[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 23 (Wednesday, February 13, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S680-S686]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
Cloture Motion
We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the provisions of
rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, hereby move to bring to
a close debate on the nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska,
to be Secretary of Defense.
Harry Reid, Patrick J. Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Barbara
Boxer, Al Franken, Christopher A. Coons, Jack Reed,
Carl Levin, Kirsten E. Gillibrand, Claire McCaskill,
Robert P. Casey, Jr., Richard Blumenthal, Tom Harkin,
Dianne Feinstein, Bill Nelson, Jeanne Shaheen, Sherrod
Brown.
Mr. REID. This is the first time in the history of our country that a
Presidential nominee for Secretary of Defense has been filibustered.
What a shame, but that is the way it is.
I ask unanimous consent that the mandatory quorum under rule XXII be
waived.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. REID. I also ask that under the rule the cloture vote will occur
on Friday. Membership should plan accordingly.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Michigan is
recognized.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, now that the nomination of Senator Hagel is
before us, I want to begin this discussion and debate with a few
remarks about him. The committee approved this nomination and sent it
to the floor of the Senate yesterday by a vote of 14 to 11.
Senator Hagel has received broad support from a wide array of senior
statesmen, defense, and foreign policy
[[Page S681]]
organizations. At his January 31 nomination hearing before the Armed
Services Committee, Senator Hagel was enthusiastically introduced and
endorsed by two former chairmen of our committee, chairmen who have
huge bipartisan support and respect by everybody in this body and
everybody outside of this body who knows them. Those two chairmen are
Sam Nunn and John Warner.
Senator Hagel's nomination has been endorsed by five former
Secretaries of Defense who served under both Democratic and Republican
Presidents: Bob Gates, Bill Cohen, Bill Perry, Harold Brown, and Melvin
Laird. He has been endorsed by three former Secretaries of State--
Madeleine Albright, Colin Powell, and George Shultz--and by six former
National Security Advisers who served in that position for more than 20
years under six of the last seven Presidents.
Let me just share with our colleagues a few of the words of Senator
Nunn when he introduced Senator Hagel to our committee:
I believe our Nation is fortunate to have a nominee for
Secretary of Defense with the character, experience, 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 who support them.
Continuing:
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 asset. Second, Chuck's experience in Vietnam
shaped his life and his perspective. War for Chuck Hagel is
not abstraction. I am confident, if confirmed, he will ask
the hard and smart questions before sending troops into
battle. Chuck Hagel knows 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 our
vital interests.
Senator Nunn continued:
Certainly 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 America's 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.
Senator Warner's extraordinarily powerful and warm comments included
as follows:
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. He will lead them and they will know in their
hearts that we have one of our own.
Senator Hagel has received a letter of endorsement from 11 retired
senior military officers who say Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to
meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense and our men and
women in uniform.
He has received a letter of endorsement from nine former Ambassadors
who worked with him on Middle East issues. That letter says, in part:
Each of us has known the Senator over the past 20 years and
has found him invariably one of the best informed leaders in
the U.S. Congress on the issues of U.S. national security. .
. . Senator Hagel's political courage has impressed us all. .
. . Time and again he chose to take the path of standing up
for our nation over political expediency. . . . He has
invariably demonstrated strong support for Israel and for a
two-state solution and has been opposed to those who would
undermine or threaten Israel's security. We can think of few
more qualified, more nonpartisan, more courageous, or better
equipped to head the Department of Defense.
That is from nine former Ambassadors who worked with Senator Hagel on
Middle East issues. Let me read who those Ambassadors are: Nicholas
Burns, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs,
Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq
and Afghanistan; Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and
Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; Daniel Kurtzer,
former Ambassador to Israel and to Egypt; Samuel Lewis, former
Ambassador to Israel; William Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and
Czechoslovakia; Tom Pickering, former Under Secretary of State for
Political Affairs, Ambassador to Israel and Russia; and Frank Wisner,
former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Ambassador to Egypt
and to India.
Senator Hagel's nomination has been supported by the major groups of
American veterans, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq and
Afghanistan Veterans of America, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of America,
and the American Legion. He has received support from the Military
Officers Association of America, Foreign Area Officer Association, and
the Non Commissioned Officers Association.
Senator Hagel has been endorsed by numerous newspapers, including USA
Today, which stated:
Many of the supposed weaknesses that Republican Senators
hammered him on are actually proof that Hagel takes
thoughtful positions and doesn't bend easily to pressure.
I would like to read just a few quotes from those organizations of
veterans who have endorsed him. The Veterans of Foreign Wars says the
following:
It is not the place for America's oldest and largest combat
veterans organization to advise or recommend to the President
who he should nominate for cabinet positions. However, the
Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States considers Chuck
Hagel, twice wounded Vietnam War veteran, war infantryman,
and former two-term United States Senator from Nebraska, to
be uniquely qualified to lead the Department of Defense.
