[Congressional Record Volume 159, Number 24 (Thursday, February 14, 2013)]
[Senate]
[Pages S737-S747]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                            Sequester Impact

  Ms. MIKULSKI (Ms. Heitkamp). Madam President, while we are waiting to 
take up some other important legislation, I wanted to come to the floor 
to speak on another very important matter.
  What I wish to talk about is sequester. ``Sequester'' is a nine-
letter word that would be a big hit in a Scrabble game, but it is a 
lousy word for the game of life and the functioning of our economy. 
Sequester is a technique we are going to use as Washington-speak for 
saying we will have, starting March 1, across-the-board cuts that will 
be devastating to our economy and to the functioning of government. I 
just held a hearing this morning in my full Appropriations Committee 
about the consequences of these cuts. It is really scary. We are going 
to cut defense. It is going to have a negative impact on our readiness. 
At the same time, people building some of the smart weapons for the 
future, such as shipyard workers, over several thousand of them, could 
be laid off.
  Not only must we protect our military from these devastating cuts, 
but there are others who wear the uniform of the United States of 
America who protect us. For example, we have 57,000 Border Patrol 
guards who could be laid off. We also have people who run our weather 
satellites who help provide the important information to warn for 
tornadoes, to warn for hurricanes, to warn for these terrible blizzards 
so that local governments can efficiently prepare. Then there are 
terrible cuts in the area particularly of education.
  We need to be able to come up with $86 billion to cancel this year's 
sequester. That is $86 billion--``b'' as in Barbara, not ``m'' as in 
Mikulski. We have less than 2 weeks to do that.
  Now, as the full chair of the Appropriations Committee, working with 
our Democratic leadership and our very able chair of the Budget 
Committee, Senator Murray, as well as Senator Baucus, the chair of the 
Finance Committee, as well as other people in the Senate, we have been 
able to come up with an alternative. It offers a balanced approach to 
revenues as well as to cuts.
  Our proposal will include reforms to the Tax Code and save $55 
billion. At the same time, what we will be able to do is come up with 
cuts in spending. One will be $28 billion of cuts in the farm bill and 
then another $27 billion in defense.
  Now, before people worry and before Iran gets any funny ideas--or 
anybody who is a foe of the United States--that we are going wimpy or 
soft, the answer is no. These cuts will not go into effect until 2015, 
after we have brought our troops back home from Afghanistan. Then they 
will be spread out over 8 years until 2021. So we won't impact 
readiness. If there is a foreign predator, don't think we are weakening 
ourselves. What we are doing is looking at ways the Defense Department 
can get rid of some of these programs that are now dated, some of the 
weapons systems that are no longer as relevant as they once were, as we 
modernize.
  So between the mandatory spending cuts in the farm bill and in 
defense, we will cut spending by $55 billion. So we take $55 billion in 
cuts and $55 billion in revenue, and this will give us the $110 billion 
to be able to deal with this problem.

[[Page S738]]

  I am really jazzed about sequester. I represent some of the great 
iconic Federal agencies in the State of Maryland. I have 1,000 Federal 
employees. People say: Oh, we know them. Aren't those the pointy-headed 
bureaucrats who only do heavy lifting by getting a latte in the 
morning? The answer is absolutely not. Let me tell my colleagues who 
those people are, and I am really proud of them.
  They run the Social Security Administration. They make sure the 
checks go out on time. They are doing all the actuarial work. They are 
making sure Social Security is relevant, financially solvent, and far 
more efficiently run, with lower overhead than an insurance company.
  I represent the National Institutes of Health, whose sole job is to 
find cures for the diseases affecting the American people. Right this 
very minute we are working on the cure for Alzheimer's, with a 
cognitive stretch-out of Alzheimer's. My dear dad died of that. I know 
the consequences. It is a terrible heartbreak for the family, and I 
will tell my colleagues that it is a budget-buster when one has to turn 
to long-term care. If we can keep the funding going and if we can have 
that breakthrough, if we can even find a cognitive stretch-out for 3 to 
5 years for people going into nursing homes, we could cut our Medicaid 
budget in half because 80 percent of the money in our Medicaid budget 
goes to paying for long-term care for people with Alzheimer's, 
Parkinson's, Lou Gehrig's disease, or other diseases with neurological 
impairments. We are being pound foolish to save nickels and dimes. We 
need a long-term solution.
  By the way, the sequester is supposed to happen every year for 9 
years. It was to get us to the table so we could deal not only with our 
debt and deficit--yes, we got that message, but the other message is 
that we have to get America ready for the future. We have to create 
jobs today and innovate for jobs tomorrow. That is at NIH. Those are 
the people working there.
  I represent three Nobel Prize winners who are civil servants, several 
Nobel Prize winners over at Johns Hopkins. They are not only proud of 
winning the prizes, but they want to help America win the markets--new 
ideas for new products that will lead to new jobs.
  We also have in my State the Federal Drug Administration. I wish the 
Presiding Officer could come over there. There are 4,000 people working 
there.
  They say: Well, all those people. Yes, all those people. Again, there 
are Ph.D.s and M.D.s, people with master's degrees, and what are they 
working for? They are looking for new medical devices to help people, 
the new breakthroughs in perhaps the next generation of the pacemaker. 
They are taking ideas invented by the private sector, including a 
new insulin pump that will help a diabetic person have a more active 
life or even breakthroughs for neurological impairment for perhaps the 
child with cerebral palsy--they are looking for safety and efficacy so 
those products can move to clinical practice, to the marketplace, and 
products we can sell to the world. There are many countries that could 
never afford an FDA, but because they are FDA-certified in our country, 
they will buy our products.

