[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 24 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S723-S725]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
NOMINATION OF CHARLES TIMOTHY HAGEL TO BE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following
nomination, which the clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
Department of Defense. Nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel,
of Nebraska, to be Secretary.
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it has been suggested that the Senate
should not move forward with Senator Hagel's nomination, alleging he
has not complied with requests that he produce speeches. In fact, the
standard committee questionnaire requires nominees to provide a copy of
``any formal speeches you have delivered during the last 5 years of
which you have copies.'' Senator Hagel complied with this requirement
before his hearing 2 weeks ago.
Before the hearing, a number of requests were received from
Republican Members that Senator Hagel seek and obtain and provide to
the committee some transcripts of additional speeches. In fact,
hundreds of pages of transcripts were, in fact, supplied to the
committee before the hearing, in addition to those he had submitted in
response to the committee questionnaire.
Since then, we have received two additional requests for specific
speeches, and in each case we forwarded to Senator Hagel the requests.
He sought and provided transcripts of speeches for which he had no
prepared remarks and of which he had no copies. So he has responded to
those requests, and where he was able to obtain a transcript or a video
of the speech from the organization he addressed, he provided a copy.
Where no such materials existed, he told us that was the case.
Senator Hagel was informed that a video of his remarks existed in one
of those cases but that the organization had been unable to find it.
The organization has now located the video, and it will be provided to
the majority and minority staffs of the committee today.
In the last few days there has been some finding of transcripts or
videos that have surfaced on the Internet--a handful of 2008 and 2009
speeches that Senator Hagel did not recollect. So I ask unanimous
consent that a list of links to the Web transcripts or Web videos and a
list of Senator Hagel's potentially relevant Senate speeches that are a
part of the Congressional Record from 2008 be printed in the Record
immediately following my remarks.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, Senator Hagel stated in his financial
disclosure that he received $200,000 from Corsair Capital, which is a
private equity firm, and he was a member of its advisory board. It has
been alleged that Senator Hagel failed to provide complete financial
disclosure, despite the admitted lack of evidence of any kind, and a
highly negative innuendo was dropped by one of our colleagues which
said that, and I quote, ``it is, at a minimum, relevant to know if that
$200,000''--referring to those fees from Corsair Capital--``that
[Senator Hagel] deposited in his bank account came directly from Saudi
Arabia, [or] . . . from North Korea. . . .'' Without any evidence of
any kind, that kind of innuendo has been dropped here. It is
inappropriate, unfair, untrue.
Senator Hagel has provided the same financial disclosure and met the
same conflict of interest standards that the committee requires of all
previous nominees. As I explained in a February 8, 2013, letter to my
ranking member, Senator Inhofe:
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 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 [Armed Services] 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.
And I added:
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. . . . The committee cannot have two different
sets of financial disclosure standards for nominees--one for
Senator Hagel and one for other nominees.
As required by the Senate Armed Services Committee and by the Ethics
in Government Act, Senator Hagel 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 asks whether during the last 10 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.'' And
Senator Hagel's answer was ``No.''
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, will the distinguished chairman of the
Armed Services Committee yield for a question?
Mr. LEVIN. I will be happy to.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have listened to the recitation.
Basically what the Senator is saying is that all the rules that were in
place for nominees to the Department of Defense under Republican
Presidents are being followed for Senator Hagel. But there are some who
want to go beyond those and create new rules beyond those for Vice
President Cheney when he was Secretary or Donald Rumsfeld or Gates or
any of the other Secretaries of Defense. The Senator is saying some now
want to do something different for this nominee of President Obama's
than the practices they found totally acceptable for the nominees of
President Bush?
Mr. LEVIN. The Senator is correct. A number of our colleagues have
made that demand, and it is simply not something on which we are going
to set a precedent. It is not the way to proceed in this body.