That is signed by Robert Wallace, who is executive director of the
VFW.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America wrote the following:
Without Senator Hagel's leadership in Washington, there
would not be a post 9/11 GI bill. Senator Hagel has always
been a strong advocate for veterans at the Department of
Defense. There is no doubt he will continue that legacy. Time
and time again, from Vietnam to the VA to the USO, Senator
Hagel has answered his country's call to serve, demonstrating
courage, character and resolve at every turn. We encourage
the Senate to approve his nomination swiftly.
Paul Rieckhoff, Founder and Chief Executive Officer.
The AMVETS National Commander Cleve Geer endorsed President Obama's
nomination of Chuck Hagel with the following comments:
AMVETS fully supports President Obama's nomination of Chuck
Hagel for the future Secretary of Defense. As a veterans
service organization, AMVETS' main mission is to serve as an
advocate for veterans, their families and the communities in
which they live. I am confident that former Senator Hagel
will utilize his experience and understanding of America's
military to lead this Nation's troops and the Department of
Defense.
The organization votevets.org wrote the following in a petition
signed by over 8,000 veterans and military families:
Senator Hagel is a tremendous pick for Secretary of Defense
who I know very well, and I have little doubt that he will
serve President Obama with distinction both as a voice of
reason within the administration and as a faithful advocate
for carrying out the policies of the Commander in Chief.
That was signed by John Soltz.
The Military Officers Association of America wrote the following:
While the Military Officers Association of America does not
endorse or oppose specific candidates for elected or
appointed office, we believe Senator Hagel is certainly a
candidate who is fully qualified for appointment to this
extremely important position. Our past work with Senator
Hagel has been very positive, and we believe that he brings
an important sensitivity to the human side of budget and
operational considerations. His experience as a combat
wounded Vietnam veteran, as deputy administrator of the VA,
and his two terms in the Senate provide a range of
perspectives that would serve any Secretary of Defense well.
We previously recognized Senator Hagel's efforts to protect
the interests of military beneficiaries with our Arthur T.
Marix Congressional Leadership Award. We do not believe that
cabinet nominees should be held hostage to political litmus
tests.
That was signed by ADM Norbert Ryan, USN, retired, President of the
Military Officers Association of America.
The Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United States wrote
the following:
We strongly support the appointment of Chuck Hagel to be
Secretary of Defense. His
[[Page S682]]
military service, including being twice wounded in action,
has instilled the values of service and personal sacrifice
for which he knows well the human cost of war. He has been an
advocate for soldiers, Marines, sailors, airmen and coasties
to ensure the training and equipage of America's 21st
military force coincide with a solid revised defense posture
to meet conventional and unconventional world challenges.
Senator Hagel has also championed personnel issues relating
to combat dwell time, force protection, transition issues,
including electronic medical issues, preparation for future
employment and training, and veterans benefits, including
enhancements to post 9/11 educational benefits. He also
recognizes the value and the sacrifice of families of the men
and women who serve in this Nation's uniformed services.
That was signed by Richard Schneider, executive director for
government affairs.
The Vietnam Veterans of America wrote:
We like Hagel. We think he is a great guy, and having a
combat veteran in there would be a good thing.
The American Legion wrote:
Hagel is a long-time member of the Legion. He served right
after he returned from Vietnam. He is a long-time advocate
for veterans in the VA, and especially for veterans exposed
to Agent Orange. Our organization has consulted with him,
among others, on various national security matters. Having
said that, the American Legion is prohibited by our
congressional charter from endorsing any candidate for
elected or appointed office.
The Vietnam Veterans Memorial Fund, Jan Scruggs, founder and
president, wrote the following:
I first met Mr. Hagel in 1981 when he was the No. 2 man at
the Veterans Administration. He had just thrown out of his
office some people who were demanding that he stop his
support for Maya Lin's design for the Vietnam veterans
memorial. His integrity and toughness were impressive then.
Both qualities have grown since. Long before he became a
Senator, Mr. Hagel was an infantryman in Vietnam. He fought
the enemy up close, and he had to put Americans in body bags.
I am sure as defense secretary he would not hesitate to use
military force aggressively if our Nation or its allies are
in danger, yet he knows well that war is terribly
unpredictable and needs to be avoided. He has shown some fury
at those who have never seen war, but encouraged it during
the past decade. This is called courage. He has earned his
stripes.
Senator Hagel's credentials are underscored by the service in war and
in peace that has been described so eloquently in all those letters
from those veterans organizations. As a young man, Senator Hagel
enlisted in the Army and served in Vietnam, where he received two
Purple Hearts, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat Infantryman
Badge for his service.
