[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 14 (Thursday, January 31, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S430-S431]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            HAGEL NOMINATION

  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, even though the confirmation hearing 
regarding the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel for Secretary of 
Defense is going on before the Armed Services Committee, I would like 
to make some comments in terms of my thoughts regarding his potential 
appointment and the conclusion I have come to based on the 130 pages of 
written answers to questions posed to Senator Hagel by the Senate Armed 
Services Committee and some of the information I have gleaned, as my 
schedule has allowed, from his testimony before the SASC--ongoing, as I 
said.
  Based on his written answers and what I have heard so far, it is 
clear that Senator Hagel is willing to execute the policies established 
and endorsed by the President. But the idea floated out of the White 
House, what the President has described as bipartisan balance--that is 
why Senator Hagel was selected--to consideration of these critical 
issues before us regarding the role of the next Secretary of Defense, 
doesn't hold water.
  As I said, Senator Hagel has essentially indicated on a number of 
occasions--through his written answers and through his answers to the 
SASC committee--that he is in line with the President's policies and, 
in fact, in some cases, to the left of some of those policies.
  It is obvious that I and many of my Republican colleagues disagree 
with many of the views and policy positions taken by the administration 
and Senator Hagel. This is to be expected. Most policy differences 
should not be sufficient reason to oppose a nomination of a President's 
preferred Cabinet appointment. Elections have consequences, and the 
President does have the right to his own advisers. However, this usual 
tolerance of alternative views has its limits. For me, the limit is 
when a nominee is of such a high position, such as the Secretary of 
Defense, and that nominee has a point of view which places the United 
States in greater danger, which I believe is the case for this nominee, 
then I think we have to ask ourselves a number of questions before we 
give our support and before we make our decision.

  Senator Hagel's views about the threat posed by Iran's nuclear 
ambitions and the best way to counter that threat are significantly 
inconsistent with my own, inconsistent with America's responsibilities, 
I believe, at this moment in history, and inconsistent with the 
security needs of our country and the survival of our friends.
  I have been focused on the Iranian nuclear threat for more than 5 
years. After I left my position as Ambassador to Germany and returned 
to the private sector, I joined the Bipartisan Policy Center. Together 
with former Democrat Senator Chuck Robb, we cochaired a project on 
Iran. The Bipartisan Policy Center has been on the front lines of those 
ringing alarm bells about the situation in Iran and its pursuit of 
nuclear weapons. We issued our first report in 2008 entitled ``Meeting 
the Challenge: U.S. Policy Toward Iranian Nuclear Development.'' I was 
involved in producing a second, more urgent report in 2009 entitled, 
``Meeting the Challenge: Time is Running Out.''
  After I left the Bipartisan Policy Center and returned to the Senate, 
the organization produced two more reports on the subject, each more 
urgent than the last, and each demanding clearer, more vigorous, and 
more determined U.S. policy to avert this ever present danger. Each 
year since the beginning of my involvement in this Bipartisan Policy 
Committee project, I have become increasingly worried about Iran's 
continuing irresponsible and dangerous behavior and the 
administration's inconsistent, unsure policies to respond to this 
growing threat.
  Preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons capability is the most 
urgent foreign policy matter facing the United States and international 
security. The consequences of a nuclear weapons-capable Iran are not 
tolerable, not acceptable, and must motivate the most powerful and 
effective methods and efforts possible to prevent this from happening. 
Based on his record as a Senator and subsequent public statements, I do 
not believe Senator Hagel agrees with this assessment.
  Since returning to the Senate, I have joined many colleagues in 
pressing for a robust, comprehensive, three-track effort to raise the 
stakes for the Iranian regime and compel it to live up to its 
commitments and halt its weapons program. The first track is enhanced 
diplomatic efforts--and I mean enhanced. We have pressed the 
administration to create, invigorate, and motivate a much enhanced 
international coalition devoted to one single objective: to prevent 
Iran from gaining nuclear weapons.
  This doesn't mean simply repeated outreaches to the Iranian regime 
itself to engage in dialogue. The Obama administration came into office 
promising such discussions, but this has gone nowhere, nor have other 
diplomatic efforts, either unilateral or multilateral. All such 
diplomatic efforts have failed--all such diplomatic efforts have 
failed--for nearly a decade in achieving the goal of preventing Iran 
from its continuous and relentless pursuit of developing nuclear 
weapons.
  Senator Hagel, whose life story brings him to a justifiable reliance 
on dialogue before the use of force--a preference which we all 
understand and we all share--has, in my opinion, an exaggerated and 
unrealistic belief in what dialogue and diplomacy can accomplish. This 
is especially so when the dialogue partner is a revolutionary regime of 
zealots with a self-declared historical mission rather than rational 
leaders of a nation state--a huge distinction between dialogue with 
rational states and dialogue with Iran and its irrational leadership.
  Senator Hagel has long called for direct, unconditional talks with 
the Iranian regime, not to mention direct talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, 
and Syria as well. He has pressed that such talks should proceed 
without the backing gained from other, more forceful, credible options. 
This approach is far too weak to be effective and reveals a person less 
committed to results than this critical moment demands.
  The second track of a comprehensive search for a solution is 
sanctions. I have supported all legislative efforts to create and 
impose both unilateral and multilateral sanctions on Iran, leveraging 
similar commitments from our friends and allies when possible, and 
pursuing unilateral sanctions when necessary. Indeed, it has been our 
willingness to impose sanctions by unilateral action that arguably has 
stiffened the spine of the international community and made 
increasingly harsh multilateral sanctions regimes possible.
  Senator Hagel does not see it that way. He repeatedly voted against 
sanctions legislation, even opposing those aimed at the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was killing our troops in 
Iraq. He has long argued against sanctions imposed by the United States 
absent an international judgment by others that we are doing the right 
thing. He has not seen the connection between America's firmness, 
determination and leadership, and international acquiescence. It is his 
instinct to give a veto to Brussels or Paris or even Moscow and 
Beijing, and I cannot support the nomination of a Secretary of Defense 
who shows such deference to foreign politicians.
  Senator Hagel has famously agreed publicly that the United States is 
a

