35 program, to include
the Marine Corps variant, to ensure the aircraft are delivered with the
capability we need and at a cost we can afford.

ballistic missile threats
262. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, analysts have estimated that Iran
may be capable of striking the CONUS with a ballistic missile by 2015.
Do you agree with this assessment?
Mr. Hagel. It is clear that Iran continues to pursue longer-range
missiles and develop technology that could allow Iran to deploy an ICBM
in the future. I believe that U.S. missile defenses must be prepared to
defend the United States today and in the future against any potential
threat posed by countries like Iran and North Korea.

263. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, in light of this analysis, Congress
included section 221 in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013. This section
requires the Secretary of Defense to conduct a study that evaluates
three possible additional locations in the United States, including two
on the east coast, for future deployment of an interceptor to protect
the Homeland against missile threats from countries such as North Korea
and Iran. Are you aware of this reporting requirement?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

264. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, do you pledge to have
the results of this study delivered to Congress within the timeframe
outlined in section 221, as required by law?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will work to ensure that the study is
delivered on time and that Congress remains informed about the
Department's decisions about how to best protect the U.S. Homeland from
this threat.

submarine requirements
265. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you believe the Virginia payload
module will mitigate some of the anticipated gap in undersea strike
volume?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, although I understand that the cost to include this
capability in the Virginia-class is a challenge to available
shipbuilding resources.

266. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what percent of combatant commander
attack submarine requirements were met by the Navy in 2012?
Mr. Hagel. I have been informed that the Navy has met approximately
60 percent of the combatant commanders' total attack submarine
requirements and 100 percent of the Secretary of Defense-approved
Global Force Management Allocation Plan adjudicated requirement for
Navy support since 2010. The Global Force Management process allows
Navy to meet the combatant commanders' highest priority needs as
determined by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff.

267. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you support Congress' intent to
build two Virginia-class submarines in 2014?
Mr. Hagel. Submarines are critically important to our strategy and
future; therefore, resources permitting, I would support plans to build
two Virginia-class submarines in 2014.

electronic warfare
268. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your view on the future of
electronic warfare/electronic attack?
Mr. Hagel. I believe the Electronic Warfare/Electronic Attack (EW/
EA) will play an increasingly important role in future military
operations. It is both an enabler of U.S. operations and a capability
that potential adversaries will exploit to counter the longstanding
U.S. technological edge in weapon systems. Potential adversaries are
pursuing more advanced battlefield systems, including EW/EA, to deny
U.S. power projection capabilities and curtail our ability to maneuver,
conduct precision strikes, and communicate effectively in a conflict
scenario. Continued U.S. investment in EW/EA will be critical to
ensuring that the United States can achieve its operational objectives
in a timely manner and with a minimum of losses; EW/EA systems will
also contribute to the deterrent effect that highly capable U.S. forces
exert on potential adversaries.

269. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you believe it still plays a
vital role in our national security?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #268.

u.s.-russian relations
270. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you agree that the United States
should not initiate negotiations with Russia for a new arms treaty
unless and until we can confirm that Russia is fully honoring existing
arms treaties with the United States?
Mr. Hagel. Compliance with legal obligations is central to the
effectiveness of arms control treaties, and concerns about non-
compliance must be addressed. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD
works with the Department of State and other interagency partners in
assessing and responding to any compliance concerns. While resolution
of such issues with Russia is clearly important, I do not believe that
discussions of possible further nuclear arms reductions need await
resolution of all compliance issues.

271. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, is Russia fully honoring all
existing arms treaties with the United States?
Mr. Hagel. I do not believe that the Russian Federation is fully
honoring all of its obligations under existing arms control treaties.
For example, Russia ceased implementing the Conventional Armed Forces
in Europe Treaty in 2007.

patriot missile system
272. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, section 226 of the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2013 requires the Secretary of the Army to submit a prioritized
plan to Congress for the modernization of the Patriot missile system.
Are you aware of this requirement?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

273. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you ensure that
the Army delivers this plan within the timeframe outlined in section
226, as required by law?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will work with the Secretary of the Army
to ensure the Army delivers this plan as required by law.

overseas cemeteries
274. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, are you aware that section 2857 in
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 requires DOD to designate a Federal or
private agency to maintain base cemeteries before closing overseas
military bases?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

275. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you ensure that
this provision is adhered to, as required by law?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will carry out the direction given to
the Department in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013.

mental health services
276. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, are you aware that section 206 in
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 authorizes a DOD program to enhance DOD's
research, treatment, education, and outreach initiatives focused on
addressing the mental health needs of members of the National Guard and
Reserve members?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

277. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you share my belief that DOD
must address these needs?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I am deeply concerned about the mental health
issues faced by our servicemembers and their families. If confirmed, I
will be committed to providing the highest quality of mental health
care and will comply with the provision in the NDAA for Fiscal Year
2013.

budget auditability
278. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, section 1005 in the NDAA for Fiscal
Year 2013 that requires DOD to complete a full statement of budget
resources by 2014, with the ultimate goal to be full auditability by
2017. Are you aware of this requirement?
Mr. Hagel. Yes. I understand that those commitments in our current
plans have been included in the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013.

279. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, do you commit to
meeting this statutory requirement and to doing all that you can to
promote good financial stewardship and financial transparency at DOD?
Mr. Hagel. I agree financial management improvement is an important
priority and support the Department's current plan to have the
budgetary statement ready for audit by 2014 and the full set of
statements ready by 2017. If confirmed, I will be committed to
achieving this goal and will ensure that senior leaders remain focused
on this goal and hold them accountable.

women in selective service
280. Mr. Hagel, would you support requiring women to register for
the Selective Service? Please explain your response.
Mr. Hagel. I strongly believe all Americans should be able to serve
in our Armed Forces to their maximum abilities. The Selective Service
Act is administered by an agency outside of DOD. If I am confirmed, I
will look forward to participating in any interagency consideration of
selective service registration that may occur. We currently have an
All-Volunteer Force that is the finest military in the world. I do not
want to suggest that it would be necessary or advisable to restore the
draft.

prostheses for servicemembers
281. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, are the prostheses that our
servicemembers are receiving after a severe injury the most advanced
available on the U.S. market?
Mr. Hagel. The care and support provided to our wounded, ill, and
injured are key focus areas for the Department. I understand that the
Department supports, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs, an
Extremity Injury and Amputation Center of Excellence and that the
standard and quality of care regarding prosthetics meets or exceeds
what is provided in the private sector. I also understand that the
Department supports a variety of research to ensure cutting edge
technology is incorporated into addressing the issues for
servicemembers with extremity amputations. This includes advanced
research into tissue engineering and transplantation. If confirmed, I
will continue to support these collective efforts to improve care.

282. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if not, what actions are being
taken to gain access to these prostheses for our servicemembers?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #281.

national guard youth challenge program
283. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, the National Guard Youth Challenge
Program (NGYCP) works to intervene in and reclaim the lives of at-risk
youth by enhancing their skills, education, and self-discipline. The
program has distinguished itself as an effective intervention in the
lives of troubled young men and women. Over 110,000 students have
graduated from 33 programs nationwide and a majority of these graduates
earn their GED and are actively employed following graduation.
The outstanding success enjoyed by the NGYCP is largely a result of
the leadership and unique advantages the National Guard brings to the
program. The program has also been successful because of the National
Guard's emphasis on quality training for the staff.
A 2012 RAND Corporation study highlighted the value of continued
investment in the NGYCP. According to the report, the program earned
$2.66 in social benefit from students graduating and becoming
productive citizens for every $1 spent. Yet, only two cents of that
original investment was spent on training the program staff.
Based on the critical role training has played in this essential
program's success, if confirmed, do you commit to examining funding for
the NGYCP staff training to determine how it has changed over time and
whether it is sufficient to maintain the quality of the program?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that training plays a large part in the
success of the 100,000 cadets who have successfully completed this
program. The Department continues to review ways in which to further
improve the NGYCP's performance nationwide, including staff training.
If confirmed, I will work closely with Reserve component leaders to
evaluate funding for training and other resources.

guard and reserves
284. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your view of the
appropriate role of the Chief of the National Guard Bureau as a member
of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?
Mr. Hagel. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau serves as a full
member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and as the principal advisor to the
Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, on matters involving non-Federalized National Guard forces.

285. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your assessment of the
Reserve and how it will fit into this new strategy of smaller, more
lethal forces rotating into and out of many locations of strategic
interest?
Mr. Hagel. The Reserve components have served with distinction over
more than a decade of war and continue to be a relevant and cost
effective part of the Total Force. In a time of declining budgets and
complex contingencies, I believe that the Department will continue to
call on both Active and Reserve components to accomplish the domestic
and overseas requirements of the new strategy. We are still in the
process of finding the proper Active component/Reserve component mix
that will most effectively accomplish our new strategy in a constrained
fiscal environment.

286. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your understanding of the
appropriate size and makeup of the Reserve components in light of the
current defense strategy and our constrained defense budget?
Mr. Hagel. The Services each have different requirements for their
Reserve Force in their role as force providers. The Service internal
force management processes will continue to refine the size and
capabilities of each Reserve component to accommodate changes to the
defense strategy and reduced budget.

287. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your assessment of advances
made in improving Reserve and Guard component mobilization and
demobilization procedures, and in what areas do problems still exist?
Mr. Hagel. The Department has made great improvements to the
mobilization and demobilization procedures over the past decade. Over
850,000 Reserve and National Guard members have been effectively
mobilized to support contingency and support operations. If confirmed,
I would expect the Services to continue to review procedures in order
to keep faith with our Reserve component members, their families, and
civilian employers and make necessary adjustments as needs are
identified.

288. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what do you consider to be the most
significant enduring challenges to the enabling of an operational
reserve aimed at ensuring Reserve component and Guard readiness for
future mobilization requirements?
Mr. Hagel. The Reserve components currently serve in an operational
capacity-available, trained, and equipped for predictable routine
deployments. With the projected defense budget, the most significant
enduring challenge will be sufficient funding to sustain the
operational experience of the Reserve components gained over the past
decade of utilization.

289. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, do you see a need to modify current
statutory authorities for the mobilization of members of the National
Guard and Reserves or to further enhance their ability to perform
various national security missions?
Mr. Hagel. At the present time I believe that appropriate
authorities are in place to access the National Guard and Reserves
across their full spectrum of mission assignments.

290. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, when will dwell time objectives be
met for the Reserve components?
Mr. Hagel. I understand the vast majority of dwell time goals for
the Reserve components are currently being met. As we continue the
draw-down in Afghanistan these numbers should continue to improve and
it is expected that dwell time objectives will be fully met during the
last stages of operations there.

291. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what effect would an inability to
meet dwell time objectives have on your decision to implement the
planned end strength reductions?
Mr. Hagel. The ability to meet dwell time objectives will be one of
the many factors taken into account when determining proper end
strength requirements to meet our emerging strategy. Meeting dwell time
objectives is an important factor in keeping faith with our All-
Volunteer Force and their families but cannot be the sole factor when
considering planned end strength requirements.

292. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what is your understanding and
assessment of the current size and structure of the Army's Reserve
component?
Mr. Hagel. The Army Reserve component is currently organized with
350,200 soldiers in the Army National Guard and 205,000 soldiers in the
Army Reserve. Any changes to the size or force structure capabilities
for the Army Reserve components will be analyzed within the Total Force
requirements of the Army and will reflect the projected changes in
budget and defense strategy.

293. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, what size or force
structure changes, if any, would you propose for either the Army
Reserve or the Army National Guard?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #292.

involuntary separation
294. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, are you aware of section 525 in the
NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 conference report regarding reports on
involuntary separation of members of the Armed Forces?
Mr. Hagel. Yes.

295. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you comply with
this law?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will make certain the Department
complies with the provisions of NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013.

size of the navy
296. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, are you aware of section 1015 of
the NDAA for Fiscal Year 2013 conference report related to the size of
the Navy?
Mr. Hagel. Yes, I am aware of the reporting requirement in the NDAA
for Fiscal Year 2013 related to the size of the Navy. My understanding
is that the Navy has complied with the law and submitted the report to
Congress on 1 February 2013. The report was submitted as an
unclassified document, and additional information about the Force
Structure Assessment was also submitted in a classified document.

297. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed, will you comply with
this law?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #296.

global zero report
298. Senator Ayotte. Mr. Hagel, what specific portions of the May
2012 Global Zero report that you authored do you believe should not be
implemented?
Mr. Hagel. In the Global Zero report we took a longer term view of
what might be possible under different circumstances, and the report's
illustrative reductions to nuclear forces were just that--intended to
provide a stimulus to national debate about how many nuclear weapons
are enough and to illustrate a possible pathway forward. If confirmed,
I will focus on implementing the recommendations of the 2010 NPR, while
also considering what additional steps may be appropriate, and will
consult with Congress on the way forward.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Lindsey Graham
israel
299. Senator Graham. Mr. Hagel, you were one of four Senators not
to sign a bipartisan letter (dated October 12, 2000, circulated by
Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott and Senator Tom Daschle) to President
Clinton expressing the Senate's solidarity with the State of Israel, at
a time when both Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Chairman
Arafat and the Palestinian Authority failed to restrain or comment on
violence by Palestinians in violation of the peace process. If you had
a chance to reconsider your decision, would you now choose to sign the
letter?
Mr. Hagel. With respect to this specific October 2000 letter, I
wholeheartedly agreed with the objectives at the time--expressing
solidarity with Israel at a time of crisis--as I do today. Yet, as the
AIPAC Press release of October 13, 2000 states, I was unable to be
reached by the deadline in order to sign the letter. The October 13,
2000 press release explicitly states that while two Senators refused to
sign the letter (Senators Abraham (MI) and Byrd (WV)), ``Senators Hagel
and Gregg (NH) could not be reached'' by the deadline.
Although the circumstances and leaders have changed significantly
since the letter you referenced was sent in 2000, I continue to support
the substance of the letter--expressing solidarity with Israel at a
time of crisis--and I will continue to express this solidarity and
support as I work with my Israeli counterparts if confirmed as
Secretary of Defense. The President has said we have Israel's back, and
I agree.
As my record in the Senate, my public speeches, and writings in my
book demonstrate, I have always been a strong supporter of the U.S.-
Israel relationship and of Israel's right to defend itself.
Additionally, I was a cosponsor of and voted in favor of a number of
pieces of legislation condemning terrorism against Israel, including
the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006. The Palestinian Anti-
Terrorism Act of 2006 not only condemned Palestinian terrorism, but
also placed restrictions on U.S. assistance to the Palestinian
Authority (PA) unless the PA, and all components within it, accepted
the quartet principles of renouncing violence, abiding by previous
agreements, and recognizing Israel's right to exist.

national guard
300. Senator Graham. Mr. Hagel, the Reserve Forces Policy Board
recently issued a report on the fully burdened and lifecycle cost of
military personnel and found that a Reserve component member (National
Guard or Reserve) when not activated is one-third the cost of an Active
component servicemember. In an era of declining budgets, how do you
envision leveraging the cost-effectiveness of the National Guard and
Reserve Forces to meet our Nation's security needs?
Mr. Hagel. The highly cost effective National Guard and Reserve
have served the Nation well both in peacetime and war. During the last
12 years their service has been particularly admirable both overseas
and in reacting to many emergencies here at home. Although I have not
analyzed the Reserve Forces Policy Board report you cite, I do believe
the Guard and Reserve are less costly in a part time status, and
clearly provide highly trained ready assets with a high degree of long-
term cost efficiency to significantly help sustain the All-Volunteer
Force. If confirmed, it would be my intention to maintain a strong
Guard and Reserve, and to take advantage of their skills and
efficiencies as we structure an affordable military force in an era of
challenging budgets.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator David Vitter
taiwan relations
301. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act and
the Six Assurances of 1982 have contributed to the peace and stability
of the Asia-Pacific region for the past 3 decades. With the military
balance--including air superiority--gradually shifting in China's
favor, what are your plans to implement the security commitment the
United States has for Taiwan under this framework?
Mr. Hagel. I agree that the Taiwan Relations Act has contributed to
peace and stability in the region for over 30 years. In my view, the
increasing complexity and sophistication of the military threat to
Taiwan from China means that Taiwan must devote greater attention to
asymmetric concepts and innovative technologies to maximize Taiwan's
strengths and advantages. If confirmed, I would work closely with
Congress, throughout DOD, and with our interagency partners to ensure
the continued effective implementation of all of the relevant
provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.

302. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, as Taiwan is likely to retire some
of its older fighter aircraft in the next 5 to 10 years, do you believe
that sales of advanced aircraft are an important next step in this
commitment?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will look at what specific capabilities
will help Taiwan meet its self-defense needs in light of the security
situation in the Taiwan Strait and the evolving military capabilities
on the mainland.

303. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, Secretary Leon Panetta previously
extended an invitation to China to be part of RIMPAC last year. Do you
believe that as one of the U.S. strategic partners in the region it is
important to include Taiwan into the RIMPAC exercises? If so, what is
your plan to implement this?
Mr. Hagel. The United States is firm in its commitment to Taiwan's
self-defense needs under the Taiwan Relations Act. That relationship
includes defense exchanges and other interactions consistent with our
unofficial relationship and as provided for in the Taiwan Relations
Act. If confirmed, I will work to identify appropriate exchanges and
interactions to assist Taiwan's defense capabilities, and contribute to
peace and stability in the Taiwan Strait.

military strategy
304. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, our military leaders have stated
that the United States and its military is at a strategic crossroads
marked by significant challenges. We have done a remarkable job over
the last 12 years at catching up to an enemy that we were largely
unprepared for: political Islam and those radical Islamists who seek to
impose their ideology in order to rule others--to govern political,
social, and civic life, as well as religious life. However, we are
currently facing a damaging sequester, additional proposed Navy, Army,
and Air Force cuts, while engaging in a shift of U.S. strategy towards
Asia that seeks to downplay the difficulty associated with the Middle
East and Africa. The report calls for a scaling back of stability
operations while suggesting that operations carried out using special
operations units and drone strikes be increased or sustained. How do
you see the military maintaining its joint readiness training aspects
as it draws down from two wars when our strategy appears to be heading
down a dangerous road?
Mr. Hagel. Maintaining ready forces is a priority. If confirmed, I
will work with the Joint Chiefs to better understand the basis of their
assessment and how we can most effectively address the readiness
challenges our military faces.
My sense is that the concerns the Joint Chiefs have expressed about
readiness come from a variety of factors, including the challenges of
recovering from 10 years of operational stress, of transitioning to a
broader range of operations, and of doing all of this in the face of
fiscal austerity and budget uncertainty. If confirmed, I will carefully
monitor how all of these factors are posing risks to readiness and will
work closely with the military and civilian leadership of the
Department to mitigate those risks to the greatest extent possible.

305. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, what impact do you think current
force posturing will have on our ability to deploy to address potential
threats that are posed by North Korea, Iran, and around the globe?
Mr. Hagel. As described in the 2012 Defense Strategic Guidance, the
Department is rebalancing toward the Asia-Pacific while maintaining
focus on the Middle-East. I think that the significant U.S. military
presence and activities in Asia are a clear demonstration of the
enduring U.S. commitment to the region and to addressing current and
emerging challenges in the Asia-Pacific. Moreover, if confirmed as
Secretary, I would take every step to maintain the ability of America
to conduct successful combat operations in more than one region at a
time, ensuring that we have the ability to meet threats around the
world, as in the Middle East and North Africa, when they arise. Our
global posture, engagement with allies and partners, and investment in
flexible defense architectures for high-demand capabilities, such as
ballistic missile defense, are of great importance.
North Korea's December Taepo Dong II missile launch and recent
threats to conduct a third nuclear test underscore the growing North
Korean threat to international peace and security. U.S. diplomatic
efforts following the December missile launch, particularly with China,
resulted in U.N. Security Council Resolution 2087, which affirms the
international community's opposition to North Korea's provocations. The
tightened sanctions in the resolution will help impede the growth of
North Korea's weapons of mass destruction program. If confirmed, I will
continue to ensure our military provides the deterrence and defense
necessary to protect our allies and our interests. This posture is also
the best way to create conditions where diplomacy has the best possible
prospects to succeed.
With respect to Iran, I believe that it is critical that the U.S.
military maintain a robust presence in the region to counter Iran,
reassure our partners, and build partner capacity. Our carrier presence
is a key element of this presence. If confirmed, I will work with the
combatant commanders to revalidate our posture and ensure it best
addresses the threats, challenges, and opportunities in the region to
preserve all options for the President while balancing other national
security needs.

306. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, you stated in responses to advance
policy questions in regard to the Joint Chief's concerns about a hollow
force that: ``the concerns the Joint Chiefs have expressed about
readiness come from a variety of factors, including the challenges of
recovering from 10 years of operational stress of transitioning to a
broader range of operations, and of doing all of this in the face of
fiscal austerity and budget uncertainty.''
Successfully meeting our national security strategic objectives
with a smaller, overall force will require us to improve our focus on
training our servicemembers from the separate branches effectively.
Last year General Ray Odierno, USA, Chief of Staff of the Army spoke to
this committee about the importance of a joint force that is flexible
and adaptive to the challenges of the new environment. Could you please
provide assurances that vital training will not be walked away from,
training such as Joint Readiness Training Centers where the Air Force
and Army conduct training operations that hugely effect fundamental
joint operations?
Mr. Hagel. Maintaining ready forces is of highest priority,
especially in a world of ever changing challenges and threats. If
confirmed, I will work with the Joint Chiefs to better understand the
basis of their assessment and how we can most effectively address the
readiness challenges our military faces. The highest yield training
exercises will be revisited frequently to ensure that our forces remain
flexible and adaptive to meet our new challenges.

307. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, how do you plan to monitor risk and
the potential mismatch between constrained resources and demands of
operational plans?
Mr. Hagel. I am deeply impressed by the caliber and capabilities of
our military forces. It is vitally important that they be ready to
respond to the Nation's needs, and I am concerned that further budget
cuts will negatively affect readiness. If confirmed, I will get regular
updates by the Joint Chiefs on where we must devote the Department's
attention and resources to ensure the readiness of the force.

nuclear deterrent
308. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, in the Global Zero report, within
the context of rebalancing nuclear deterrence you state, ``new
opportunities will emerge for cooperation with allies and other
countries with common security interests.'' In your 2008 book you
stated that, ``the world needs to establish a new global consensus on
nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation . . . as the world's largest
nuclear power the United States has a responsibility to lead in that
effort . . . '' and that ``we must once again convince the world that
America has the clear intention of fulfilling the nuclear disarmament
commitments that we have made.''
There are nine nuclear powers who are out there and a number of
others who are pursuing nuclear capabilities. Do you believe the
elimination of the U.S. nuclear triad or Global Strike Command as an
independent command will increase the security of the United States and
lead to a more peaceful world?
Mr. Hagel. I believe in the President's long-term vision of a world
without nuclear weapons. It is a vision shared by nearly every
President since Eisenhower, including Ronald Reagan. I also support the
President's commitment that the United States will not disarm
unilaterally. If confirmed, I look forward to leading DOD in supporting
the President's objectives to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and
their roles in national security policy and to create the conditions
that will allow others to join with us in this process. Our efforts to
modernize the nuclear deterrent and build a responsive infrastructure
go hand-in-hand with efforts to reduce the world's nuclear dangers. The
United States must have a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent
so long as nuclear weapons remain. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
the needed leadership focus on this issue and that institutional
excellence for nuclear deterrence remains a part of the President's
comprehensive approach to nuclear security.

309. Senator Vitter. Mr. Hagel, the Global Zero report would
seriously limit B-52s and U.S. nuclear deterrent. Please share your
thoughts on how you balance your previous position with your statements
that you support our nuclear deterrents.
Mr. Hagel. In the Global Zero report we took a longer term view of
what might be possible under different circumstances. The report's
illustrative reductions to nuclear forces were just that--intended to
provide a stimulus to national debate about how many nuclear weapons
are enough and to illustrate a possible pathway forward. If confirmed,
I will focus on implementing the recommendations of the 2010 NPR, while
also considering what additional steps may be appropriate, and will
consult with Congress on the way forward.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Roy Blunt
joint professional military education
310. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, do you believe Joint Professional
Military Education (JPME) helps ensure that the individual Services and
other agencies that play a role in national security cooperate
effectively?
Mr. Hagel. I believe JPME, as established under the Goldwater-
Nichols Act, has been central to strengthening and integrating the
Joint Force. It is my understanding that the JPME system is
fundamentally designed to foster cooperation and jointness among the
members of the different Services. I also understand that members of
the interagency, as well as international partners, attend JPME. As the
last decade of war has shown, jointness among our servicemembers and
their civilian partners is critical to success.
311. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, if so, what would you do as
Secretary of Defense to continue to expand and improve our JPME culture
and programs?
Mr. Hagel. I am not yet familiar with the scope of current JPME
programs. If confirmed, I will work with civilian and military
leadership to assess the effectiveness of these programs and propose
any changes that are deemed necessary.

defense budget and national military strategy
312. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, given the potential severe cuts that
could be imposed upon the defense budget due to sequestration, how will
you put a process in place to ensure a strategy-driven QDR process that
produces recommendations ``fully independent of the budget''?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will work with the Department's
leadership team to ensure that the QDR starts with an assessment of the
opportunities and challenges that the Nation faces in the emerging
global security environment, and then identifies priorities based on
our national security interests for defense policy and force planning.
The assessment of threats, risks, and opportunities, along with the
identification of national security interests, would be undertaken
fully independent of the budget. Prioritization of objectives and
identification of approaches would follow and be resources informed in
order to ensure they are realistic and appropriate.

cyber security
313. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, what should be the DOD's role in
protecting the United States against foreign cyber-attacks to the
Homeland?
Mr. Hagel. DOD has the mission to defend the Nation in cyberspace
and to support a whole-of-government effort to address cyber threats. I
support this approach. This mission includes a close partnership with
DHS in its role of leading efforts for the cybersecurity of U.S.
critical infrastructure, and non-DOD unclassified government networks.

314. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, what should be the DOD's role in
protecting the United States against Iranian attacks on the financial
sector?
Mr. Hagel. While I cannot speak to the details of any specific
attacks, I believe that DOD should contribute its capabilities to
support a whole-of-government effort to address cyber (and other)
threats to U.S. national and economic security. The President has made
clear that the United States will respond to hostile acts in cyberspace
as we would any other threat to our country, and that the United States
reserves the right to use all necessary means, including military means
as a last resort, to defend our Nation and our interests. I support
this approach.

315. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, are we adequately deterring our
adversaries in cyberspace?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that a number of important steps have been
taken to deter malicious activity in cyberspace, but that the United
States must do more to protect public and private networks from cyber
threats. DOD should continue to develop its cyber capabilities and
expertise, and it should work closely with its public, private, and
international partners to deter and discourage malicious behavior. I
also believe that legislation providing for increased information
sharing on cyber threats and the development of critical infrastructure
cybersecurity standards, in partnership with the private sector, would
help reduce vulnerabilities and protect our national and economic
security.

316. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, are you worried that America's use
of cyberwarfare capabilities--such as the famous STUXNET attack on
Iran--is setting a dangerous precedent for others?
Mr. Hagel. I am not able to comment on STUXNET or who was
responsible for it, but I do think that the increased frequency of
disruptive cyber activities is a clear national security concern.
Recent such examples of destructive attacks, such as the Shamoon virus
that virtually destroyed 30,000 computers at Saudi Arabian State Oil
Company Aramco, are a significant escalation in the cyber threat.

317. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, given our growing dependence on
computer networks, should we pursue some sort of a global regime to
limit this danger?
Mr. Hagel. I agree with the President that longstanding norms
guiding state behavior, including the law of armed conflict, also apply
in cyberspace. I also believe we should continue to press for the
development of international cyberspace norms that build upon common
principles for responsible state behavior.

taiwan
318. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, in accordance with the Taiwan
Relations Act, the 113th Congress will likely advance commercial
relations with and foster future defense sales to Taiwan. However, as
China's naval, air, and missile capabilities increase, defending Taiwan
will become increasingly difficult. Please describe your security
commitments to Taiwan as they relate to the sale of advanced aircraft
to the Taiwan Government.
Mr. Hagel. I believe that the Taiwan Relations Act has contributed
to peace and stability in the region for over 30 years. In my view, the
increasing complexity and sophistication of the military threat to
Taiwan from China means that Taiwan must devote greater attention to
asymmetric concepts and innovative technologies to maximize Taiwan's
strengths and advantages. If confirmed, I would work closely with
Congress, throughout DOD, and with our interagency partners to ensure
the continued effective implementation of all of the relevant
provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act. If confirmed, I will look at
what specific capabilities self-defense capabilities Taiwan needs in
light of the security situation in the Taiwan Strait and the evolving
military capabilities on the mainland.

u.s. policy in the caucasus
319. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, how do you assess U.S.-Azerbaijan
relations and what will be your policy to expand this strategic
partnership?
Mr. Hagel. I recognize the many shared interests and current
cooperation between the United States and Azerbaijan across the foreign
policy, economics, energy, and cultural spheres. In particular, the
U.S.-Azerbaijan defense relationship is strong, with room to grow. I
understand that DOD engages in regular consultations at high levels
with Azerbaijani counterparts to identify areas where we can strengthen
our cooperation and partnership.
If confirmed, I would continue this senior level engagement with
Azerbaijan and continue the Department's commitment to supporting
Azerbaijan's defense reforms, ability to interoperate with NATO and
deploy to coalition operations, and capacity to address terrorism and
other transnational threats and secure its maritime borders and energy
infrastructure. I would look for the United States to be Azerbaijan's
partner of choice and help Azerbaijan's defense establishment
contribute to regional security and stability, such as with
Azerbaijan's significant support to international efforts in
Afghanistan.

320. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, how should the United States respond
to the continued presence of Russian military forces inside
internationally-recognized Georgian territory?
Mr. Hagel. I believe that the United States should continue to
support Georgia's territorial integrity within its internationally
recognized borders, and remain steadfast in non-recognition of the
occupied territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. We should continue
to object to Russia's occupation and militarization of Georgian
territory. If confirmed, I would speak out in support of Georgia's
territorial integrity and to call on Russia to fulfill its obligations
under the 2008 ceasefire agreement, including withdrawal of its forces
to pre-conflict positions and free access for humanitarian assistance.
I would continue to support the U.S. role as an active participant in
the Geneva discussions, working with the co-chairs and others in
pursuit of a resolution to the conflict.
We should continue to fully support Georgia's sovereignty and
territorial integrity as we seek to work on practical steps with Russia
to promote stability and security on the ground and ultimately, a
peaceful resolution of the conflict.

321. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, how do you assess the current U.S.
military relationship with countries in the Caucasus region,
specifically Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan?
Mr. Hagel. I believe DOD has fostered strong relations with
Georgia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan to strengthen each nation's political
independence and contributions to broader regional security and
stability. I understand that there are regular senior level
consultations with each of these partners, in support of defense
reforms, interoperability with NATO and support to coalition
operations, and building capacity to address the range of transnational
threats in the region. I believe that these defense partnerships have
produced notable successes, including the significant contributions
made by each country to NATO operations. In Afghanistan, Georgia has
deployed two battalions of soldiers. Armenia and Azerbaijan have each
supplied a company to the NATO International Security Assistance Force
(ISAF). Georgia and Azerbaijan provide key transit access into the
Afghanistan theater. In Kosovo, Armenia has deployed a platoon of
soldiers under U.S. command to the NATO Kosovo Force (KFOR).
Our defense partnerships should take into account the many
political and security challenges the region faces, among them the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and the occupied territories in Georgia. We
should design our engagement deliberately so that it carefully
contributes to regional stability rather than enflaming existing
tensions.

322. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, should the United States deepen its
military ties with these nations?
Mr. Hagel. The United States has a shared interest with Georgia,
Armenia, and Azerbaijan to partner on the development of each nation as
a contributor of security and stability to the broader region. If
confirmed, I would continue to engage these nations and seek areas to
deepen these partnerships in ways appropriate to our shared interests,
political will, available resources, and capacity to absorb new
capabilities and missions.

323. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, how will these ties impact U.S.
relations with Russia?
Mr. Hagel. It is prudent to give consideration to how improved ties
with one country might affect the broader region. If confirmed, I would
support DOD efforts to seek and provide transparency in our defense
cooperative relations in the region. I would look for Department
engagement to be guided by principles that strive to enhance regional
security, the strengthening of responsible defense reforms, and
adherence to the rule of law. These principles must also strengthen
sovereignty and independence-the United States should continue to
emphasize its desire to cooperate and assist, not to dominate or
impose. If confirmed, I would support engagement with key states
throughout the region, including Russia, and strive to ensure all
recognize that U.S. cooperation with one is not at the expense of the
cooperation with or security of another.

324. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, do you believe that NATO should
expand?
Mr. Hagel. I support the administration position that NATO's door
remains open.

325. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, please describe how U.S. defense
policies can ensure the sovereignty and political independence of our
regional partners such as Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Mr. Hagel. The objective of our relations with Azerbaijan and
Armenia should be to strengthen each nation's political independence
and contributions to broader regional security and stability. We should
continue to seek regional stability through our bilateral and
multilateral engagement. DOD has an important role to play in those
regards, supporting overall U.S. engagement objectives.

u.s. africa command
326. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, undoubtedly, radical fundamentalism
and terrorism continues to spread in Northern Africa. What is U.S.
Africa Command's (AFRICOM) role in responding to and preventing the
spread of terrorism in Mali, Nigeria, Somalia, Libya, and now Egypt?
Mr. Hagel. Countering terrorism in Africa, just as elsewhere in the
world, is a multi-faceted problem requiring a whole-of-government
solution. DOD contributes to the counterterrorism mission in Africa
primarily by strengthening the defense capabilities of African states
and regional organizations, and by working to support African-led
operations, such as the African Union Mission in Somalia. AFRICOM is
responsible for implementing DOD's counterterrorism and partner
capacity-building missions throughout the African continent through
military-military exchanges, exercises, and security cooperation on the
African continent. When directed, AFRICOM is also prepared to conduct
military operations in order to deter and defeat terrorism and other
transnational threats, and to provide a security environment conducive
to good governance and development.

movement of troops to australia
327. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, please describe the nature, purpose,
and strategic importance of our ``permanent and constant'' commitment
to a U.S. military presence in Australia as it relates to countering
China's influence and reasserting U.S. interests in the region.
Mr. Hagel. In 2010, the Prime Minister of Australia and President
Obama agreed to establish a rotational U.S. Marine Corps presence in
northern Australia. The first rotation of approximately 200 U.S.
marines took place from April through September 2012. In addition,
closer cooperation between the Royal Australian Air Force and the U.S.
Air Force has resulted in increased rotations of U.S. aircraft through
northern Australia. These two initiatives further enhance the
capabilities of both countries by increasing opportunities for combined
training and enabling more effective pursuit of common interests in the
Asia-Pacific region. Building on the interoperability developed through
joint operations over the past decade in Iraq and Afghanistan, these
initiatives will help us deepen that interoperability long after the
wars are over. The United States will not build any U.S. bases in
Australia. U.S. forces will rotate in and out of Darwin and will be co-
located with Australian forces on existing Australian military bases.
Our military cooperation with Australia helps the United States
rebalance toward the Asia-Pacific region and specifically supports
efforts to become more geographically distributed and operationally
resilient in the Pacific. U.S.-Australian force posture initiatives are
not aimed at any one country. I believe that the U.S. rotational
presence in northern Australia and our strong alliance with Australia
will lead to further cooperation with a variety of nations. The United
States sees many shared regional challenges in the Asia-Pacific,
including responding to natural disasters, countering extremism,
ensuring freedom of navigation, and enhancing regional stability.