He volunteered to go to Vietnam. He answered the question, where are
you, by answering, here I am. Senator Hagel served as Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans' Administration during the Reagan
administration. He was twice elected to the Senate, where he served on
the Foreign Relations and Intelligence Committees.
Since he left the Senate 4 years ago, Senator Hagel has served as
chairman of the board of directors of the Atlantic Council. The
Atlantic Council counts among its other directors and honorary
directors seven former Secretaries of State and four former Secretaries
of Defense, along with numerous other senior officials from the
administrations of both parties. The Atlantic Council is very much a
part of the mainstream of the American foreign policy establishment.
Much of the time and attention at our committee hearing was devoted
to a handful of statements Senator Hagel made over the course of his
career that raised questions about his views on Israel, Iran, and other
issues.
Senator Hagel explained and clarified these things and placed them in
context. He apologized for one remark, and told the committee he would
say other things differently if he had the chance or was making them
over. Senator Hagel was clear in the positions he takes today and that
he will take if confirmed as Secretary of Defense. In particular,
Senator Hagel stated unequivocally, first:
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.
Second, he is ``. . . fully committed to the President's goal of
preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon . . . all options must
be on the table to achieve that goal . . .'' and his policy, if
confirmed, will be ``one of prevention, not of containment.''
Third, while he believes ``engagement is clearly in our interests,''
``engagement is not negotiation.'' He stated:
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. . . . [G]et the international
sanctions behind you, keep military options on the table. If
the military option is the only option, it's the only option.
Finally, he said that he is ``a strong supporter of Israel,'' and
believes that ``we have a special relationship with Israel.'' If
confirmed, he ``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.''
Senator Hagel has also recognized the very real risks posed to our
national security as a result of the unique budgetary pressure arising
out of cuts previously agreed upon by Congress, the budgeting by
continuing resolution, and the impending threat of a sequester. Senator
Hagel told the committee:
[Sequestration] 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 non-deploying 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.
One of our colleagues has alleged that Senator Hagel has failed to
provide complete financial disclosure and suggested, despite the
admitted lack of evidence of any kind, that Senator Hagel may have
received money that ``came directly from Saudi Arabia, came directly
from North Korea.'' There is no evidence for that, but that is the kind
of innuendo which was made and I believe should not have been made.
As a matter of fact, Senator Hagel has provided the exact same
financial disclosure the committee requires of all nominees, including
at least the last eight Secretaries of Defense. As required by the
Armed Services Committee and by the Ethics in Government Act, he has
disclosed all compensation over $5,000 that he has received in the last
2 years. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has received
letters from the Director of the Office of Government Ethics and the
Acting Department of Defense General Counsel certifying that he has met
all applicable financial disclosure and conflict-of-interest
requirements. As required by the Armed Services Committee, he has
answered a series of questions about possible foreign affiliations.
Among other questions, the committee asked whether, during the last 10
years, the nominee or his spouse have ``received any compensation from,
or been involved in any financial or business transaction with, a
foreign government or an entity controlled by a foreign government.''
Senator Hagel's answer was, ``No.''
Senator Hagel, like all of our nominees, has undergone a thorough FBI
background investigation. Senator Inhofe and I have reviewed the FBI
file. The innuendo that Senator Hagel could somehow be hiding the fact
he is on the payroll of a foreign power is offensive to those of us who
have served with him and beneath the dignity of the U.S. Senate.
I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a series of
letters in which certain Senators requested certain financial
disclosure and the letter with which I responded.
There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in
the Record, as follows:
[[Page S683]]
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Armed Services,
Washington, DC, February 8, 2013.
Hon. Jim Inhofe,
Ranking Minority Member,
Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate.
Dear Jim: I read with some concern a February 6, 2013,
letter that you signed with 25 other Republican Senators,
demanding that former Senator Chuck Hagel provide additional
financial disclosure information in connection with his
nomination to serve as Secretary of Defense. This letter
appears to insist upon financial disclosure requirements that
far exceed the standard practices of the Armed Services
Committee and go far beyond the financial disclosure required
of previous Secretaries of Defense.
Our committee has a well-defined set of financial
disclosure and ethics requirements which apply to all
nominees for civilian positions in the Department of Defense.
We require each nominee to provide us with the following: a
copy of the Nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report
required by the Ethics in Government Act--OGE Form 278; a
response to a standard committee questionnaire, which
includes questions on future employment relationships,
potential conflicts of interest, personal financial data, and
foreign affiliations; and a formal ethics agreement, which
outlines the steps the nominee will take to avoid any
potential conflict of interest, including a commitment by the
nominee to divest DOD contractor stocks within 90 days of
appointment to office, avoid buying DOD contractor stocks
while in office, and resign from non-Federal boards and
activities.