[[Page S431]]

bully. I assume our reliance on unilateral sanctions when necessary may 
fit his definition of bully. I cannot possibly agree.
  The third track of a comprehensive approach to this crucial problem 
is open discussion of, and early preparation for, military options. It 
has become increasingly clear over the past several years that 
diplomacy and sanctions alone are too weak to compel Iranian compliance 
with the international communities' demands. A frank discussion of 
military options and preparations give credibility to the rest of our 
strategy. No one should suppose these steps mean anything other than 
preparing the ground for the logical and necessary access to measures 
of last resort.
  At the Bipartisan Policy Center, I participated in an exhaustive 
analysis of all of the means and consequences of a potential military 
action against Iran's nuclear weapons program. There were no war 
advocates among us. Nevertheless, if it is true that a nuclear weapons-
capable Iran is unacceptable, as now four U.S. Presidents have publicly 
declared, including the current President, then our Nation and the 
international community as a whole must see with vivid clarity what 
measures remain should the first two tracks fail to achieve the 
objective.

  The Iranian regime must be especially clear-eyed and nondelusional 
about those potential consequences should it not change its behavior. 
Indeed, to give the diplomatic and sanctions tracks the essential 
credibility they require, then a military option must be entirely 
believable if, as the President has repeatedly said, Iranian possession 
of nuclear arms capability is unacceptable.
  I cannot conclude that Senator Hagel views the military option in 
this credible way. Indeed, he has maintained in recent years that ``a 
military strike against Iran is not a viable, feasible, responsible 
option.''
  Many of us have examined Senator Hagel's on-the-record comments 
carefully and parsed each one to determine what his views on these 
important subjects actually are. In the meantime, he has hastened to 
apparently amend the record so that his advocates can point to more 
recent statements that seem to negate the earlier ones. But this is not 
a court of law, and we are not looking for admissible evidence. Rather, 
we are defining the basis for our own judgments on how the full pattern 
of words and behavior define the views and likely future behavior of 
the nominee.
  In so doing, I have concluded that when Senator Hagel pays lipservice 
now to the contention that ``all options are on the table,'' it does 
not reveal his real, extinctive, and strong disinclination to consider 
military force if it becomes necessary. For me, that is very nearly a 
disqualifying position for any Secretary of Defense.
  A related concern is what I believe to be Senator Hagel's views about 
the so-called containment option. This is related to his nearly 
notorious views about nuclear proliferation in general. He has famously 
said ``the genie of nuclear weapons is already out of the bottle, no 
matter what Iran does.'' I fear Senator Hagel holds the mistaken view 
that a nuclear-armed Iran is more palatable than the consequences of 
going to war to prevent it. That is a dangerously corrosive idea.
  Indeed, my concern was heightened this morning when Senator Hagel, in 
testimony before the Armed Services Committee, referred twice to his 
support for containment. It was only when someone handed him a note, 
presumably reminding him the administration's formal position did not 
support containment, did he correct himself and say he didn't support 
it either.
  So what are we to conclude relative to what he truly believes and 
where he actually stands on a number of issues vital to our national 
security? The supreme fallacy of the containment option as modified is 
that it severs the spine of all of our friends and allies who are 
justifiably appalled by the contemplation of real military action. They 
will eagerly lead toward a containment option should others fail. But 
we must all see clearly that, in fact, containment means toleration.
  A nuclear weapons-capable Iran that we believe can be contained is 
one that we are, therefore, prepared to tolerate. This is an illusion 
and one that makes our task all that much harder. If others--especially 
Iran, but also including our allies and other coalition partners--come 
to believe that we would consider ever tolerating a nuclear Iran 
because it can somehow be contained, then none of our efforts to 
prevent it will work. This is why a nominee for Secretary of Defense 
who is less than firm on this key point is, in my opinion, a dangerous 
choice.
  It has been said by Senator Hagel's supporters that whatever his 
personal views and past statements on these important issues, as 
Secretary he will toe the line; he will not be making these basic 
policies himself. In other words, those of us who find his policies 
objectionable are encouraged to support the nominee despite his views, 
not because of them.
  I cannot bring myself to support a nominee based on the assumption 
that his own views will become irrelevant once he is under the policy 
yoke imposed by the White House.
  Finally, the most worrisome consequence of confirming Senator Hagel 
to be Secretary of Defense is something on which the ayatollahs in 
Tehran and I can agree: The confirmation will tell the Iranian regime 
that their fear of U.S. military action in Iran is now unjustified. 
They can rest more comfortably that their pursuit of nuclear weapons is 
less likely to provoke the military option that, until recently, may 
have seemed more credible.
  The Iranians will, therefore, feel less constrained in pursuing their 
dangerous nuclear ambitions. That, more than any other reason, is why I 
am voting no on the Hagel nomination.
  Mr. President, with that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Kansas.

                          ____________________