satellite and radio systems
328. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, DOD's satellite and radio systems
are essential to our national security. However, some of the spectrum
that DOD currently controls is well-suited for use for commercial
mobile broadband services. In fact, the 1755-1780 MHz band, which DOD
holds the license for, is particularly well suited for mobile broadband
because it is already being used for this purpose internationally.
Additionally, the administration has a stated priority, as part of the
National Broadband Plan, of making more spectrum available for auction
to commercial providers for consumer use. Ostensibly, this plan would
include both the reallocation of some broadcast spectrum and of some
spectrum licenses held by government users. Can you provide the cost
estimate for relocating DOD operations off of the 1755-1780 MHz band?
Mr. Hagel. I understand that DOD and the other Federal agencies are
working through National Telecommunication and Information Agency's
(NTIA) established processes to support the President's goal to make
500 MHz available for commercial mobile broadband use. As part of that
process, the Department has conducted a detailed study of the cost and
operational feasibility of reallocation of the entire 1,755-1,850 MHz
band, which is used by the Department to meet mission requirements. The
NTIA has reported that it would cost nearly $13 billion for DOD to
vacate the entire 95 MHz, and $18 billion to cover non-Department
systems as well, and that alternate spectrum and adequate time to
transition to that alternate spectrum would need to be provided. If I
am confirmed, I will direct the Department to consult with NTIA about
whether it would be useful for the NTIA to initiate a detailed study of
vacating just the lower 25 MHz.

base realignment and closure commission
329. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, what is your position on the
establishment of a new BRAC Commission to oversee additional domestic
base closures?
Mr. Hagel. I understand Congress did not accept that the
administration's proposal for two rounds of BRAC. However, I think it
is necessary for the Department to examine its infrastructure and
eliminate excess. While the BRAC process is not perfect, it is the best
process identified to date, and I believe a fair and comprehensive way
to right-size the Department's domestic footprint. If confirmed, I
would have to look at the need for BRAC in the future and would work
with Congress on any such proposal.

tactical aviation competition
330. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, DOD faces an upcoming challenge to
maintain a competitive and innovative defense industrial base to meet
the Nation's tactical aviation needs. The fiscal year 2013 President's
budget demonstrates a near-term shift to a single manufacturer for
tactical aircraft. This outcome will have significant consequences:
with a single-source option for tactical aircraft programs, DOD will
lose vital competition that can help drive down costs, leading to
potentially more expensive, less capable systems; investment in
innovative technology and engineering for tomorrow's capabilities will
suffer without a balanced, diverse tactical aviation base; and a
limited manufacturing capability will struggle to be flexible to cope
with changing demand and there will be no way to manage risk for future
developing programs. Today, the F/A-18 program provides DOD with a
highly capable, affordable, and available manufacturing line that
promotes competition and drives innovation into tactical aviation. It
is the only current American tactical aircraft that can fill
operational gaps or address the Navy's tactical aviation shortfall. All
F/A-18 aircraft--the F/A-18E/F Block II Super Hornet and EA-18G
Growler--continue to be delivered on-cost and ahead of schedule. Can
you please discuss the importance of maintaining competition in
tactical aviation production?
Mr. Hagel. I recognize that competition in all acquisition
programs, including tactical aviation production, is key to
affordability, to innovation, and to a strong industrial base. I intend
to fully support the continuation of appropriate competition.

331. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, if confirmed as Secretary of
Defense, what can DOD do to ensure that the F/A-18 line isn't ended in
the near-term, both for the purposes of filling potential operational
gaps and managing risk of future tactical aviation programs?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will assess the balance of strike
fighter capability, and the state of the F/A-18 production line. I will
also ensure the Department supports international sales of the F/A-18.

international sales
332. Senator Blunt. Mr. Hagel, in your testimony before the Senate
Armed Services Committee, you discussed the need to protect the core
defense industrial base, even during a time that budget challenges will
lead to some necessary cuts in spending. One particular way to support
the Nation's defense infrastructure is to support international sales
of American defense manufacturing. International sales help keep
manufacturing facilities alive while ensuring that the engineering
expertise and workforce are retained for additional domestic
production. Your predecessor, Secretary Panetta, took this
responsibility very seriously, advocating for American defense
platforms vigorously as they competed against other international
options in campaigns abroad. The Military Services can also be strong
advocates, although not all demonstrate the same level of commitment to
international campaigns. If you are confirmed as Secretary of Defense,
can you describe your role--both personally and as a broader policy
within DOD--to support international sales of eligible American defense
programs? Please discuss on how DOD and the individual Services might
better promote American products abroad.
Mr. Hagel. I believe that international sales help to sustain the
defense industrial base, and strengthen our relationship with allies
and partners.
If confirmed, I would work closely with the Secretary of State and
Congress to shape international sales planning and to support the
timely transfer of capability. I would also meet with defense industry
leaders to identify areas where foreign sales opportunities exist that
would help sustain needed industrial capabilities.
Furthermore, if confirmed, I would continue to build on the
foundation established by both Secretaries Gates and Panetta to
streamline the Department's foreign military sales process.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Mike Lee
nuclear weapons
333. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, nuclear deterrence has been a
successful element of our national defense posture for decades. What is
your position on and rationale for the number of nuclear warheads and
their disposition among the three forms of delivery in order to
maintain a credible and successful nuclear deterrent posture for our
Nation?
Mr. Hagel. America's nuclear deterrent for more than 60 years has
played a central role in ensuring global security. If confirmed, I will
be committed to maintaining a safe, secure, and effective nuclear
arsenal. I believe that a triad of ICBMs, SLBMs, and nuclear-capable
heavy bombers continues to support U.S. national security interests
under New START limits.

334. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, what do you see as the future of
Minuteman III?
Mr. Hagel. With regard to Minuteman III, I am aware that the NDAA
for 2007 requires sustaining the Minuteman III weapon system through
2030. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department continues to
assess the whole Minuteman system and its components to be sure that
this system is sustained through at least 2030.

f-35
335. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, the Air Force has retired nearly 1,900
aircraft over the past decade, the majority of which have not been
replaced. Fighter inventories have been reduced by almost 25 percent
and F-22 production was truncated to well below original Air Force
requirements. While newer aircraft tend to be more capable than those
they replace, even a more capable aircraft can only be in one place at
one time. The F-35 is now the sole remaining fighter modernization
program in DOD. What is your position on the need for this aircraft and
how will you ensure we continue to modernize an aging fighter force?
Mr. Hagel. My view is we cannot let any other nation achieve parity
with the United States in the ability to control the air. My
understanding is that other nations are developing modern fighters that
will challenge our existing fighters and that the F-35 is needed to
maintain our advantage. If confirmed I will review the health of the F-
35 program to ensure the aircraft are delivered with the capability we
need and at a cost we can afford. I will also examine our options for
continued modernization in this critical area.

defense industrial base
336. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, DOD relies on our Nation's defense
industrial base to provide and support the equipment needed by our
military to fulfill its role in our national defense. What steps would
you take to ensure that we have a robust defense industrial base, both
public and private, that can reliably and affordably provide and
support our military equipment in a timely manner in the future?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will place a high priority on ensuring
the continued viability of the industrial base. I will assess the
programs the Department has already authorized and that are underway to
ensure they meet that goal.
Working closely with the Military Services and industry, I will
ensure early identification of those skills and manufacturing
capabilities that are both critical and increasingly fragile, and take
appropriate actions necessary to preserve those few capabilities.

u.s. role in the united nations
337. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, what role should the United States
play within the U.N. peacekeeping missions?
Mr. Hagel. The United States has historically played an important
role in guiding and supporting U.N. peacekeeping missions, and I
believe that this approach continues to make good sense. As a permanent
member of the U.N. Security Council, we should continue to exert
leadership across the full spectrum of peacekeeping activities--from
mission inception and establishment, through various phases of
operations until mission closure. In such diverse venues as Haiti,
Liberia, Sudan and South Sudan, U.N. peacekeeping is making vital
contributions to peace and stability in the face of enormous
challenges. It will not always make sense for the United States to
provide ``boots on the ground'' to U.N. peacekeeping missions, but I do
believe there are likely to be cases where U.S. direct involvement will
be in U.S. national interests.

338. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, do you still feel that the United
States should deploy ground troops as U.N. peacekeepers in a non-
militarized Palestinian state? If not, what has changed?
Mr. Hagel. I support a two-state solution, with two states living
side-by-side in peace and security: the Jewish State of Israel and an
independent Palestinian State; each state enjoying self-determination,
mutual recognition, and peace. The arrangements necessary to achieve a
lasting and effective peace can only by determined by the parties
through negotiations. In addressing the specific security arrangements,
these details will also need to be determined by the parties, along
with the other final status issues. Israel must be able to defend
itself--by itself--against any threat. The security provisions in a
final peace deal must be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of
terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide
effective border security. The United States, and the international
community, should be prepared to support these security requirements as
requested by the parties.