  I am proud of that, that we are going to be the country that is 
inventing cures for cancer. We only look at the ``a'' words: AIDS, 
Alzheimer's, autism, arthritis. Just look at that. At the very time we 
are looking to lay off people or furlough people at NIH, they have just 
lowered the cancer rates in the United States by 12 percent--12 
percent.
  During the terrible fiscal cliff negotiations around New Year's, I 
spoke to Dr. Francis Collins, who heads that agency. We were making 
these announcements on how America leads the way to lower cancer rates 
among its own people. Isn't that a great victory? At the same time, I 
was telling him he could be heading into sequester or going over a 
fiscal cliff.
  Every day these 130,000 people are working to help America, whether 
they are working with weather satellites, whether they are doing the 
next generation of drug approval, whether they are running the Social 
Security Administration, whether they are over at the National 
Institute of Standards making sure American products have American 
standards and not the Chinese standards--again, so we can manufacture 
here and sell over there.
  So I think sequester is a terrible thing. As the chair of the full 
Appropriations Committee, I am working with our leadership to try to 
deal with this issue, but I also say to the other side of the aisle, 
let's come together. Let's work with our President. Let's have that 
grand bargain through looking at tax reform, reviewing some of our 
mandatory spending and how we can get savings out of that, as well as 
targeted, strategic cuts. Let's get us on the right fiscal path, but 
also let's get us on the path for innovation, for jobs today and jobs 
tomorrow. We want to continue to lead the world, and we want to defend 
ourselves not only against foreign predators who might wish to do us 
harm but those other horsemen of the apocalypse who ride, such as 
pestilence and disease, and we can do it. So let's saddle up and get 
the job done.
  Madam President, I yield the floor, and I note the absence of a 
quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Warren). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to join in a 
colloquy with my colleague from South Carolina.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, there seems to be a lot of back and 
forth and misinformation about where various Senators stand on the 
issue of the Hagel nomination. I have a statement I will give in a few 
minutes about why I am opposed to Senator Chuck Hagel to be Secretary 
of Defense, but I think it is important to make a couple points. One is 
that the distinguished chairman and I were here back in 1988.
  In 1988, on December 16, John Tower was nominated to be Secretary of 
Defense.
  On January 25, 1989, his confirmation hearings began. On February 2, 
1989, the committee postponed the confirmation vote after allegations 
were raised. On February 8, the committee vote was delayed again until 
February. February 23, he was voted out of the committee. March 10 was 
the time where the Senate rejected the nomination by 53 to 47.
  I was there. I saw. One of the worst things I have ever seen in the 
history of the Senate, the way they dragged out Senator John Tower--a 
good and decent man's reputation with allegation after allegation, all 
of which turned out to be false. So I would like to inform my 
colleagues, this is not the first time we have had a delay in the 
confirmation of a Secretary of Defense.
  I will be glad to go over what I saw, including allegations that were 
thrown over the transom day after day, week after week. They destroyed 
a good and decent man in Senator John Tower. So the allegation that 
somehow we are dragging this out or delaying it, it is not the first 
time in history, I will say to my dear friend, the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee.
  Having said that, there are still questions outstanding. I believe 
Senators have the right to have those questions answered. The Senator 
from South Carolina and I, the Senator from New Hampshire had a 
response from the President today on the question we had, but there are 
other questions. But I think during the break is sufficient time to get 
any additional questions answered. I will vote in favor of cloture on 
the day we get back. I believe my colleagues would also--a number of my 
colleagues would do the same.
  I think that is a sufficient period of time to get answers to 
outstanding questions. I think Senator Hagel, after that period of 
time, deserves a cloture vote and an up-or-down vote on his nomination.
  I ask if my colleague wants to comment.
  Mr. GRAHAM. We reported Senator Hagel's nomination out at 5 o'clock. 
I would argue that the hearing was interesting, I think at times 
unnerving. Here it is Thursday. So there are some questions being asked 
by our colleagues that I think are legitimate. Some are kind of 
creating a new standard. I am confident, in the next week,

[[Page S739]]

unless there is some explosive bombshell that I cannot quite get my 
hands around, I intend to vote for cloture and against the nomination. 
I am one, along with Senator McCain, who believes filibustering should 
be a rare thing.
  But what we are doing is saying the debate time for Senator Hagel is 
not yet over, since he just got reported out Tuesday at 5 o'clock. Put 
yourself in the shoes of the colleagues who are not on this committee. 
This has been a very controversial nominee. I will say the reason we 
voted for Senator Kerry on the same day he got reported out of 
committee and he got 97 votes, that all of us felt comfortable with the 
nomination. There are very uncomfortable things about this nomination. 
But having said that, I do believe that unless there is something new 
that comes out, we should proceed to a vote, up or down. I am willing 
to invoke cloture because I think, as Senator McCain said, the week 
time period would give us a chance to answer these questions.
  Let me inform my colleagues that just about an hour ago, there was a 
press report that a speech was given by Senator Hagel--I can't remember 
the group. But one of his aides posted--based on his notes what he had 
said the next day on a Web site.
  During that speech, according to this aide, Senator Hagel said the 
U.S. State Department was an extension of the Israeli Government. 
Things such as that are unnerving. There is at least one speech he gave 
that he did not report that we think there is a copy of. We should get 
it in the next few days. That is why I would oppose cloture today, vote 
for it after the recess.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senator 
from Tennessee, who also, in my view, is one of the great protectors of 
the Senate, preserving its tradition and customs--I would ask if he has 
a view on this issue. I wish to repeat: I would vote for cloture. The 
Senator from South Carolina would vote for cloture. I would be 
interested in the view of the Senator from Tennessee on this whole 
issue.
  Mr. ALEXANDER. I thank the Senator from Arizona. Probably the best 
known function of the Senate--constitutional responsibility--is the 
right of advise and consent. We take it very seriously. Here that means 
we have to consider what happens. The Armed Services Committee, upon 
which I do not have a chance to serve, completed its consideration of 
Senator Hagel's nomination 2 days ago. Now it is before the whole body. 
He is the President's appointee. The President has a right to appoint 
people in whom he has confidence. But we have a constitutional 
responsibility to consider the nominee.
  A number of Republican Senators have questions, including the Senator 
from Arizona, the Senator from South Carolina, that they would like to 
have answered. I think they are entitled to that. I think if the shoe 
were on the other foot and it were a Republican President making a 
nomination, Democratic Senators would say the same thing: Give us a 
reasonable amount of time to consider this nomination on the floor of 
the Senate.
  I have a little experience in that myself. The first President Bush 
nominated me to be U.S. Education Secretary about 20 years ago. I 
thought I was a fairly noncontroversial nominee, much less important 
than the Secretary of Defense. But I remember very well, it was 87 days 
between the time the President announced my nomination and the day on 
which the Senate unanimously confirmed me.
  There was, at the time, a Senator from Ohio named Metzenbaum, who for 
whatever reason decided the Senate needed more delay to consider my 
record and my background.
  There is nothing new about this. I would respectfully suggest that 
the majority leader's motion to cut off debate on Senator Hagel, made 2 
days after his nomination comes to the floor of the Senate, is 
premature.
  Republican Senators have questions they would like to have answered. 
I think they are entitled to do that. When we come back from recess, 10 
days from now, I think that is sufficient time to consider those 
questions. I will vote for cloture so we can have an up-or-down vote on 
the President's nominee for the Secretary of Defense. I think the 
President is entitled to that but not prematurely.
  I thank the Senator from Arizona for yielding time.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I note that the present occupant of the 
chair is familiar with the rigors of this process as well. So I think 
it is important to note. Again, I wish to say that it is one thing to 
support or oppose a nominee, but I do not believe a nominee deserves a 
dragged-out process. I think the Senator from Tennessee and the Senator 
from Massachusetts would agree with me; that it might be a disincentive 
in the future for well-qualified men and women who want to serve, who 
see a process that is dragged out and allegations made and requirements 
for disclosure that frankly are not required.
  I note the presence of the majority leader on the floor, so I would 
like to filibuster for an hour or so.
  I yield to the majority leader.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, at the request of the Republicans, I ask 
unanimous consent that at 4:15 today, the Senate proceed to vote on the 
motion to invoke cloture on the Hagel nomination; that the time until 
4:15 be equally divided between the two leaders or their designees. My 
designee is Senator Levin.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object, I will not object because 
of the assurances of my three friends from the other side of the aisle 
stating that they plan on voting for cloture. They obviously said they 
will not vote for cloture today, which is, I think, too bad because 
there has been more than enough time in the last 2 days to read the 
additional speeches that have been coming in.
  The only argument that was raised beyond that, that I know of, has to 
do with a payment from an equity fund. That was received. It has been 
fully explained. It is a highly reputable fund that Senator Hagel was 
an adviser to, similar to many other very reputable people. So I think 
the continuation of what amounts to a filibuster, since 60-vote votes 
are required to end debate, is too bad when there is a Secretary of 
Defense who is leaving to go back to California, and we very much need 
to have our new Secretary of Defense in place, given the circumstances 
in this world.
  We have a budget crisis in this country. Our sequester is confronting 
us. That sequester will have a damaging effect on the Defense 
Department, on the men and women in uniform, and on programs, the 
equipment, the training they need to be ready for any kind of a 
contingency.
  So the delay in having a vote on cloture, to me, is a mistake, and we 
ought to approve the ending of the debate today so we can get on with 
the confirmation vote, which will be a majority vote. After there is a 
cloture vote, debate is finally ended in this body, the final passage 
of a bill or the vote on the nominee is a majority vote, not 60 votes. 
So I am hoping there will be 60 votes today so we can get on with 
approval of this nominee, hopefully shortly thereafter, and fill this 
spot which is sitting there waiting to be filled.
  We have North Korea exploding a nuclear device. We have a war going 
on in Afghanistan. We need to have a Secretary of Defense in place. So 
I hope there is not a delay. Following the vote today, I hope we do 
invoke cloture, because I think there has been more than adequate time. 
Surely, there has been time on the floor when we have had hour after 
hour go by with no one who seeks to be recognized to speak.
  I do hope that if the unanimous consent proposal is agreed to, there 
will be 60 votes today. But if not, then there will be no alternative 
but to have the vote when we come back. At that point, we would, of 
course, look forward to the support, at least on cloture, of the three 
Senators who have just spoken, our friends on the other side of the 
aisle.
  That is the best we can hope for. But that is my hope. I will not 
object because of that.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, reserving the right to object. I will 
not object, I will just respond to my friend. He is my dear friend. I 
did not note that sense of urgency for 3 months when John Tower's 
nomination was held in limbo by the then-majority