Before these materials are provided to the committee, they
are reviewed by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE)
and the DOD General Counsel's office--both of which are
familiar with the unique conflict of interest requirements
imposed by our committee--to ensure that the required
disclosures of information meet our standards. The leader of
each of these offices sends us a letter certifying that the
office has reviewed the financial disclosure and determined
that the nominee will be in compliance with applicable laws
and regulations governing conflicts of interest. Our majority
and minority counsels review these materials and work
together, through the DOD General Counsel's office, to
address any questions that may arise about the completeness
of the materials provided or the nominee's compliance with
our requirements.
We have applied these disclosure requirements and followed
this process for all nominees of both parties throughout the
16 years that I have served as Chairman or Ranking Minority
Member of the committee. I understand that the same financial
disclosure requirements and processes were followed for at
least the previous 10 years, during which Senator Sam Nunn
served as Chairman or Ranking Minority Member. During this
period, the committee has confirmed eight Secretaries of
Defense (Secretaries Carlucci, Cheney, Aspin, Perry, Cohen,
Rumsfeld, Gates, and Panetta), as well as hundreds of
nominees for other senior civilian positions in the
Department.
There are two unprecedented elements to the financial
disclosure demanded by the February 6, letter: (1) the
disclosure of ``all compensation over $5,000 that [Senator
Hagel has] received over the past five years''; and (2) the
disclosure of any foreign funding of eight private entities
from which Senator Hagel has received compensation since
leaving the Senate (including the date, source, and specific
amount of each foreign contribution). Each of these demands
goes well beyond what the committee has required of any
previous nominee.
With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose all
compensation over $5,000 that he has received over the past
five years, the standard financial disclosure form which the
committee requires all nominees to provide calls for the
disclosure of all entities from which the nominee has
received compensation in excess of $5,000 (including clients
for whom the nominee personally provided more than $5,000 in
services, even if the payments were made to the nominee's
employer, firm, or affiliated business) during the previous
two years. The two-year disclosure requirement that has been
consistently applied by the committee is established in
section 102(b)(1)(A) of the Ethics in Government Act and
applies not only to all nominees for Senate-confirmed
positions, but also to all candidates for federal elective
office.
With regard to the demand that Senator Hagel disclose
foreign funding for private entities from which he has
received compensation, the February 6 letter asserts that
this information is needed because ``If it is the case that
[Senator Hagel] personally [has] received substantial
financial remuneration--either directly or indirectly--from
foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds, lobbyists,
corporations, or individuals, that information is at the very
minimum relevant to this Committee's assessment of your
nomination.''
In fact, the committee questionnaire addresses the issue of
foreign affiliations in a manner that is equally applicable
to all civilian nominees coming before the committee. Among
other questions, the committee questionnaire asks whether,
during the last ten years, the nominee or his spouse has
``received any compensation from, or been involved in any
financial or business transactions with, a foreign government
or an entity controlled by a foreign government.'' Senator
Hagel's answer to this question was ``No.''
The demands of the February 6 letter go beyond this
standard disclosure regime and would subject Senator Hagel to
a different requirement from all previous nominees, under
which he alone would be required to somehow ascertain whether
certain entities with whom he has been employed may have
received foreign contributions. In particular:
Senator Hagel serves without compensation as the Chairman
of the Board of Directors of the Atlantic Council--a ``think
tank'' that includes among its other Directors and Honorary
Directors seven former Secretaries of States and four former
Secretaries of Defense. The Atlantic Council's public website
provides a diverse list of corporate contributors, including
both domestic companies (such as Chevron, General Dynamics,
Lockheed, Raytheon, Boeing, Citigroup, Duke Energy, and Exxon
Mobil) and foreign entities (such as Polish Telecom, Saab,
All Nippon Airways, and the Istanbul Stock Exchange). Over
the 16 years that I have served as either Chairman or Ranking
Minority Member of the committee, we have considered numerous
nominations of individuals who were associated with similar
think tanks, universities, and other non-profit entities.
Even in the many cases where a nominee received compensation
from such a nonprofit entity, we did not require the nominee
to disclose the sources of funding provided to the non-profit
entity.
Senator Hagel has also served as an Advisory Board Member,
Senior Advisor, Director, Special Advisor, or Board Member to
seven domestic for-profit entities identified in the February
6 letter since he left the Senate in January 2009. His
financial disclosure report and committee questionnaire
indicate that he left four of these entities (Wolfensohn &
Company, National Interest Security Company, Elite Training &
Security, and Kaseman, LLC) in 2010 and has received no
compensation from them during the two-year reporting period
covered by the Ethics in Government Act. Nonetheless, the
February 6 letter demands that Senator Hagel provide ten
years of corporate financial data on foreign investments or
funding received by these entities. The forms and committee
questionnaire indicate that Senator Hagel continues to serve
as an Advisory Board Member for Corsair Capital, a Senior
Advisor to McCarthy Capital, and a Special Advisor to the
Chairman of M.I.C. Industries and that he has received
compensation for his service to these three entities. I am
doubtful that, as mere advisor to these companies, Senator
Hagel has either access to the corporate financial
information that is sought in the February 6 letter or the
authority to release such information if he were able to get
access to it. In any case, over the 16 years that I have
served as either Chairman or Ranking Minority Member of the
committee, we have considered numerous nominations of
individuals who were employed by for-profit entities of every
variety. We have considered board members, officers,
directors, and employees of companies doing business across
the full range of our economy. In this time, we have never
required the nominee to attempt to ascertain and disclose the
names of investors in such an entity.