military involvement in asia
339. Senator Lee. Mr. Hagel, in your opinion what effect will the
recent shift to the Pacific bring to Asian countries? What will the
shift mean for: Russia, China, North Korea, Japan, and the Republic of
China?
Mr. Hagel. The President has said that the rebalance to the Asia-
Pacific is a whole-of-government effort to renew and deepen U.S.
engagement throughout the Asia-Pacific. This policy is not a new shift,
but an increased assertion of this region's relative economic,
political, and security importance--one with which I agree. A key tenet
of the rebalance should continue to be modernizing our alliances and
deepening partnerships, especially through increased regional
engagement and capacity building, bilaterally and multilaterally.
Japan is the linchpin of our presence in Asia. Japan is an
increasingly critical partner in missile defense, humanitarian
assistance and disaster relief, maritime security, and other important
areas. I would continue the work of my predecessors to broaden and
deepen this critical alliance to ensure that it is capable of
responding to the security challenges of the 21st century.
The United States has a similarly robust relationship with the
Republic of Korea (ROK). My understanding is that we have a
comprehensive agenda aimed at facilitating the smooth transfer of
wartime operational control in 2015, and ensuring the ROK Government
has the capabilities necessary to defend the peninsula. I would
continue these important efforts, and would also continue to stress the
importance of trilateral ties between Japan, the ROK, and the United
States.
The Taiwan Relations Act provides that the United States ``will
make available to Taiwan such defense articles and defense services in
such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a
sufficient self-defense capability.'' That policy has contributed to
peace and stability in the region for over 30 years and is consistent
with longstanding U.S. policy, which calls for a peaceful resolution of
the Taiwan issue in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of
the Taiwan Strait. If confirmed, I would work closely with Congress,
the Commander of U.S. Pacific Command, and the Department's interagency
partners to ensure the continued effective implementation of all of the
relevant provisions of the Taiwan Relations Act.
Our relationship with China will be critical in the rebalance. We
will continue to build our partnership with China based on practical
steps to address shared challenges and interests in the region while
also monitoring the rapid modernization of China's military and
assertion of territorial claims in the region.
Through the rebalance we will work with our partners to deter
destabilizing and provocative behavior by North Korea, including its
proliferation activities, ballistic missile program, and nuclear
program which continue to present a serious threat to the United
States, our regional allies, and the international community. We will
also ensure that we can deter and, if necessary, defeat North Korean
aggression.
The United States will work to build trust and understanding with
Russia in areas of mutual interest in Asia and encourage it to be a
contributor across a broad range of issues in the region.
______

Questions Submitted by Senator Ted Cruz
iran sanctions
340. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, you claim to have voted against the
renewal of the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act (ILSA) in 2001 because ``I
thought there might be other ways to harness our vast power and that of
our allies.'' Please specify what other ways would have been more
effective than the sanctions imposed by ILSA.
Mr. Hagel. I believe that multilateral sanctions against Iran,
backed by a unified world community, are the most effective sanctions.
For example, the multilateral sanctions implemented in U.N. Security
Council (UNSC) Resolution 1929--which resulted from President Obama's
work in 2010 to cement the Permanent 5 UNSC members in unanimously
supporting multilateral efforts--are the most crippling sanctions
against Iran in history. Continuing to maintain the international
community's unified stance to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear
weapon--to include further sanctions if necessary--is more effective
than implementing unilateral sanctions. However, times and
circumstances have changed significantly since 2001 and I agree that
Iran's continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon means that further
sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral, may be necessary.

341. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, after receiving criticism for your
record on sanctions, you wrote in a letter to Senator Barbara Boxer
that you now ``agree that with Iran's continued rejection of diplomatic
overtures, further effective sanctions, both multilateral and
unilateral--may be necessary . . . '' In your advance policy questions,
you also compliment the President's strategy on Iran, and acknowledge
that it has ``included the application of smart, unprecedented, and
effective sanctions against the Iranian regime . . . '' The sanctions
the President has utilized include unilateral sanctions. Why do you now
feel you can support unilateral sanctions, when for years in the Senate
you opposed their use?
Mr. Hagel. I continue to fully support President Obama's policy
with respect to sanctions on Iran. While there are some circumstances
in which unilateral sanctions are effective, I believe that
multilateral sanctions against Iran are the most effective approach.
For example, the multilateral sanctions implemented in UNSC Resolution
1929--which resulted from President Obama's work in 2010 to cement the
Permanent 5 UNSC members in unanimously supporting multilateral
efforts--are the most crippling sanctions against Iran in history.
Continuing to maintain the international community's unified stance to
prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon--to include further
sanctions if necessary--is more effective than implementing unilateral
sanctions.
That said, now that we have built international support for
sanctions against Iran, unilateral sanctions are more likely to have a
crippling effect. As I wrote to Senator Boxer, I agree that with Iran's
continued pursuit of a nuclear weapon may make further effective
sanctions, both multilateral and unilateral, necessary.

342. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, in your advance policy questions, you
also state that the President's strategy on Iran ``smartly . . . made
clear that all options are on the table'' and that you ``agree with the
President that the United States should take no options off the table
in our efforts to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.'' You
then promise that, if confirmed, you ``will focus intently on ensuring
that the U.S. military is, in fact, prepared for any contingency.'' Yet
in 2010 you told a forum at the Atlantic Council that you were ``not so
sure it is necessary to continue to say all options are on the table''
with respect to Iran. You wrote in your 2008 book America: Our Next
Chapter that, ``the genie of nuclear armaments is already out of the
bottle, no matter what Iran does,'' and went on to imply that sovereign
nation states possessing nuclear weapons could be excepted to respond
with ``some degree of responsible, or at least sane, behavior.'' Please
clarify your view on whether or not the military option should remain
on the table with Iran.
Mr. Hagel. Let me be clear: I support the President's policy on
Iran of prevention, not containment. We must prevent Iran from
acquiring a nuclear weapon. I have never advocated for a policy of
containment nor have I ever stated the United States could live with a
nuclear Iran. In order to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon,
we must keep all options on the table, including the military option.
If confirmed as the Secretary of Defense, I will--as stated
previously--ensure that the U.S. military is planning and prepared for
all contingencies. I have consistently argued in favor of keeping all
options on the table, including in my September 28, 2012 Washington
Post op-ed co-authored with two former CENTCOM commanders, where we
said, ``Our position is fully consistent with the policy of presidents
for more than a decade of keeping all options on the table, including
the use of military force, thereby increasing pressure on Iran while
working toward a political solution.''

343. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, in regards to the quote in your book,
why would you feel that a military option would be necessary, when you
seem to believe that the United States and our allies could live with a
nuclear Iran?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #342.

nuclear weapons
344. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, you are a signatory of Global Zero,
an initiative dedicated to the elimination of all nuclear weapons. You
were also a member of the six-person Global Zero U.S. Nuclear Policy
Commission, headed by retired U.S. Marine Corps General James
Cartwright. As a result, your name appears on the Commission's May 2012
report, which calls for cutting deployed U.S. nuclear warheads from
1,550 to 450 strategic weapons by 2022. In your testimony, you insisted
this report was merely illustrative and had no relevance to your actual
policy on our nuclear arsenal. Yet in your 2008 book America: Our Next
Chapter, you wrote with respect to nuclear disarmament: ``As the
world's largest nuclear power, the United States has a responsibility
to lead in this effort. There is no other way. In particular, we must
once again convince the world that America has the clear intention of
fulfilling the nuclear disarmament commitments that we have made.''
Please explain specifically how you will fulfill the responsibility you
believe we have to lead the effort on nuclear disarmament.
Mr. Hagel. I believe in the President's long-term vision of a world
without nuclear weapons. It is a vision shared by nearly every
President since Eisenhower, including Ronald Reagan. I also support the
President's commitment that the United States will not disarm
unilaterally. If confirmed, I look forward to leading DOD in supporting
the President's objectives to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and
their roles in national security policy and to create the conditions
that will allow others to join with us in this process. Our efforts to
modernize the nuclear deterrent and build a responsive infrastructure
go hand-in-hand with efforts to reduce the world's nuclear dangers. The
United States must have a safe, secure, and effective nuclear deterrent
so long as nuclear weapons remain. If confirmed, I will work to ensure
the needed leadership focus on this issue and that institutional
excellence for nuclear deterrence remains a part of the President's
comprehensive approach to nuclear security.

negotiating with russia
345. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, you have insisted that you have
always been a strong proponent of bilateral arms control agreements,
and you have spoken warmly in the press (Interview on the Riz Kahn
Show, Al Jazeera, 3/21/09) of former President Dimitri Medvedev as a
youthful leader with a strong commitment to nuclear arms reduction.
Going into the new round of arms talks with Russia that was announced
this week, do you consider President Vladimir Putin a similarly
reliable negotiating partner?
Mr. Hagel. While there has been no announcement of new arms control
talks, if there are such talks in the future, I would expect President
Putin to come to the table as a reliable negotiating partner. Of
course, being a ``reliable'' partner does not mean that President
Putin, or any negotiator, will agree with U.S. positions or
perspectives. But I expect that he would enter into negotiations as a
reliable negotiating partner.

346. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, Senator Kerry was asked during his
confirmation hearing about our relationship with Russia and if he would
recommend entering into any new arms control measures until all
compliance and verification issues regarding existing agreements were
fully settled. Would you recommend any new arms control agreements if
there are existing verification and compliance issues with current
agreements?
Mr. Hagel. Compliance with legal obligations is central to the
effectiveness of arms control treaties, and concerns about
noncompliance must be addressed. If confirmed, I will ensure that DOD
works with the Department of State and other interagency partners in
assessing and responding to compliance concerns. While resolution of
such issues with Russia is clearly important, I do not believe that
discussions of possible further nuclear arms reductions need await
resolution of all compliance issues. If confirmed, I would have the
Department work with the interagency to address any compliance concerns
through the existing arrangements established by the respective
treaties for that purpose. If resolution in that manner is not
possible, the administration should raise the issues with the Russian
Federation government at higher levels, including up to the ministerial
or presidential level if necessary.

347. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, how specifically would you address
these issues?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #346.

348. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, should any new arms control
agreements be negotiated, would it be your policy that they will occur
through the treaty power and come to the Senate for ratification?
Mr. Hagel. If confirmed, I will consult closely with Congress
regarding any additional arms control agreements--and whether they
should occur through the treaty power and come to the Senate for advice
and consent to ratification.

israel
349. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, in a number of statements (for
example your July 28, 2006, speech to the Brookings Institution), you
have spoken highly of the 2002 Beirut Declaration by the Arab League as
a ``squandered'' diplomatic opportunity for both the United States and
Israel. Do you believe Israel should be prepared to accept the
``achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to
be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution
194'' as per the Declaration?
Mr. Hagel. I continue to believe, as I did when I cosponsored and
voted for the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, that any partner
for peace must renounce violence, abide by previous agreements, and
recognize Israel's right to exist. Negotiations between the parties are
the only viable path to peace and the two-state solution, with two
states living side by side in peace and security: the Jewish State of
Israel and an independent Palestinian State.
With those goals in mind, the Arab Peace Initiative is a step in
the right direction toward a comprehensive peace in the Middle East. I
do not believe that Israel or the Palestinians should have an agreement
imposed on them. The details included in the Arab Peace Initiative,
like all details of a peace agreement, will need to be negotiated by
the parties. Other Arab states seeking normalization with Israel, as
suggested in the Arab Peace Initiative, is an aspirational goal for a
comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
All sides seek a just and lasting peace that will ensure Israel's
security. If confirmed as Secretary of Defense, I look forward to
working with Secretary Kerry to assist the administration's efforts
toward peace.

350. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, your 2006 comment to Aaron David
Miller about how ``The Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up
here'' remains troubling. Do you think that people who advocate for a
strong U.S.-Israel relationship--whether you call them part of the
Jewish lobby or the Israel lobby--are advancing the interests of a
foreign government, namely Israel, above those of the United States?
Mr. Hagel. In conjunction with his interview with me in 2006, Aaron
David-Miller also wrote that, ``Hagel is a strong supporter of Israel
and believer in shared values.''
As I have stated many times, I regret my unfortunate choice of
words regarding the Jewish lobby to describe the pro-Israel lobby. I
believe one of the essential elements of our democracy is that every
American has the right to express their views to their elected
officials. In fact, in that same interview with Aaron Miller, I also
said that ``Everyone has a right to lobby; that's as it should be. Come
see your Senator, your Congressman, and if you can get the guy to sign
your letter: great, wonderful.'' I know that the pro-Israel lobby
includes Jews and non-Jews whom are all Americans supporting Israel
because it is in the interest of the United States. I consider myself
to be a pro-Israel American and have supported Israel throughout my
career because of our shared values and ideals of democracy.
On expanding U.S.-Israel cooperation, if confirmed, I intend to
continue to strengthen our bilateral defense relationship in a number
of ways. These include, but are not limited to, missile defense,
intelligence sharing, counterterrorism, and maritime security. I know
that over the past 4 years the administration has taken unprecedented
steps to expand our cooperation with Israel. Today, with congressional
support, the United States provides Israel over $3 billion annually in
Foreign Military Financing (FMF), which is the backbone of our
commitment to Israel's defense. In addition, President Obama,
Secretaries Gates and Panetta have worked to provide extensive support
of over $270 million to Israel for the Iron Dome counter rocket system.
As Iron Dome has proven itself very well in the field and saved many
Israeli lives, I intend to continue such support.
This financial support is complemented by extensive military-to-
military cooperation, including joint exercises. If confirmed, I will
seek to ensure that we build on this cooperation and expand it into new
areas as the United States and Israel address emerging threats at this
time of historic change in the Middle East. I believe we have a
tremendous opportunity for further expansion of our missile defense
efforts as well as cooperation in areas like space and cyberspace.
Finally, the foundation for successful cooperation is the close
personal relationships U.S. military and defense civilian leaders have
with Israeli military and defense leadership. Secretary Gates and
Secretary Panetta, as well as the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of
Staff, have all developed very close relationships with their
counterparts. Continuing with this tradition will be one of my highest
priorities if I am confirmed. This will be vital to ensuring that we
understand Israel's defense requirements, and to finding ways to
address mutual threats that meet our common interests.

351. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, if not, why did you say that you
would support the positions of what you called the ``Jewish lobby'' if
you were an Israeli Senator, but that you couldn't since you were a
United States Senator who had taken an oath to the United States?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #350.

352. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, how does that not imply that only
people loyal to Israel could support the positions of the Jewish lobby?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #350.

353. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, given your disavowal of this remark
in your testimony, can you specify how you intend to ``expand the depth
and breadth of U.S.-Israel cooperation'' as you pledged in your January
14, 2013, letter to Senator Barbara Boxer?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #350.

354. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, you have been widely linked in the
press with your Atlantic Council colleague Charles W. Freeman, who has
been a vocal supporter of your nomination. Please review paragraph 5
from Mr. Freeman's May 4, 2011, speech to the Palestine Center in
Washington, DC. (the transcript and video of the speech are available
here, if you would like the full context http://
www.thejerusalemfund.org/ht/display/ContentDetails/i/29130/pid/897):
``Similarly, the cruelties of Israelis to their Arab captives and
neighbors, especially in the ongoing siege of Gaza and repeated attacks
on the people of Lebanon, have cost the Jewish state much of the global
sympathy that the Holocaust previously conferred on it. The racist
tyranny of Jewish settlers over West Bank Arabs and the progressive
emergence of a version of apartheid in Israel itself are deeply
troubling to a growing number of people abroad who have traditionally
identified with Israel. Many--perhaps most of the most disaffected--are
Jews. They are in the process of dissociating themselves from Israel.
They know that, to the extent that Judaism comes to be conflated with
racist arrogance (as terrorism is now conflated with Islam), Israeli
behavior threatens a rebirth of anti-Semitism in the West. Ironically,
Israel--conceived as a refuge and guarantee against European anti-
Semitism--has become the sole conceivable stimulus to its revival and
globalization. Demonstrably, Israel has been bad for the Palestinians.
It is turning out also to be bad for the Jews.''
Do you consider Mr. Freeman's statement to be an expression of
mainstream thinking on Israel?
Mr. Hagel. As I told you at the hearing, I have not spoken with Mr.
Freeman in several years and do not support his comments. The views
expressed in the speech by Chas Freeman that you reference are his own,
and, in my opinion, not accurate.
I am pleased that Israeli and U.S. leaders agree that the U.S.-
Israel Defense relationship is stronger than ever. I intend to work to
continue to strengthen the relationship and am looking forward, if
confirmed, to working closely with my Israeli counterparts.
As I have said consistently throughout my career, Israel has a
right to defend itself. Israeli efforts to protect its citizens against
the actions of terrorist organizations, including Hamas and Hezbollah,
are part of Israel's right to self-defense. Palestinians will not
achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and
rejection, and Palestinians will never realize their independence
through unilateral actions. I continue to believe, as I did when I
cosponsored and voted for the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006,
that any partner for peace must renounce violence, abide by previous
agreements, and recognize Israel's right to exist. Negotiations between
the parties are the only viable path to peace and the two-state
solution, with two states living side by side in peace and security:
the Jewish State of Israel and an independent Palestinian State.

355. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, would you affirm that if confirmed,
you will not recommend the nomination or appointment of Mr. Freeman to
a position in DOD?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #354.

u.s. troops to u.n. mission
356. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, in a 2009 report that you co-authored
for the U.S./Middle East Project, you advocated for the deployment of
U.S. grounds troops as U.N. peacekeepers in a ``non-militarized
Palestinian state.'' That same year, in a piece for the Atlantic
Council, you wrote, ``No country today has the power to impose its will
and values on other nations.'' These statements seem to hearken back to
2003, when you stated that the United States ``must be careful to avert
the perception that we are charting a unilateralist course in our
foreign policy.'' Do you believe the United States needs a ``permission
slip'' from the U.N. or another international body before it can engage
in military operations--how would you address this concern?
Mr. Hagel. I do not believe we need a permission slip from the
United Nations before we can engage in military operations. The United
States will always remain committed to protecting its national security
interests whenever necessary. I believe the United States is strongest
when we act alongside our partners, with whom we share common
interests. I also believe the United States should, and will, act
unilaterally when we must, as we did with the Osama bin Laden raid. In
every case, we will act in accordance with the standards that govern
the use of force, which requires a basis in domestic law and compliance
with international law.

ploughshares fund
357. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, you currently sit on the board of the
Ploughshares Fund. Among the groups that Ploughshares has supported is
the National Iranian American Council (NIAC), headed by Trita Parsi.
Are you aware that the Ploughshares Fund has given more than $600,000
to NIAC?
Mr. Hagel. I completely support one of the primary objectives of
the Ploughshares Fund: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
I was not aware that Ploughshares provided financial support to the
NIAC. The Ploughshares Fund is committed to full transparency,
publishes all of their funding decisions and complies with all
applicable laws and best-practices for a 501(c)3 organization.
My understanding is that the case you referenced focused on a libel
lawsuit brought by the NIAC and its president, Trita Parsi, against
writer Seid Hassan Daioleslam. Records of the case do not include the
phrase ``deep and incontrovertible ties'' to high-level agents of the
Iranian regime. In fact, Judge John Bates did not analyze or provide
judgment on any NIAC ties to the Iranian Government. In his judgment,
Judge Bates explicitly wrote that, ``Nothing in this opinion should be
construed as a finding that defendant's articles [about NIAC ties to
the Iranian Government] were true. Defendant did not move for summary
judgment on that ground, and it has not been addressed here.''

358. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, are you aware that NIAC has ties to
the Iranian Government?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #357.

359. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, are you aware of the September 13,
2012, decision rendered by Judge John Bates in the U.S. District Court
in Washington, which exposed NIAC's ``deep and incontrovertible ties''
to high-level agents of the Iranian regime?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #357.

cuba
360. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, in 2002 you referred to Fidel Castro
as a ``toothless old dinosaur'' and praised former President Jimmy
Carter's recommended policy of relaxed sanctions and diplomatic
engagement as ``exactly right''. In 2008, you were a signatory to a
letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urging the U.S. relax
sanctions and engage Cuba due to Castro's ``imminent departure''. As of
February 1, 2013, the Castros have not departed Cuba or shown any
indication that additional concessions from the United States would
modify their repressive regime. An American contractor, Alan Gross,
languishes in a Cuban prison. Do you still believe Mr. Carter's
recommended policy towards Cuba is ``exactly right''?
Mr. Hagel. I support President Obama's Cuba policy which is focused
on supporting the Cuban people's desire to freely determine their
future, reducing their dependence on the Cuban state, and pursuing the
widely shared goal of a Cuba that respects the universal human rights
of all its citizens. The President's actions to facilitate family
travel, people to people travel, the flow of remittances into private
hands, and information to, from, and within Cuba have contributed to
this objective. I share the President's view that the Cuban Government
must change its outdated political model to reflect the commitments
undertaken by other governments in the Hemisphere to promote and defend
representative democracy. Policy matters and other diplomatic issues
involving Cuba are led by the State Department.

361. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, would relaxing sanctions and engaging
with the Castros be the hallmarks of your policy towards Cuba, should
you be confirmed?
Mr. Hagel. See answer to Question #360.

north korea
362. Senator Cruz. Mr. Hagel, in a 2003 interview with PBS, you
declared that isolating North Korea was the last thing the United
States should do. Despite a decade at attempted engagement and
negotiations, North Korea remains overtly hostile to the United States
and is actively pursuing weapons targeted at us and our allies. Given
North Korea's dismal record on negotiating in good faith, how
specifically would the additional outreach you advocated in 2003 have
improved our position in relationship to North Korea today?
Mr. Hagel. Since my interview with PBS in early 2003, diplomatic
efforts through the Six-Party Talks led to the September 2005 Joint
Statement, under which the Six Parties reaffirmed the goal of
verifiable denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and North Korea
committed to abandoning all nuclear weapons and existing nuclear
programs. In February 2007, the Six-Party process resulted in North
Korea's agreement to shut down its Yongbyon nuclear facility in
exchange for heavy fuel oil and talks aimed at normalization of
relations with the United States and Japan. President Obama extended
his hand to North Korea at the start of his administration in 2009.
Although these engagement efforts have not significantly diminished
North Korea's belligerence or pursuit of nuclear weapons, they have
united the international community, including China, against North
Korea's irresponsible behavior.
If confirmed, I would continue to support diplomatic engagement and
ensure that our military provides the deterrence and defense necessary
to create a stable regional environment where diplomacy can succeed. If
confirmed, I will also ensure that we have the capabilities necessary
in the Asia-Pacific theater to deter and, if necessary, defeat, North
Korean aggression.
______

[The nomination reference of the Hon. Charles T. Hagel
follows:]
Nomination Reference and Report
As In Executive Session,
Senate of the United States,
January 22, 2013.
Ordered, That the following nomination be referred to the Committee
on Armed Services:
Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of Defense,
vice Leon E. Panetta.
______

[The biographical sketch of Hon. Charles T. Hagel, which
was transmitted to the committee at the time the nomination was
referred, follows:]
Biographical Sketch of Senator Charles T. Hagel
Education:
Honorary Doctorate Degrees:
Georgetown University, College of William and
Mary, Marymount University, Creighton University,
Bellevue University, Doane College, Midland Lutheran
College, and North Central College

University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, NE
Bachelor of Arts Degree in General Studies,
1971

Brown Institute for Radio and Television, Minneapolis,
MN
Degree in Radio and Television Broadcasting,
1966

Kearney State College, Kearney, NE
January 1965-December 1965

Wayne State College, Wayne, NE
September 1964-December 1964
Employment record:
Vietnam War Commemoration Advisory Committee,
Arlington, VA
Chairman, July 2012-present

President's Intelligence Advisory Board
Co-Chairman, 2009-present

Atlantic Council, Washington, DC
Chairman and Board of Directors
February 2009-present

Defense Policy Board
Member, July 2009-present

President's China 100,000 Strong Initiative
Co-Chairman, 2010-2012

Department of Energy Blue Ribbon Commission on
America's Nuclear Future
Commissioner, 2009-2011

Georgetown University
Distinguished Professor of National
Governance, School of Foreign Service
February 2009-present

Deutsche Bank America, New York, NY
Advisory Board Member
May 2009-present

Corsair Capital, New York, NY
Advisory Board Member
February 2009-present

McCarthy Capital, Omaha, NE
Senior Advisor
February 2009-present

Wolfensohn & Company, New York, NY
Director
March 2009-December 2010

Pfizer Boards, New York, NY
Advisory Board Member
February 2009-December 2010

Zurich Insurance Group, Zurich in North America,
Washington, DC
Board of Directors
February 2009-present

M.I.C. Industries, Reston, VA
Special Advisor to the Chairman
March 2009-present

National Interest Security Company, Fairfax, VA
Board Member
March 2009-November 2010

Elite Training & Security, Fairfax, VA
Board Member
March 2009-November 2010

Kasemen, LLC, Fairfax, VA
Board Member
March 2009-November 2010

BP Petroleum, Washington, DC
Advisor
June 2009-March 2010

Chevron Corporation, San Ramon, CA
Board of Directors
April 2010-present

Gallup, Washington, DC
Senior Advisor
July 2011-present

Washington Speakers Bureau, Alexandria, VA
Speaker
February 2009-present

U.S. Senate
1997-2009, Two Terms, State of Nebraska
Senate Foreign Relations Committee
Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs
Committee
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Chairman, Senate Foreign Relations
Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, Export
and Trade Promotion
Chairman, Senate Banking Subcommittee on
International Trade and Finance
Senate Banking Subcommittee on Securities and
Investment
Chairman, Congressional-Executive Commission
on China
Chairman, Senate Climate Change Observer Group
Honors and awards:
Global Leadership Award from the International Student
House, 2012
World Affairs Council of Washington DC International
Public Service Award in Recognition of Outstanding Global
Leadership
2nd Degree Order of Dostyk Award from the President &
Government of Kazakhstan
Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund's Charles ``Mac''
Mathias Award
Knight Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the
Federal Republic of Germany
Commander's Cross With Star of the Order of Merit of
The Republic of Poland
Brown College Distinguished Alumni Award, 2010
Clifford P. Case Professor of Public Affairs at
Rutgers University, 2010
Ralph J. Bunch Award for Diplomatic Excellence from
the Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, 2010
Citigroup Foundation Lecturer at the University of
Michigan's Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, 2009
Third Annual Eugene J. McCarthy Lecturer at St. John
University Minnesota, 2009
Junior Statesman of the Year Foundation Award, 2009
Committee on Education Funding Special Recognition
Award, 2009
Aspen Institute Strategy Group Leadership Award, 2008
First annual Cordell Hull Award
Horatio Alger Award from the Horatio Alger Association
Vietnam Veterans of America Legislator of the Year
Award
Center for the Study of the Presidency's Distinguished
Service Medal
American Farm Bureau Federation's Golden Plow Award
Distinguished Alumni Award from the University of
Nebraska at Omaha
Secretary of Defense's Medal for Outstanding Civic
Achievement
First World USO Leadership Award
University of Nebraska-Kearney George W. Norris
Distinguished Lecturer Award
Congressional Award from the Paralyzed Veterans of
America, 2008
United Nations Association of the United States of
America's Congressional Leadership Award
Millard E. Tydings Award for Courage and Leadership in
American Politics from the University of Maryland, 2008
National Urban League Congressional Leadership Award,
2008
Distinguished Service Award for International
Statesmanship from the International Relations Council of
Kansas City, 2007
Luminosity Award from the Bonnie J. Addario Breath
Away from the Cure Foundation, 2006
National Farmers Union Golden Triangle Award, 2006
University of Nebraska at Omaha's Alumni Award for
Excellence in Public Service, 2006
Don Wagner Leadership Award, 2006
Omaha World-Herald's 2005 ``Midlander of the Year''
Award
Marlin Fitzwater Excellence in Public Communication
Award, 2005
Woodrow Wilson International Cen