[[Page S740]]

Democrats. The Secretary of Defense post was vacant at that time as 
well. So this is not the first time in history a Secretary of Defense 
position has been vacant.
  Again, I hope we can get this resolved, move forward. I think the 
Senator from Michigan, my friend, understands we can get this issue 
resolved on the day we return from the recess. Certainly, there are, I 
believe, sufficient votes to invoke cloture at that time.
  Mr. LEVIN. If the Senator from Arizona would yield for 1 minute, I do 
not believe Senator Tower was filibustered. There was a delay in 
getting to that vote. But I do not believe there was a requirement--I 
may be wrong on this. I do not believe there was a filibuster for the 
Secretary of Defense nominee at that time, and many Secretary of 
Defense nominees have been approved in a matter of days, just the way 
Senator Kerry was approved in a matter of days.
  So circumstances differ nominee to nominee. I again will not object, 
based on the statements which we have heard from my friends on the 
other side of the aisle.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I always enjoy some exchanges with my 
friend, the chairman. But the fact is, as the chairman knows, that was 
delayed and delayed and delayed. A new allegation came in, it was 
delayed. A new allegation came in, it was delayed. All those 
allegations turned out to be false. I will not rewrite history anymore, 
except to say it was one of the more shameful chapters, in my view, in 
the history of the Senate.
  Again, I thank him. I am confident that within 1 week or so we will 
probably have this vote completed. I do not object to the unanimous 
consent request.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, how much time remains on either side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There will be 30 minutes on either side.
  Mr. McCAIN. I yield myself 10 minutes.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. McCAIN. For all the years that I have known Senator Hagel, I have 
known him to be an honorable man and a patriot in this Chamber and 
elsewhere--overseas, in the field of battle. Senator Hagel has served 
this country faithfully and with distinction.
  We have our differences. Senator Hagel was and remains my friend. 
There was a time when Senator Hagel and I saw the world and America's 
role in it in much the same way.
  When the Balkans were torn apart with mass atrocities and genocide, 
Senator Hagel and I stood together with Senators Bob Dole and Joe 
Lieberman to lend bipartisan support to President Clinton in taking 
more forceful action to end the slaughter.
  In May 1999, Senator Hagel said on this very floor why the United 
States should intervene militarily in Kosovo:

       But we also understand there are things worth going to war 
     for, there are things worth dying for. . . . When people are 
     being slaughtered at a rather considerable rate, and genocide 
     is occurring, and ethnic cleansing is occurring, and people 
     are being driven from their homes.

  On and on.

       What do we do now? The geopolitical consequences, the 
     humanitarian consequences involved in this are great.

  He went on to say:

       History has surely taught us that when you defer the tough 
     decisions, when you let the butchers continue and the tyrants 
     and dictators continue, it gets worse. And it has gotten 
     worse with Milosevic. For 10 years we've dealt with him. Four 
     wars he's started.

  Et cetera.
  I agreed with his statement at the time, and I still do. I think it 
applies with greater or equal force to Syria today. I am not sure that 
Senator Hagel believes that anymore.
  When America was attacked on September 11, 2001, Senator Hagel and I 
urged a strong American response to vanquish the enemies who attacked 
us, beginning in Afghanistan. Two years later, President Bush decided 
the United States may have to use force against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, 
and then Senator Hagel and I voted to authorize the use of force in 
Iraq.
  Senator Hagel and I were often together in our criticism of the Bush 
administration's conduct of the war in Iraq. We both were disturbed by 
the apparent arrogance of then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and 
his abject failure to respond to the clear fact that we were losing the 
war in Iraq on the ground.
  In August 2003 I urged President Bush to send more troops. The 
Senator from South Carolina and I called for the resignation of the 
Secretary of Defense, and we wanted to change our strategy, to replace 
military and civilian leaders who were failing in their 
responsibilities. Senator Hagel, on the other hand, believed we should 
cut our losses and withdraw from Iraq.
  Since that time, Senator Hagel has taken policy positions that I 
believe call into question the quality of his professional judgment on 
issues critical to national defense. I am also concerned that Senator 
Hagel is ill-suited to lead the 2.5 million uniformed members of the 
Armed Services and to ensure the sound management of an agency that has 
an annual budget equal to the 17th largest economy in the world.
  Of all the responsibilities of government, none is more fundamental 
than providing for the Nation's defense. We must have the most 
qualified and able person for the position, and having carefully 
reviewed Senator Hagel's long public record, I find his nomination 
wanting.
  Senator Hagel's appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee 
failed to allay my concerns about his nomination. During the hearing he 
repeatedly refused to give an assessment of his previous statements on 
issues such as the troop surge in Iraq, the identification and 
engagement of terrorist organizations, and his past rhetoric about our 
allies. In response to these questions, he either assigned history the 
task of judging the merit of his past statements and positions or 
simply said:

       If I had an opportunity to edit that, like many things I've 
     said, I would--I would like to go back and change the words 
     and the meaning.

  History isn't likely to affirm Senator Hagel's declaration that the 
decision to increase forces in order to wage a counterinsurgency in 
Iraq, a decision that helped prevent our losing that war, he said was 
the most dangerous foreign policy blunder since Vietnam.
  It is quite obvious now that statement was histrionic, woefully 
uninformed, and absurd. But I didn't raise it at Senator Hagel's 
hearing for the satisfaction of an ``I told you so'' moment, but to 
determine if Senator Hagel recognizes he was in error and, more 
importantly, if that recognition informs his judgment today.
  I wanted to know if he had learned from his mistakes. Unfortunately, 
I am not confident that he has. After 2 weeks of reviewing his record, 
my concerns about whether Senator Hagel is ready to serve as Secretary 
of Defense have not diminished.
  Nothing in Senator Hagel's background indicates he would effectively 
manage the Department of Defense. In today's unprecedented environment 
of fiscal uncertainty, ensuring that defense investment decisions 
affecting an agency as massive and unwieldy as the Department of 
Defense do not adversely impact our military readiness is enormously 
challenging. It requires that the Secretary have, as Secretary Gates 
and Secretary Panetta had, a proven track record of successfully 
managing large and complex organizations. Senator Hagel has no 
experience.
  There are those of us who seek to cut waste, fraud, and abuse from 
the Department of Defense. Senator Hagel seeks something else 
entirely--to cut military capabilities that serve as tools to ensure 
our continued engagement throughout the world in support of America's 
interests and those of our allies.
  In the eyes of the President, at least, Senator Hagel, however, 
apparently is the right man to oversee the continuing drawdown of the 
Armed Services. Over the past 4 years, the administration has pursued a 
program of defense reductions that exceed those expected of a normal 
post-war drawdown, cuts that have begun to directly undermine U.S. 
global military power. Last week, Secretary Panetta said people would 
stand by and deliberately hurt this country in terms of our national 
defense by letting sequestration take place.