The committee cannot have two different sets of financial
disclosure standards for nominees, one for Senator Hagel and
one for other nominees.
Sincerely,
Carl Levin,
Chairman.
____
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC, February 6, 2013.
Hon. Chuck Hagel,
Distinguished Professor in the Practice of National
Government, Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service,
Georgetown University, 37th and O Streets, NW,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senator Hagel: On January 29, two days before your
confirmation hearing, you received a request, via email, from
several Senators on the Senate Armed Services Committee for
additional information necessary to fairly assess your
nomination to be Secretary of Defense. The written copy of
the letter (delivered the next day) was signed by six
Senators, including the Ranking Member of the Committee. The
letter requested that you respond to the request before the
hearing, so that you could then answer questions concerning
your responses.
You declined to respond to the request for additional
financial disclosure.
At the hearing, you were told by Members of the Committee
that a response to our request for information would be
necessary before the Committee could vote on your nomination.
The Chairman of the Committee expressly asked you to submit
your response by Monday, February 4.
Monday came and went, and you still did not respond.
At the end of the day on Tuesday, February 5, you submitted
a short ``response'' to our request. In that response, you
explicitly declined to answer many of the questions asked of
you.
You were asked to disclose all compensation over $5,000
that you have received over the past five years. You declined
to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--the Atlantic Council has received foreign funding in
the past five years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--McCarthy Capital has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so,
[[Page S684]]
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Corsair Capital has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Wolfensohn and Company has received foreign funding
in the past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--M.I.C. Industries has received foreign funding in the
past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--the National Interest Security Company has received
foreign funding in the ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Elite Training and Security, LLC has received foreign
funding in the past ten years. You declined to do so.
You were asked to disclose if--and to what specific
extent--Kaseman, LLC has received foreign funding in the past
ten years. You declined to do so.
Your own financial records are entirely within your own
control, and you have flatly refused to comply with the
Committee Members' request for supplemental information.
The records from the other firms--more than one of which,
you have disclosed, paid you $100,000 or more--are highly
relevant to the proper consideration of your nomination. Your
letter discloses no affirmative efforts on your part to
obtain the needed disclosure, and your lack of effort to
provide a substantive response on this issue is deeply
troubling.
If it is the case that you personally have received
substantial financial remuneration--either directly or
indirectly--from foreign governments, sovereign wealth funds,
lobbyists, corporations, or individuals, that information is
at the very minimum relevant to this Committee's assessment
of your nomination. Such remuneration may be entirely
appropriate, but that determination cannot be made without
disclosure.
If you have not received remuneration--directly or
indirectly--from foreign sources, then proper disclosure will
easily demonstrate that fact.
Your refusal to respond to this reasonable request suggests
either a lack of respect for the Senate's responsibility to
advise and consent or that you are for some reason unwilling
to allow this financial disclosure to come to light.
This Committee, and the American people, have a right to
know if a nominee for Secretary of Defense has received
compensation, directly or indirectly, from foreign sources.
Until the Committee receives full and complete answers, it
cannot in good faith determine whether you should be
confirmed as Secretary of Defense.
Therefore, in the judgment of the undersigned, a Committee
vote on your nomination should not occur unless and until you
provide the requested information.
Sincerely,
(Signed by 26 Senators).
____
February 8, 2013.
Hon. Carl Levin,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Hon. James Inhofe,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe: I appreciate
the opportunity to respond to the February 6, 2013, letter
from 25 Senators, including several members of the Senate
Armed Services Committee. I remain committed to providing the
Committee with complete personal financial disclosure, in
accordance with the applicable requirements of law and
regulation. In the spirit of cooperation, I have gone beyond
those requirements in several areas. For example, although
the committee questionnaire requires that nominees provide
copies of ``any formal speeches,'' I have sought transcripts
of informal speeches of which I did not have copies, and
provided those transcripts to the committee.
In that same spirit of cooperation, I have reviewed each of
the specific requests for information described in your
letter. While some of these requests appear to go beyond what
is either in my control or is mine to release under the law,
I am committed to providing what I can--and when I cannot, to
explain why not.