Mr. LEAHY. I stand with the Senator from Michigan. In the Judiciary
Committee, we follow the same procedure for our judicial nominees
regardless of the party of the President who nominates them. If we
begin switching the rules depending upon who is President--well, if we
think the American public holds Congress in low esteem right now, it is
going to get even
[[Page S724]]
worse. So I compliment the Senator for sticking to the rules.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I thank my good friend from Vermont.
Just to complete my statement on the financial part, this is relative
to the fees he received when he was on the advisory board of Corsair
Capital.
This is a company he does not control. He is not in a position to
require that it disclose anything. The other members of the advisory
board--all of whom are identified, by the way, on the company's Web
site--include the chairman of JPMorgan Chase International, who is a
laureate of the 2002 Israel Prize in Economics and a recipient of the
Scopus Award from Hebrew University. Other members of the advisory
board: the former director of investments for Yale University and the
former chairman of the Financial Services Authority, which is
responsible for regulating the insurance industry in the United
Kingdom. So the innuendo that Corsair Capital is somehow a puppet
entity that is funneling tainted money to members of its advisory board
is unfair. It is totally inappropriate.
Senator Inhofe said yesterday that he is not filibustering this
nomination. He is just insisting on a 60-vote requirement for Senate
approval. And he said it is not unusual to insist on 60 votes for the
approval of a nominee and this was done during the Bush administration
for the nomination of Stephen Johnson to be EPA Administrator and the
nomination of Dirk Kempthorne to be Secretary of the Interior.
Well, the Senate rules do not provide for 60-vote approval of
nominations or any other matter. These rules establish a 60-vote
requirement to invoke cloture and end debate. If 60 votes are required
here, it is because there is filibuster. There is no 60-vote
requirement for the approval of a nomination, and the two examples
cited by Senator Inhofe actually prove this point. On the nomination of
Stephen Johnson, cloture was invoked by a 61-to-37 vote on April 29,
2005. On the nomination of Dirk Kempthorne, cloture was invoked by an
85-to-8 vote on May 26, 2006. But--and this is the point--after the
debate was ended by those votes on cloture, the nominations were
confirmed by regular votes of this body. And those regular votes are
either a voice vote or a majority vote on a rollcall vote.
So that history is, again, an example of how the Senate operates.
Sixty votes is not required to approve a bill or approve a nomination.
If a matter is being filibustered, 60 votes is required to end the
debate, and then, if the debate is ended, there is a vote on a
nomination or a bill.
No nomination for the position of Secretary of Defense has ever
before been filibustered. This filibuster breaks new ground. The
filibuster of a nomination for Secretary of Defense is the first one
under any circumstances, and it is unwise. The Department is facing a
budget crisis that was described as a 10 on a scale of 1 to 10 by the
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. So a filibuster at this time of
a budget crisis is exceptionally ill-advised. Leaving the Department of
Defense leaderless at a time when we are in an Afghan conflict, when
North Korea has just exploded a nuclear device is exceptionally ill-
advised. And perhaps most important, having a Department of Defense
that does not have a new Secretary confirmed is unfair to the men and
women in uniform. It sends them exactly the wrong message, as it does
to our friends and our adversaries around the world.
Mr. President, I yield the floor.
Exhibit 1
ADDITIONAL SPEECHES AND EVENTS BY CHUCK HAGEL THAT ARE AVAILABLE ON THE
INTERNET
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 4, 2008............ Israeli Policy Forum http://
Annual Event: ``In mycatbirdseat.com/
His Own Words: Sen. 2012/12/35795-
Chuck Hagel on the senator-chuck-hagel-
Middle East''. keynote-speech-
israel-policy-forum-
annual-event/
May 16, 2009................ Georgetown http://
University commencement09.geor
Commencement Speech. getown.edu?p=620
September 23, 2009.......... 2009 McCarthy http://
Lecture--College of www.csbsju.edu/
Saint Benedict/ McCarthy-Center/
Saint John's McCarthy-Lecture/
University. McCarthy-Lecture-
Archieve/2009-
Lecture-htm
October 2009................ Gerald R. Ford http://
School of Public www.fordschool.umic
Policy--University h.edu/events/
of MIchigan. calendar/148/
May 28, 2012................ 50th Anniversary of http://
the Vietnam War www.vietnamwar50th.