  My doubts about Senator Hagel's suitability extend beyond his 
prospective management of defense budgetary resources. The North 
Koreans recently tested another nuclear weapon. Iraq is

[[Page S741]]

unraveling. The Iranians just rejected Vice President Biden's proposal 
at the Munich Security Conference for one-on-one talks concerning 
nuclear weapons. Libya, Mali, Tunisia, and Egypt are in various states 
of unrest, for which we have no strategy. We are in the most unsettled 
period since the end of the Cold War, and I have serious concerns as to 
the quality of Senator Hagel's professional judgment and the acuity of 
his views on critical areas of national security, including security in 
East Asia and the Middle East.
  His record on Iraq was particularly troubling. As I alluded to a 
moment ago, in 2002 Senator Hagel voted to authorize the use of force 
against Iraq. By 2006, his support for the war had diminished.
  After Republican losses in the 2006 midterm elections, the Senator 
wrote an opinion piece for the Washington Post under the title 
``Leaving Iraq, Honorably,'' foreshadowing his opposition to the surge 
and advocating ``a phased troop withdrawal from Iraq.'' When President 
Bush announced his decision to surge troops in 2007, Senator Hagel 
actively campaigned against it.
  He voted in February 2007 in favor of a bill expressing opposition to 
the surge and later in favor of measures to set a date certain for 
withdrawal of troops from Iraq, an equally bad policy. Senator Hagel 
wrote in his 2008 memoir, ``America: Our Next Chapter'' that ``history 
. . . will show'' that his legislative efforts to oppose the surge 
correctly framed the political matters at issue at the time.
  Carl Levin, on the other hand, said in 2009:

       In considering whether or not to surge troops in Iraq . . . 
     I think that history will show that President Bush reached 
     the right decision.

  Senator Hagel advocated the complete withdrawal of U.S. forces from 
Iraq by 2007 rather than negotiating an agreement for an enduring 
presence of U.S. forces. The President ultimately did exactly what 
Senator Hagel recommended, reportedly against the advice of military 
leaders. In response to written questions on this matter, Senator Hagel 
again stated that the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq was 
the right call and asserted that Iraq is in a better place today 
because of it. That is another Orwellian statement.
  In fact, since the withdrawal of our forces in 2011, the fragile 
political accommodation made possible by the surge of 2007 has 
unraveled over the past year. Al-Qaida in Iraq is remobilizing. 
Iranian-backed Shiite militias are gaining strength. Meanwhile the 
country is on the brink of civil war as protests against the Maliki 
government draw thousands, Iranian aircraft are flying over Iraq with 
weapons for Syria, and there are many other examples. Nevertheless, 
Senator Hagel is equally quick to advocate full withdrawal from 
Afghanistan despite conditions on the ground or the advice of military 
commanders.
  Senator Hagel's views on Iran are also profoundly troubling. 
Consider, for instance, his recent set of incorrect and confused 
responses to basic questions about President Obama's Iran policy during 
his confirmation hearing last month, which one senior White House 
official rightfully described as ``somewhere between baffling and 
incomprehensible.''
  I am more deeply concerned by Senator Hagel's overall record on this 
issue.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator's time has expired.
  Mr. McCAIN. Madam President, I ask for 2 additional minutes.
  Mr. INHOFE. Reserving the right to object, may I ask how much time 
remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 19 minutes remaining.
  Mr. INHOFE. I ask unanimous consent that the last two speakers on our 
side--the last would be me, the next to last would be Senator Graham--
be given 5 minutes for Senator Graham and 7 minutes for me.
  Mr. LEVIN. Reserving the right to object.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection--reserving the right to 
object.
  Mr. LEVIN. How much time remains on our side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 30 minutes remaining on each side.
  Mr. LEVIN. I assume the 12 minutes the Senator referred to would be 
counted against their time?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator is correct.
  Is there objection?
  Mr. LEVIN. No objection.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Arizona.
  Mr. McCAIN. Finally, Senator Hagel's opposition to the use of 
sanctions, his apparent confusion about administration policies and its 
implications, and his apparent incomprehension of the threat a nuclear-
armed Iran poses to international stability is alarming and would cause 
other nations to doubt the credibility of the President's commitments.
  Senator Hagel is an honorable man who has sacrificed much and bravely 
for our Nation. About his character and love of country, there can be 
no doubt or debate. However, his positions on the principal national 
security issues facing our country--the Iranian nuclear program, the 
resurgent Islamist terrorist threat in North Africa and the Middle 
East, and, more broadly, whether we should maintain our ability to 
project strength in defense of our interests and allies'--indicate to 
me a disqualifying lack of professional judgment. Also, Senator Hagel's 
complete lack of experience in running an enterprise of such size and 
complexity casts further doubt.
  Therefore, despite my esteem for Senator Hagel, on the basis of his 
record, I will not support his confirmation. I say this with regret, 
but he is the wrong person at the worst time for the job this day. We 
can and must do better.
  I thank my colleagues.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Florida.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. NELSON. Madam President, I wish to ask my colleagues to support 
the Hagel nomination. Let me just hit a couple of highlights.
  He volunteered to go into the Army during Vietnam. He was assigned to 
Germany. He volunteered to go to Vietnam.
  His brother was assigned in one part of Vietnam, he in another. His 
brother Tom and he asked to be in the same unit. While on patrol in the 
jungles at night, his brother saved his life. On another patrol at 
night, he saved his brother's life. He was wounded twice. He was 
medevaced. He asked to go back into the fight.
  He has served as Deputy Administrator of the Department of Veterans' 
Affairs with a quarter of a million employees under his management. He 
represented the State of Nebraska in the Senate for 12 years. He 
coauthored the post-9/11 GI bill with Senator Webb. Out of uniform and 
away from Capitol Hill, he has lead the USO.
  This is exceptionally capable man, who is a patriot, has given 
extensive testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee. He has 
cleared up the issues that have been asked over and over, including one 
that was raised about his role in authoring the Global Zero 
report. First, the report didn't propose anything. It was, in the words 
specifically used in the front end of the report, ``illustrative,'' 
proposing nothing but laying out different scenarios and possibilities. 
There was nothing that was proposed in a recommendation that we 
unilaterally disarm, reduce the arsenal, or eliminate the triad. And 
that would especially be so since another of the coauthors was General 
Cartwright, the former commander of U.S. Strategic Command and the 
eighth Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

  This is a critical time for national defense. It is a critical time 
for our country. We need to get on and approve the nomination so he can 
get on with his duties as Secretary of Defense.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from South Carolina.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I have 5 minutes. Would the Presiding 
Officer let me know when 4 minutes has elapsed.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Yes.
  Mr. GRAHAM. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed 
in the Record an opinion piece by the editorial board for the 
Washington Post dated December 18, 2012.