As you know, I previously submitted all of the information
required by the Committee's standard financial disclosure
processes. This includes information regarding compensation
that I received over the past two years, as reported on the
Nominee Public Financial Disclosure Report in Schedule D. To
assist you in reviewing this information, I have prepared a
chart that reflects all compensation over $5,000 I received
for that time period.
Further, you asked questions about whether, and the extent
to which, eight identified entities (with which I have been
affiliated) have received foreign funding in the past. As I
explained in my response to the Committee, dated February 5,
2013, my legal and fiduciary obligations prevent me from
releasing this kind of corporate financial information for
those entities that are privately owned/held. One of the
entities that you inquired about, Atlantic Council, is a
501(c)(3) organization which permits greater public
disclosure of its funding Streams. While Atlantic Council
does not make public a comprehensive list of all its donors,
it does publicly acknowledge its foreign corporate and
foreign government donors of $5,000 or more. I have attached
a copy of Atlantic Council's publicly available list of these
foreign donors over the past five years. Because I serve
without compensation, I have not been a direct or indirect
beneficiary of these contributions. Of the remaining seven
companies, McCarthy Capital, Wolfensohn, M.I.C. Industries,
National Interest Security Company, Kaseman, and Elite
Training & Security have authorized me to inform you that
they have not compensated me with any foreign-derived funds.
Corsair Capital has been advised by its outside counsel that
it cannot provide further information regarding its finances.
I wish to reiterate that I have not received any
compensation from or been involved in any financial or
business transactions with a foreign government or an entity
controlled by a foreign government. This is reflected in my
response to the SASC Questionnaire, Question 3, Part E--
Foreign Affiliations.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to your questions.
Sincerely,
Chuck Hagel.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, the Department of Defense right now needs
its new leader. Its current leader, who has done a great job, has
announced he is leaving and has set a time for that departure.
We face a budgetary challenge of immense proportions--not just in the
Department of Defense but in all of our agencies. Our military is
engaged in combat operations overseas. North Korea has exploded a
nuclear device--highly provocative, highly objectionable--and must be
countered. The absence of senior leaders in the Department of Defense
will harm our national defense, will harm our men and women in uniform,
and sends exactly the wrong message to both our friends and our
adversaries around the world.
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. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective
not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations 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 a Secretary must make to ensure our men and women in
uniform and their families receive the support and the assistance they
need and deserve. It would be a positive message for our soldiers, our
sailors, our airmen, and our marines in harm's way around the world to
know that one of their own holds the highest office in the Department
of Defense and that he has their backs.
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 and he is well qualified to
lead the Department of Defense.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Brown.) The senior Senator from Rhode
Island is recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when Senator
Lee concludes his remarks, I be recognized.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Utah is recognized.
(The remarks of Mr. Lee are printed in today's Record under ``Morning
Business.'')
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The senior Senator from Rhode Island is
recognized.
Mr. REED. Mr. President, I rise today to express my support for the
nomination of Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense.
He comes to this job at an extraordinarily challenging time for the
Department and for our Nation. Among the many issues he will confront,
Senator Hagel will oversee the drawdown of our forces out of
Afghanistan, the enhancement of our cyber defenses, and the management
of various fiscal constraints on the defense budget. In fact, I cannot
think of a more critical juncture of national security issues, budget
issues, and technology issues, all coming together, facing the next
Secretary of Defense.
I have known Chuck for many years, and I know he is particularly
well-suited to tackle these challenges. Chuck was born and raised in
Nebraska, the oldest of four sons of a World War II veteran. Public
service, military service is in that family's core. When his father
died suddenly at the age of 39,
[[Page S685]]
Chuck quickly shouldered the responsibility of helping his mother raise
his brothers. And when our Nation was in the midst of a bitter and
divisive fight in Vietnam, he volunteered to fight, serving alongside
his brother Tom. This was an era when there were many people who were
looking for ways through deferments to avoid service, to avoid wearing
the uniform of the United States. He was unusual in that he not only
sought service, but he sought service in Vietnam alongside his brother.
He rose to be an infantry sergeant, and both he and his brother were
wounded twice, with each saving the other's life. In that experience as
a combat infantryman, he knows, perhaps better than anyone who has been
nominated for this office, the ultimate cost of our policies that are
made here in Washington.
When he returned home, Chuck used the GI bill to attend the
University of Nebraska in Omaha, and after graduating from there, he
went to Washington to work for a freshman Congressman from his home
State.
In 1980 President Reagan, recognizing his skill, his talent, his
patriotism, and his devotion to the country, nominated him to be Deputy
Administrator of the Veterans Administration. He ultimately left that
post on a matter of principle. He thought there was inadequate support
from that department for veterans suffering from exposure to Agent
Orange. At that time, the effects of Agent Orange were being dismissed
by some as nonconsequential, as something that was just a made-up
malady by these veterans.