Commemoration. com/media_center/
the_honorable_chuck
_hagel_memorial_day-
2012_speech/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPEECHES THAT SENATOR GAVE ON THE SENATE FLOOR IN 2008 THAT COULD BE
RELEVANT TO HIS NOMINATION
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
February 28, 2008................. Senate Floor Speech re: GI Bill
May 8, 2008....................... Senate Floor Statement re. Chief
Master Sergeant Glenn Freeman
May 20, 2008...................... Senate Floor Speech--Feingold-Hagel
bill establishing an independent
Foreign Intelligence and
Information Commission
May 20, 2008...................... Senate Floor Speech re. GI Bill
June 12, 2008..................... Senate Floor Speech--233rd Birthday
of the United States Army
October 2, 2008................... Senate Floor Speech--Farewell to the
Senate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. LEVIN. I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I applaud what Senator Levin has said about
Senator Hagel. If you made a list of the qualifications of the perfect
Secretary of Defense, it would look like the resume of Chuck Hagel. If
you look past the partisan posturing of some, I think the American
public supports his confirmation as Secretary of Defense.
I worry that this partisan posturing adds to the low opinion
Americans have of both the House and Senate. This is not the way we
should be doing the country's business.
I strongly support the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of
Defense and urge all Senators to support him. We are at a time of
fiscal austerity. We all understand that. But we need a leader at the
Pentagon, one who understands what it takes to maintain the strongest
military force in the world.
Senator Hagel is a former enlisted soldier. He understands defense
policy and practice from the ground up. He is the leader we need as
Secretary of Defense. He is experienced by any measure. Like thousands
of people he will lead at the Pentagon, he has earned a combat
infantryman's badge. These qualifications are not abstract. He has two
Purple Hearts from combat service in Vietnam. He still carries shrapnel
in his body from those injuries.
On any issue having to do with the U.S. military, I have long valued
the firsthand experience of Chuck Hagel. But this service alone is not
what makes him qualified. He has been a leader in the public and
private sectors. He cofounded Vanguard Cellular Systems, a successful
cellular carrier in the 1980s and 1990s. He was president and CEO of
the USO and the chief operating officer of the 1990 G7 Summit. He
served as president of an investment bank, on the boards of some of the
world's largest companies, and as a two-term U.S. Senator. He is
clearly a qualified nominee.
Since his nomination was announced last month, some have questioned
Senators Hagel's position on a number of issues--notably, his support
for Israel. Well, as recently as his confirmation hearings, he has
reaffirmed his long record of support for Israel. In January, Danny
Ayalon, the Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister and former Israeli
Ambassador to the United States, affirmed what he sees as Senator
Hagel's commitment to the unique U.S.-Israeli relationship. As a member
of the Foreign Relations Committee, Senator Hagel supported the
authorization of almost $40 billion in aid to Israel. In a 2008 book,
Senator Hagel wrote that, ``there will always be a special and historic
bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to Israel's
[[Page S725]]
defense.'' He also wrote that that there can be no compromise on
Israel's identity as a Jewish state. He has affirmed the U.S.
commitment to Israel's security and Israel's right to defend itself
against aggression. These are just a few examples, but by any objective
measure, Senator Hagel is committed to the mutual interests of the
United States and Israel.