[[Page S742]]

  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

               [From the Washington Post, Dec. 18, 2012]

       Chuck Hagel is Not the Right Choice for Defense Secretary

       Former Senator Chuck Hagel, whom President Obama is 
     reportedly considering for defense secretary, is a Republican 
     who would offer a veneer of bipartisanship to the national 
     security team. He would not, however, move it toward the 
     center, which is the usual role of such opposite-party 
     nominees. On the contrary: Mr. Hagel's stated positions on 
     critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall 
     well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his 
     first term--and place him near the fringe of the Senate that 
     would be asked to confirm him.
       The current secretary, Leon Panetta, has said the defense 
     ``sequester'' cuts that Congress mandated to take effect Jan. 
     1 would have dire consequences for U.S. security. Mr. Hagel 
     took a very different position when asked about Mr. Panetta's 
     comment during a September 2011 interview with the Financial 
     Times. ``The Defense Department, I think in many ways, has 
     been bloated,'' he responded. ``So I think the Pentagon needs 
     to be pared down.''
       While both Republicans and Democrats accept that further 
     cuts in defense may be inevitable, few have suggested that a 
     reduction on the scale of the sequester is responsible. In 
     congressional testimony delivered around the same time as Mr. 
     Hagel's interview, members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said 
     the sequester would lead to ``a severe and irreversible 
     impact on the Navy's future,'' ``a Marine Corps that's below 
     the end strength to support even one major contingency'' and 
     ``an unacceptable level of strategic and operational risk'' 
     for the Army.
       Mr. Hagel was similarly isolated in his views about Iran 
     during his time in the Senate. He repeatedly voted against 
     sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian 
     Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was 
     orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in 
     Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than 
     sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran's behavior. The 
     Obama administration offered diplomacy but has turned to 
     tough sanctions as the only way to compel Iran to negotiate 
     seriously.
       Mr. Obama has said that his policy is to prevent Iran from 
     obtaining a nuclear weapon and that containment is not an 
     option. Mr. Hagel has taken a different view, writing in a 
     2008 book that ``the genie of nuclear weapons is already out 
     of the bottle, no matter what Iran does.'' The former senator 
     from Nebraska signed on to an op-ed in The Post this 
     September that endorsed ``keeping all options on the table'' 
     for stopping Iran's nuclear program. But Mr. Hagel has 
     elsewhere expressed strong skepticism about the use of force.
       We share that skepticism--but we also understand that, 
     during the next year or two, Mr. Obama may be forced to 
     contemplate military action if Iran refuses to negotiate or 
     halt its uranium-enrichment program. He will need a defense 
     secretary ready to support and effectively implement such a 
     decision. Perhaps Mr. Hagel would do so; perhaps he would 
     also, if installed at the Pentagon, take a different view of 
     defense spending. (Mr. Hagel declined through a spokesman to 
     speak to us about his views.)
       What's certain is that Mr. Obama has available other 
     possible nominees who are considerably closer to the 
     mainstream and to the president's first-term policies. Former 
     undersecretary of defense Michele Flournoy, for example, is a 
     seasoned policymaker who understands how to manage the 
     Pentagon bureaucracy and where responsible cuts can be made. 
     She would bring welcome diversity as the nation's first 
     female defense secretary.
       Mr. Hagel is an honorable man who served the country with 
     distinction as a soldier in Vietnam and who was respected by 
     his fellow senators. But Mr. Obama could make a better choice 
     for defense secretary.

  Mr. GRAHAM. This is an editorial about the nomination of Senator 
Hagel to be Secretary of Defense. The Washington Post said:

       Mr. Hagel's stated positions of critical issues ranging 
     from defense spending to Iran fall well to the left of those 
     proposed by Mr. Obama during his first term and place him 
     near the fringe of the Senate that would be asked to confirm 
     him.

  The last line is:

       Mr. Hagel is an honorable man who served the country with 
     distinction as a soldier in Vietnam and who was respected by 
     his fellow Senators, but Mr. Obama can make a better choice 
     for defense secretary.

  That sort of sums up where I am: a fine man. If it were about 
friendship, there wouldn't be a problem. This is about the times in 
which we live. And I want to echo the statements of the Washington Post 
about him being out of the mainstream.
  We have had two hearings, and we will have a couple of votes in the 
next week or so. I would say to my colleagues regarding the cloture 
vote today, they have every right to say now is not the time to end the 
debate about Senator Hagel. He was reported out of the committee at 5 
o'clock Tuesday. There are some legitimate questions and information we 
haven't gathered, and we should be able to have an opportunity to look 
at that, and people not already committed should have a chance to 
review this information. So the idea of waiting until after the break 
makes eminent sense. I think we will be better informed regarding our 
decision. Debate should continue for at least that period of time.
  Senator Kerry was able to get out of committee and to be voted on the 
same day because all of us felt comfortable with John Kerry, even 
though we may have disagreed with his politics. I believe John Kerry is 
a good man. We are on opposite sides of the issues sometimes when it 
comes to Iraq and initially Syria, but I have always thought he was in 
the mainstream of the debate. So he got 97 votes because we felt 
comfortable with him. You can tell people on our side, and some others, 
quite frankly, in the Democratic Party have expressed some discomfort.
  I would argue that after the hearing there is more discomfort than 
there was before the hearing. Senator Inhofe and Senator Levin, we had 
a very good hearing, but to me it was unnerving, some of the things 
that came out of that hearing. The performance created more questions 
and doubts than it created confidence.
  That is the question the Washington Post posed. It is one thing to be 
in the left lane, the right lane, or the center lane, but I would say 
Senator Hagel's statements and votes put him in a league of his own. 
And that is why I will vote no.
  When it comes to Israel and his statement that ``The Jewish lobby 
intimidates a lot of people up here. I'm not an Israeli Senator, I'm a 
United States Senator,'' Senator Hagel, to his credit, said that was 
inappropriate and he apologized. But think for a minute how many of my 
colleagues would have said that. I asked him to name one Senator who 
has been intimidated, and he couldn't name one. I asked him to name one 
policy we have enacted because of the Jewish Israeli lobby, and he 
couldn't name a policy.
  Now we find out today--and I don't know if this has been verified, 
but it is posted--that an aide of his reported that during a speech 
Senator Hagel gave several years ago he said the U.S. Department of 
State was an extension of the Israeli Government. Now this is showing a 
chip on one shoulder about Israel--an unhealthy statement, to say the 
least, and I think patently false. But it is unnerving to a guy like 
me, and I can only imagine what kind of signal a statement such as that 
sends in these dangerous times.
  On Iran he was one of two Senators to vote against renewing 
unilateral U.S. sanctions against Iran and Libya in 2001. He was one of 
twelve Senators who did not sign a letter asking the European Union to 
declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization. He refused to designate the 
Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization in 2007----
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. GRAHAM. I thank the Presiding Officer. While they were killing 
our soldiers in Iraq. He refused to sign a letter to President George 
W. Bush, he said, to engage in direct unconditional comprehensive talks 
with the Government of Iran. He was for that, telling Bush to do it 
unconditionally. He voted against comprehensive Iranian sanctions.
  He was one of two Senators who failed to sign a letter to President 
Clinton showing unconditional support for the State of Israel.
  I would argue that this man's record, when it comes to Iran and 
Israel, and statements he has made, puts him well out of the 
mainstream. The Washington Post was right when they said he is on the 
fringe. And now is not the time to have somebody on the fringe serving 
as Secretary of Defense when it comes to Iran and Israel. For that 
reason, I will vote no. I will oppose cloture because debate should 
continue. When we get back, unless there is a real bombshell, I will 
vote for cloture and move on to his nomination.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
West Virginia.