Chuck knew differently, and later the science would prove him right.
He continued to fight as he left the Veterans Administration, helping
to ensure that these veterans who were physically affected by their
service in Vietnam received compensation as the victims of Agent
Orange.
In that tenure as the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans
Administration, he had the responsibility of running a large Federal
department. So he is now bringing not only his service as a common
infantryman but his service running a large department devoted to the
veterans of these United States. That will serve him well as Secretary
of Defense. Again, it makes him singularly if not uniquely qualified.
But it doesn't stop there because he has extraordinary experience in
the private sector. In the mid-1980s he cofounded Vanguard Cellular
Systems, which became one of the largest independent cellular systems
in the country. Again, someone from modest means with great
imagination, after serving his country both as a soldier and as an
administrator under the Reagan administration, went back and started a
business and made it successful--so successful that he was able to
devote himself to other public activities.
He served as deputy commissioner general of the United States for the
1982 World's Fair. He was president and chief executive officer of the
USO, the agency devoted to helping servicemembers and their families.
Again, his commitment to the American soldier, sailor, airman, and
marine has been consistent, constant, and unrelenting.
Then he became chief operating officer of the 1990 Economic Summit of
Industrialized Nations--the G7 summit--in Houston, the president of an
investment bank, and he was on the board of some of the world's largest
companies.
So you already have at this juncture a soldier, a successful
entrepreneur, and a successful Federal administrator.
Then in 1996 he came to the Senate to represent the people of
Nebraska. He was the first Republican Senator from Nebraska in a
generation. We came here together. He came with all of these skills,
and he added more skills, understanding the political process from the
inside and from the outside that helped shaped national security
policy, the budgets and the policies of the Department of Defense and
every other Federal agency.
During his time in the Senate as a member of the Senate Foreign
Relations and Intelligence Committees, he championed national security
policies with the goal of ensuring that our military remains the
strongest in the world. Senator Hagel believes in working closely with
our allies and partners and that, in his words, ``a nation must
strategically employ all instruments of its power--diplomatic,
military, economic--to defend its interests.'' So he brings a broad,
comprehensive approach to national security, which is essential for our
next Secretary of Defense because so many of the national security
challenges we face are not simply military; they are diplomatic, they
are economic, and they are environmental. They require the kind of
broad-ranging approach that he takes to national security policy.
As he stated during his nomination hearing 2 weeks ago, he has one
fundamental question he has asked himself on every vote he took while
serving in the Senate: Is the policy worthy of the men and women we
were sending into battle and surely to their deaths? Is this going to
be worth the sacrifice, because there will be sacrifices.
It is one thing to study the art of war in lecture halls and to speak
profoundly as a pundit. It is something else to be in the mud, under
fire, seeing others fall. I have not had that experience. I served 12
years in the U.S. Army, but very few people, very few people in this
Chamber, very few people who would be considered for Secretary of
Defense, have been under fire, have seen comrades fall, know that
ultimately what we do here is borne by what those brave young Americans
do across the globe. He knows it intellectually and viscerally. I know
he will bring that perspective, that concern for our men and women in
uniform, to every decision before him as Secretary of Defense.
In this role, he will continue to focus our efforts on fighting
terrorism in Afghanistan and throughout that region. We are facing a
crucial turning point. In his State of the Union Address last night,
the President announced his plan to further reduce our force levels in
Afghanistan next year as the Afghan National Security Forces will take
full responsibility for securing their nation. I think Senator Hagel is
very well positioned to carry out this policy, to ensure it is
done effectively, to ensure that our forces are protected and that we
are able to help enable the Afghan forces to carry the burden to defend
their country and provide stability.
Senator Hagel will also lead the Department in preparing for emerging
threats to our national security, such as attacks on our cyber
infrastructure. We are at a critical point in our history, perhaps akin
to the 1920s when air power first began to emerge as a credible
military dimension, then later as space became a possible military
dimension. Cyber is now a new dimension in warfare.
We are at a similar juncture to the one when some of our colleagues
in the 1920s were wondering how we use these contraptions that fly
around the sky. But in a short period of time, air power made a
profound difference on the world. The attack on Pearl Harbor was
launched by aircraft from aircraft carriers, not by the bombardment of
battleships and not by the landing of military forces. You can see the
effect it had not only through World War II but in every conflict to
today.
We are at another critical juncture, and that is with respect to
cyber security. How will we defend ourselves? What policies will we
adopt to use this new technology to protect the United States and our
allies? It will require integration across our government. It will
require thoughtful, conscious deliberation. I believe he is prepared to
do that and will do that very well.
I am pleased that President Obama has just issued an Executive order
that will improve coordination and information sharing with our
industry partners so we can better protect our Nation's critical
infrastructure, but there is more to be done, and I believe that in the
context of a Secretary of Defense, Chuck Hagel can do it.