Attacks suggesting that Senator Hagel is soft on Iran are also
baseless. Through all my conversations with Senator Hagel, I have never
once doubted his belief in the President's responsibility to build
alliances and exhaust all available means to achieve our foreign policy
goals through diplomacy. But he also believes that aggressive actions
by us against a foreign government should be strategic. There is not a
shred of evidence to support claims that he supports a nuclear Iran, or
that he does not support the President's efforts--unilateral or
multilateral--to bring Iran to the negotiating table over its nuclear
program. He has reaffirmed that he believes in keeping all options on
the table, including force if necessary, to prevent Iran from obtaining
a nuclear weapon. Senator Hagel supports the sanctions against Iran
already in place. He has affirmed the need to keep military action on
the table. He supported the Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of
1997, the Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000, and the Iran Freedom
Support Act of 2006. Any assertion that Senator Hagel accepts Iran's
nuclear program is false.
Then there are the bogus, inflammatory claims that Senator Hagel is
soft on terrorism. Nothing could be further from the truth. He has not
hesitated to call Hezbollah and Hamas what they are--terrorist
organizations. He condemned Iran's support of Hezbollah and cosponsored
the Senate resolution demanding that Hamas recognize Israel's right to
exist. He also supported the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, a
multilateral effort to force Hamas to recognize Israel, renounce
violence, disarm itself, and accept prior agreements with Israel.
I have traveled with Senator Hagel to different parts of the world,
combat areas and areas of great security concern to the United States.
I have sat in meetings with him as he spoke with our military and
intelligence officials. Please excuse me if I am somewhat vague, since
most of these meetings were of a highly classified nature, but I can
say this: he asked tough questions and always kept the security
interests of the United States foremost at hand with both U.S. security
officials and also with the leaders of other countries. Senators who
were with us of both parties commented to me afterward how impressed
they were with the way Senator Hagel conducted these meetings.
In this time of talk of across the board budget cuts, some have
suggested that Senator Hagel would recklessly weaken the defense
budget. Nothing in Chuck Hagel's record supports that. He resigned as
Deputy Administrator of the Veterans Administration over what he
considered to be inappropriate budget cuts.
He opposes cuts that would weaken our security. He vigorously opposes
sequestration, which has been rightly compared to cutting with a meat
cleaver. Like Secretary Panetta and Secretary Gates, Chuck Hagel
believes the Pentagon has a role to play in deficit reduction but not
at the expense of keeping our military the preeminent fighting force in
the world. He says that reductions must be smart and strategic. I
agree. I am confident that our men and women in uniform will have no
stronger advocate and that our Nation will have a solid defender in
Chuck Hagel.
Senator Hagel, who has seen combat from the perspective of an
enlisted member of our Armed Forces, sees our military as the last
resort, not the first resort in international relations. Those who have
been in combat, from President Eisenhower on until today, have taken
that same position. No matter what any detractor may say, his is sound
policy.
Matters of war and peace are matters of life and death. Those who sit
in boardrooms or in easy chairs and say: Let's commit our soldiers here
and our soldiers there--they are not the ones going. By and large, it
is not their family members risking their lives. We need a Secretary of
Defense who knows what it is like to go and to face combat and to be
wounded. Should we commit our troops when it is necessary for our
defense? Of course. That is why we have troops. But let's recognize
that such decisions come at great human cost.
Senator Hagel, a decorated veteran who still walks with the shrapnel
from his wounds in Vietnam, understands that a decision to go to war is
a decision to send our sons and daughters, husbands and wives, fathers
and mothers into harm's way. It is his deep, visceral understanding of
this fact, his record of experience, his patriotism, and his dedication
to this Nation that qualify him to be the next Secretary of Defense.
We should have the vote and confirm this patriotic American hero.
Let's not hide behind a filibuster. Let's have the courage to vote yes
or vote no. Do not hide behind parliamentary tricks. Do not vote maybe.
The American people elected us to vote yes or vote no. When you want to
set up a filibuster rule on something, you are basically saying: Let's
vote maybe. That is hardly a profile in courage and certainly not the
kind of courage we would expect from a Secretary of Defense. So vote
yes or vote no. But however you vote, let's do it without delay. I will
vote yes.
I yield the floor.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
Mr. COATS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to speak as in
morning business.
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so
ordered.