[[Page S743]]

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from West Virginia.
  Mr. MANCHIN. Madam President, I am proud to support Chuck Hagel for 
Secretary of Defense. If Chuck can make it through the jungles of 
Vietnam, he can surely make it through the bureaucracy of the Pentagon.
  America needs Chuck as its Secretary of Defense to bring our troops 
home and to keep our military the strongest in the world. Sergeant 
Hagel is an American hero. When so many Americans were dodging the 
draft, he volunteered to serve in Vietnam. The draft board gave him the 
option to return to college, but Chuck refused. He said:

       I think the best thing for me is to go in the Army. It may 
     not be the best thing for the Army, but I think that's the 
     way to get all this straightened out. I was the oldest of 
     four boys. My father [had] passed away, and I just was not 
     coming together the way I should come together. There was a 
     war going on in Vietnam. I felt a sense of some 
     responsibility. So I said, ``No. Let's--let's go. And so I 
     volunteered for the draft, went in the Army and celebrated my 
     21st birthday down at White Sands Missile Range.''

  And Chuck didn't serve in a safe billet. When assigned to Germany, he 
protested and asked to deploy to Vietnam. So he volunteered for Vietnam 
and saw the horrors of war as an infantry sergeant.
  Chuck and his younger brother Tom are the only known American 
brothers to serve side by side in Vietnam. At different times, they 
risked their own lives to save each other's. At one point, Tom 
frantically dressed a wound around Chuck's chest hoping, praying, that 
his older brother would make it out of Vietnam alive. And Chuck 
eventually returned the favor by dragging Tom out of a burning vehicle 
just before it exploded, saving his brother's life. Talk about brothers 
in arms, these were real brothers in arms.

  These experiences made Chuck who he is, and they help you and me 
understand why he is the right man to run the Pentagon and to be put in 
charge of defending America. Just listen to how Chuck describes what it 
was like to serve in Vietnam. He says:

       I walked a lot of point, and my brother Tom and I together 
     walked a lot of point, which was all right. You know what 
     happens to a lot of point men, but I always felt a little 
     better if I was up front than somebody else.

  Chuck is willing to walk point for America now. He has been walking 
point for most of his life. This is how Chuck describes a point man:

       A point man, as I think most people know, is the individual 
     who is out front. And these are usually squad-sized patrols, 
     sometimes a company-sized patrol, depending on the mission. 
     And you have the front--physically the front position, but 
     also the responsibility of essentially not walking your squad 
     or your company into an ambush or a trap. So you had to be 
     very, very focused on the peripheral vision and the antenna 
     and just the sense and the instincts that something doesn't 
     look right or grenades hanging in trees, which booby traps 
     were just a way of life. You dealt with that all the time. 
     And there were a lot of guys who just didn't pay attention to 
     it. They just--that's just the way they were. And I, again, 
     always felt better if I was up front than maybe some others.

  Let me repeat that: Chuck Hagel always felt better if he was up 
front, where it was most dangerous. We live in dangerous times today 
and we need a man such as Chuck Hagel right now who has seen the 
horrors of war and will do all he can to prevent another generation 
from seeing them.
  In my interactions with Chuck, I have been struck by his honesty, his 
sincerity, and his commonsense approach. I know if he were still a 
sitting U.S. Senator, we would probably be great friends. That is 
because we come from similar backgrounds and the same generation. He is 
like many Americans. He grew up in a working class, ``salt of the 
earth'' family. In Chuck's words, he was raised in Little Town, NE, 
where the local legion club and the VFW hall were the centers of the 
universe.
  I could go on and on about Chuck Hagel, but let me say this in 
closing. When I think about people and I go to my little town in my 
community where I grew up--in Farmington, WV--and I know Chuck grew up 
in a small town--I can shake people's hands and look them in the eye 
and they see me to my soul. They know if I am sincere or I am telling 
the truth. And I want to say to all of you that I have shaken Chuck 
Hagel's hand. I have looked him in his eyes and I saw the soul of a 
good man, a man I want leading this country and taking care of our 
youth, our infantry, our men and women in uniform. So I implore all of 
my colleagues to consider voting for Chuck Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, parliamentary inquiry: How much time 
remains on each side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Democrats have 22 minutes and the 
Republicans have 12 minutes.
  Mr. REED. Madam President, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  As so many of my colleagues have described, Chuck Hagel is a soldier, 
a statesman, a businessman, a patriot. As my colleague from West 
Virginia pointed out, he could have chosen a much easier path in the 
1960s, a path that many trod, but he chose the most difficult. He not 
only joined the Army, but he volunteered for Vietnam, when he had the 
opportunity to serve honorably and well in Europe. He joined his 
brother at Fort Dix. He knows the pressures our men and women face. And 
he knows the decisions we make here, and the decisions that are made in 
the Pentagon, ultimately are carried out by those young men and women 
in uniform. In fact, I can't think of anyone over the last several 
decades who has learned that lesson so well.
  The other thing that is so impressive is that this is not a one-
dimensional resume. Chuck Hagel was a businessman, and very successful. 
He founded his own company, created jobs, and created opportunities. He 
was the Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration. He has 
run a large Federal agency. Very seldom do people come into one of 
these positions having run a Federal agency, or at least being the 
second in command. And he has been a U.S. Senator. So he knows very 
well the procedures and the personalities that are here in the U.S. 
Congress.
  To me, though, some of the most compelling endorsements come from 
those who have actually done the job before. When Bob Gates and Bill 
Cohen and Bill Perry stand up and say, this is the person for the job, 
you have to believe that. These gentlemen have done the job for 
Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents, and they have done it 
with great distinction.
  Then when you get somebody such as Brent Scowcroft, who is, in my 
view, one of the most knowledgeable and authoritative voices in 
national security, and was the National Security Adviser to President 
George Herbert Walker Bush--who also weighed in, along with Madeleine 
Albright--you have compelling, irrefutable evidence and testimony from 
those who have done the job that Chuck Hagel can do the job.
  There has been a lot said and discussed as to whether he truly 
appreciates the relationship between the United States and some of our 
closest allies, particularly Israel. Here we have the current Deputy 
Foreign Minister of Israel Danny Ayalon, who also serves as our 
Ambassador from Israel to the United States, saying that he has met 
him, he feels, in his view--and I will paraphrase--he has a true 
understanding of the natural partnership between the United States and 
Israel. Again, that is compelling evidence.
  If you add to that the unconditional endorsement of several former 
U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, American patriots who have dedicated 
themselves to maintaining a strong, vital, vibrant, and crucial 
relationship for both the State of Israel and the United States, the 
evidence accumulates more and more that the President has chosen well 
and wisely.
  This is a critical time. We are looking at conflicts in Afghanistan, 
we are looking at a nuclear detonation on the Korean peninsula, we are 
looking at budget problems that have never faced any previous Secretary 
of Defense and that have to be addressed within days or weeks. There is 
a ministerial meeting next week in Brussels for our defense ministers. 
We have to maintain our alliances. All these forces come together.
  So I think the evidence is overwhelming. The President has chosen 
well and wisely.
  But let me make one final point. This is a historic vote. By my 
recollection, no nominee for the Secretary of Defense has been 
defeated, delayed, or dismissed on a procedural vote.
  Our history suggests, because of this office, because it is one so 
closely associated with the President making life-