Perhaps most challenging of all, Senator Hagel will lead the
Department in a time of great fiscal constraints and uncertainty. As
our Nation continues to find a path forward to rebound from the
economic challenges of the last few years, there is an ever-growing
pressure to reduce the size of the defense budget, which has nearly
doubled over the past 10 years. But we must be very careful to do so in
a way that eliminates unsustainable and unproductive costs without
losing vital capabilities. That is a great challenge. As a result of
the high operations tempo of our services, the multiple operations and
deployments, all of our services are facing serious reset and
recapitalization
[[Page S686]]
needs in terms of equipment and also significant efforts to help our
military members and their families readjust, retrain, reequip, and
prepare for a challenging future.
Serious decisions will have to be made about the threats we face and
as we anticipate new and emerging threats. Again, he is well prepared
through his entire life of public service, military service, private
service, administrative and business activity to confront this
extraordinary range of challenges.
A lot has been made about some comments Senator Hagel has made in the
last years, going back 5, 7, 8, or more years. But I know, indeed,
which was reflected in his testimony, that he did not seek out this
position. President Obama chose to nominate Chuck Hagel because he knew
of his record, of his service to our country. He knew of his incredible
commitment to the men and women who wear the uniform of the United
States. He knew about his experience in the private sector. He knew
about his experience as a governmental leader. He knew there was an
ability to rely upon his judgments, Senator Hagel's judgments, with
confidence in times of crisis. I expect that the President of the
United States is not going to turn to Chuck Hagel, particularly among
crises, and ask him if can he quote verbatim what he said 10 years ago.
He is going to say: What are my options? What is your advice? You know
about war better than anyone. You know about military policy. You know
about international security. You know about the interaction of
diplomacy, economics, and environmental policy. Give me your judgment.
I have to make a decision.
I believe, reflecting what the Senator, my chairman, Carl Levin, has
said, that in this difficult moment, the President of the United States
needs a Secretary of Defense to provide that kind of perspective, and
the men and women of the Department of Defense have to have the ability
to have their voice heard decisively and definitively in those serious
discussions, particularly about the deployment of military force.
As I said, I am extremely confident he can do this. Let me also say I
am impressed with those who have served our country in diplomatic and
military roles who have endorsed Chuck Hagel strongly and
enthusiastically. These endorsements are from men and women who have
served in both Democratic and Republican administrations. Among them
are Bob Gates, William Cohen, Madeleine Albright, William Perry, Brent
Scowcroft, Ryan Crocker, and Thomas Pickering. These men and women have
devoted themselves to protecting the United States, and they have done
it with extraordinary energy and effectiveness. This list of
Secretaries of Defense will rank as some of the best we have ever had,
and they are absolutely confident Chuck Hagel can and should do this
job.
There are Ambassadors on this list who have handled delicate and
difficult issues involving international law. There are several
Ambassadors who have been Ambassadors to the State of Israel and
strongly support Senator Hagel. All of these individuals know him. They
also know as well--if not better than I and many of my colleagues--of
the threats, dangers, and opportunities which face this country, and
they are strongly supporting Chuck Hagel. In fact, they have concluded
in a letter that he is ``uniquely qualified to meet the challenges
facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in uniform.''
There has been a lot of discussion about Chuck Hagel's appreciation
of the strong, important, and critical relationship between the United
States and State of Israel. All I can say is I was so impressed by the
comments of the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, who was
also the Ambassador to Washington, and who has met and dealt with
Senator Hagel on a number of issues involving the relationship with the
United States. The Deputy Foreign Minister said: ``I have met him many
times, and he certainly regards Israel as a true and natural U.S.
ally.''
In another quote he said:
I know Hagel personally. . . . I think he believes in the
relationship, in the natural partnership between Israel and
the United States.
Here is an Israeli patriot who understands and has spent a great deal
of time devoted to the relationship of the United States and Israel. In
his own words, he concludes that Chuck Hagel regards Israel as a true
and natural U.S. ally and will act accordingly. He is a dedicated
patriot. He is an individual who has served this country in so many
different ways. I support his nomination, and I urge my colleagues to
do the same.
Also, I think it is important to state that this nomination--as we
have done with every Secretary of Defense for decades--deserves an up-
or-down vote on the floor of the Senate. People may choose to cast a
vote against him for many reasons, and that is the prerogative of that
Senator. I strongly believe, if we want to stay true to the traditions
of this body and to the presumption that the President should be
allowed to at least have his nominee voted up or down, then we have to
bring this vote to the floor of the Senate for an up-or-down vote as
quickly as possible.
With that, I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Blumenthal). The Senator from New
Hampshire.
Mrs. SHAHEEN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with my colleague, the Senator from Maine, Ms. Collins.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.