[[Page S744]]

and-death decisions, that deference is given to that choice--at least 
that it is not caught up in a procedural battle, that there is an up-
or-down vote. My colleagues, in good faith, after careful study, can 
vote yea or nay, but to defeat someone on a procedural vote would be 
unprecedented and unwarranted. As a result, I would urge that this 
procedural motion before us be carried, cloture be dispensed with, and 
we can get on to expressing our true feelings based on the evidence and 
based on our best judgment of whether Senator Hagel should serve as 
Secretary of Defense.
  Madam President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, my colleague, Senator Cruz, is ill and 
unable to speak on this nomination. He has, however, expressed his 
concerns to me in the form of a letter. I appreciate his contributions 
to this debate throughout the committee process.
  I ask unanimous consent the letter be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                                February 14, 2013.
     Senator James Inhofe,
     Russell Senate Office Building,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Inhofe: I continue to have considerable 
     concerns with the unnecessary rush to force through a vote on 
     Chuck Hagel's nomination before he has adequately responded 
     to multiple requests from members of the Armed Services 
     Committee for additional information.
       Our requests directly relate to matters he would have 
     significant influence over as our nation's Secretary of 
     Defense and are based on his alarming record on foreign 
     policy matters. For instance, Sen. Hagel has repeatedly 
     declined to support measures to crack down on state sponsors 
     of terrorism, belittled the notion of using any means to 
     prevent a nuclear Iran, advised U.S. leaders to engage in 
     direct negotiations with rogue nations and hostile terrorist 
     groups, and expressed remarkable antagonism towards the 
     longstanding U.S. alliance with Israel. Moreover, these are 
     all positions he's disavowed since his nomination.
       These deeply concerning positions rightfully raise the 
     question of what conflicts of interest could exist as a 
     result of financial compensation he has received in the 
     recent past. Under the Senate's responsibility to advise and 
     consent on nominations, it is completely appropriate to make 
     these requests for disclosure--requests that are absolutely 
     relevant to the role of our nation's Secretary of Defense. 
     Several senators, who currently oppose such requests for 
     information, contradict their own past statements that affirm 
     the importance of disclosures related to executive branch 
     nominations.
       In a February 6 letter, 25 senators, including every 
     Republican on the Senate Armed Services Committee and both 
     the Minority Leader and the Whip, agreed that neither the 
     Committee nor the full Senate has sufficient information to 
     assess Sen. Hagel's nomination.
       In order to have sufficient information, we have submitted 
     several requests. This includes requests for disclosure on 
     the personal compensation that he has received in the last 
     five years--information which is entirely within his own 
     control; requests for additional disclosure on foreign funds 
     that he may have received indirectly, and whether any such 
     foreign funds raise conflicts of interest; requests for a 
     complete list of his prior public speeches, notably multiple 
     speeches on controversial topics have been made public by the 
     press, despite those speeches having been omitted from his 
     own disclosures; and a critical request from the 
     Administration regarding additional information about the 
     precise actions taken on September 11, 2012, during and 
     immediately following the tragic murder of four Americans in 
     Benghazi.
       I believe that to date, responses to these requests are 
     insufficient. Very few positions have as great an impact on 
     national security as does the Secretary of Defense and it is 
     our responsibility to ensure that those nominated to serve in 
     this critical position are held to the highest standards.
       I am prepared to move forward on Senator Hagel's nomination 
     in a timely manner, but I do not believe the Senate should 
     vote on that nomination unless and until he provides adequate 
     disclosure in response to these requests.
           Sincerely,
                                                         Ted Cruz.

  Mr. INHOFE. Madam President, let me start off by saying that I agree 
with almost everything they have said on both sides about Chuck Hagel. 
I agree that he was a hero. I think of my own Army career and I think 
of his and how much greater his was. That isn't the issue.
  I think both Senator Graham and Senator McCain said it very well. 
Yes, his character is wonderful. We love the guy. He served his 
country. All of those things are true. The problem is the stances he 
has taken regarding Israel and countries like Iran. Israel has 
historically been a very, very close ally of ours and, I have often 
said, our only true ally in the Middle East we can count on. But we 
need to take a close look at Senator Hagel and how he would act, 
judging from his past performance, as the Secretary of Defense.
  The vote that is coming up at 4:15 is the vote for or against Senator 
Hagel. All of this talk about a procedural vote and filibustering: no. 
This is the vote to determine whether Chuck Hagel should be the next 
Secretary of Defense.
  This statement about filibustering has been made over and over again. 
They say this the first time this has ever happened. Look, we have 
people nominated all the time for Cabinet positions who are subjected 
to a 60-vote threshold. I will describe some of them right now, 
starting on the Republican's side:
  Kathleen Sebelius is now the Secretary of Health and Human Services. 
In 2009 there were a lot of people who didn't think she would be good, 
and so they objected to force a 60-vote threshold. That is what 
happened.
  John Bryson was up for Secretary of Commerce. I didn't think he would 
make a very good Secretary of Commerce. I opposed him, and he was 
subjected to the 60-vote margin.
  Here is the interesting thing. Today we have Barack Obama, who is a 
Democratic President of the United States, and then we have Harry Reid, 
who is the majority leader, so the Democrats are in control. During the 
last Bush administration, we had exactly the reverse. George Bush was 
President of the United States and a Republican, and the Democrats were 
in the minority--the same situation.
  So what happened? First of all, we had John Vogel come up. It was the 
same thing--subjected to a 60-vote margin. We had Senator Dirk 
Kempthorne. There were a lot of people who did not approve of him. He 
was nominated by President Bush, a Republican, and the Democrats didn't 
like him. They subjected him to a 60-vote margin. That wasn't a 
filibuster then. This isn't a filibuster today.
  People are trying to blame me as the bad guy who is causing a 
filibuster. That is not the case at all, any more than it was the case 
back in 2005, 2006, and other times when we had a nominee who was put 
forth by President Bush who was objected to by the Democrats.
  When Dirk Kempthorne was nominated to be the Secretary of Interior, 
there was a lot of opposition to him by the Democrats. Of course they 
said: We have to subject him to a 60-vote threshold. The Secretary of 
the Interior is a Cabinet position, but they seem to be drawing a 
distinction, for some reason, between the Secretary of Defense and any 
other Cabinet positions. As Cabinet positions, they are the same. And 
the process of requiring a 60-vote threshold happens over and over 
again.
  Senator Rob Portman--the same thing happened to him when he was 
appointed by President Bush to be the U.S. Trade Representative. The 
cloture motion was vitiated later on, but it was objected to first so 
that he would have been subjected to a 60-vote threshold.
  One that is kind of interesting is Stephen Johnson. President Bush 
appointed him to be the EPA Administrator. Actually, he was a guy whom 
I thought a lot of, and he was a Democrat. So we have here President 
Bush, a Republican, appointing a Democrat who was objected to by the 
Democrats. Now we have President Obama, a Democrat, nominating a 
Republican who is objected to by the Republicans. It is exactly the 
reverse. There is no difference at all.
  I am the ranking member of the Armed Services Committee. I will stand 
up and walk through fire to make sure every member of the committee has 
all their questions answered. That is what advice and consent is all 
about. We want to look at the individual. In the case of our committee, 
we want to make sure every member of the Committee has a chance to look 
at the process and make sure everything is out there.
  This is kind of a funny thing. The distinguished junior Senator from 
Texas, Mr. Cruz, lost his voice. For a Senator to lose his voice--what 
worse

[[Page S745]]

can happen than that? So he is not able to speak, but if he could, I 
believe he would say: It is not so much my concern, the issues that 
have been articulated by Senator McCain and by Senator Graham. My 
concern is about the process.
  Madam President, I give myself 3 additional minutes.
  The fact is this new member of the committee, a new Member of the 
Senate, knew he was entitled to have all his questions answered. He has 
tried now for weeks. He was stonewalled. He can't get them. So this is 
about the process. Senator Cruz is not making any accusations. He says: 
I just want the information I have asked for.
  I have the utmost respect for Carl Levin. He and I, despite what the 
media wishes, get along great. I love the guy. We disagree now and then 
on policy, but I really like him.

  The other day, Carl Levin said:

       Every member, every member should add his or her voice to 
     the demand for the production of relevant documents which 
     Senators need to decide on confirmation or for any other 
     legitimate reason.

  I agree wholeheartedly with that, and that is exactly what these 
individuals are asking for. They are asking for that information.
  Senator Cruz is very articulate. I regret that he lost his voice 
today.
  In the past, every time the minority has objected and has wanted as a 
matter of procedure, to have a 60-vote margin, that is what has 
happened. It has happened with a consent agreement. I asked for that, 
and I think we have that now, but we had to force it.
  This is not a filibuster. It is the same thing that was required and 
requested by Harry Reid, back when he was the minority leader, against 
John Bolton, against Stephen Johnson, against Robert Portman, and 
against Dirk Kempthorne. This is a normal way of operating.
  A lot of us still don't have the information we want, but I am 
willing and they are willing. I have checked with the people who have 
not gotten all the information they want. They said: Let's go ahead and 
have the vote. So, in a way, are they caving in? In fact, they are just 
doing all they can to be conciliatory. I think we are doing everything 
we can. We are not filibustering, and we don't want to string this out.
  I repeat one last time that this vote is the vote on Chuck Hagel. It 
is not on procedure or anything else. It is a vote on Chuck Hagel.
  Madam President, I retain the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, how much time does the majority have?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. There is 17 minutes remaining for the majority 
and 3 minutes for the minority.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam President, I yield 5 minutes to the Senator from 
Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. Madam President, this is rare. Twice in the history of 
the Senate have we had a filibuster involving a nominee for a Cabinet 
position--twice.
  But especially disappointing about this is that it was just a few 
weeks ago that we came together on a bipartisan basis and we said: We 
are not going to do this anymore. We are going to try to work together. 
We are going to try to avoid these filibusters. And here we have, 
sadly, a historic filibuster over an appointment of a former Senator--
Chuck Hagel, a Republican of Nebraska--as Secretary of Defense.
  I know there is controversy associated with his nomination, but I 
also know Chuck Hagel. I served on the Senate Intelligence Committee 
with him. We served together in the Senate. There is no question in my 
mind that the President made a good choice.
  I will also tell you that you need to know a little bit about the man 
to understand why it is a historic choice. Chuck Hagel volunteered and 
enlisted in the U.S. Army during the Vietnam era. That was not a casual 
decision. That was a time when enlisting in the Army meant you might 
risk your life. He lucked out; he got stationed in a theater that 
wasn't at war. But what does he do next? He volunteered to go to 
Vietnam. He volunteered as an enlisted man to go to Vietnam. And he 
went there--with his brother, incidentally, the two of them--to serve 
in the U.S. Army. He was involved directly in combat, was given the 
Purple Heart for his service, and he told me personally about days he 
will never forget as long as he lives. So does Chuck Hagel know what it 
takes to be a soldier? Does he know what it takes to lead the 
Department of Defense? He certainly does.
  I served on the Senate Intelligence Committee with him. I know his 
feelings on the issues. And when I listen to how some of his positions 
have been distorted, I find it hard to believe.
  Chuck Hagel was a conservative Republican Senator and an honest man 
of integrity. And some of the things that have been said about him, 
some of the charges that have been made in the course of the Armed 
Services Committee were just embarrassing, to think that colleagues in 
the Senate would say that about a man they knew and served with 
personally, or they should have known better than to say. That is why 
we are here today.
  The sad reality is that I have listened to many Republican Senators 
who are not going to vote for Chuck Hagel come up here and talk about 
how important it is to fill this position. The North Koreans detonated 
nuclear devices this week and raised concerns all over that part of the 
world and beyond. We know what is going on in the Middle East, in Syria 
and other places. We still have 68,000-plus American soldiers who are 
literally risking their lives--while we meet in the comfort and 
security of the Senate Chamber--in Afghanistan. They are risking their 
lives, and we are saying: Well, we would sure like to appoint a 
Secretary of Defense, but we have to make a political point here today. 
We have to vote against him today and put it off for 10 days, and then 
we may reconsider it again. God forbid something awful occurs in the 
next 10 days. I hope it doesn't.
  There are still good people at the Pentagon, and I am sure they will 
do a good job, but we should have that Secretary of Defense--one of the 
most critical appointments in the President's Cabinet--filled. This 
notion that we have to make a political stand here and stop Chuck Hagel 
today to make some political point really troubles me.
  Some of the requests for information about Chuck Hagel go beyond any 
of the standards of disclosure we have ever seen before. This isn't 
fair. It isn't fair to Chuck Hagel. It isn't fair to the President. It 
certainly isn't fair to the men and women in uniform all across the 
United States and around the world who are risking their lives for this 
country.
  Those who come to the floor and say that in 10 days, he will be fine, 
for goodness' sake, swallow your pride. Let's make sure we vote for him 
today. Let's fill this spot. Let's not have this sad historic 
filibuster on this appointment to the President's Cabinet.
  I really hope my colleagues will reflect on what Chuck Hagel has 
meant in his life, his service to the country, his service to the State 
of Nebraska, and his service to this Nation as a Senator. He is a good 
man, and he will do a good job in the Department of Defense. I trust 
the President's judgment.

  For anyone who thinks they are making a political point in order to 
kind of show the President that we can still filibuster, I remind them 
it was just a few weeks ago that we stood on the floor of the Senate 
and said we were going to be more thoughtful about the use of the 
filibuster in the future; we were going to be more careful that we 
don't politicize it. Unfortunately, what is happening today is a 
serious disappointment.
  I yield the floor.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, may I ask the Senator, through the Chair, 
a question?
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I would be happy to yield time to the 
Senator from California. How much time does the Senator wish?
  Mrs. BOXER. Whatever my friend wishes.
  Mr. LEVIN. I will yield 2 minutes to the Senator.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from California.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, I am glad we are voting today on the 
President's choice for Secretary of Defense, our former colleague, 
Chuck Hagel. I stand here as a Senator who has had a number of 
questions as well about some of the things he said in the past, some of 
the votes he has cast, and some of his philosophy. And what I did, as 
soon as I learned he was the President's pick, was to ask those 
questions.

[[Page S746]]

Remember the President is the Commander in Chief. This is a critical 
appointment. It has to be someone he has faith in, puts his trust in, 
and he picked someone. He picked a brave hero who served in Vietnam.
  So I wrote all my questions down, and believe me, they covered some 
tough ground on women's rights, gay rights, Iran, and Israel. There 
were a number of questions. I asked if it would be all right if when 
the answers came we could put them online so people could see the 
answers. The answer that came back was absolutely yes. The answers to 
my questions were very clear and very strong.
  Senator Hagel has evolved on certain issues. He admitted to a mistake 
on a couple. That is the hardest thing for any politician to admit. 
There are four words politicians hate to say, ``I made a mistake.'' He 
admitted to that on a couple of issues.
  I just think the way he is being treated is so sad. It is so sad. 
When I watch some of the questioning from my colleagues--not all of 
them, a couple of them, and I am not referring to my dear friend, 
Senator Inhofe--it was reminiscent of a different time and place when 
someone would say: I have here in my pocket a speech that you made on 
such-and-such a date--and, of course, nothing was in the pocket. It was 
reminiscent of some bad times.
  I am so glad we are voting today. I know it is going to be a close 
vote. I don't know what the outcome will be. I do believe eventually 
this good man will be the Secretary of Defense. I believe that in my 
heart. If anyone is still undecided on this vote, let's understand that 
never in history have we had a 60-vote requirement--to my knowledge--
for a nominee for Secretary of Defense. If I am wrong, I hope to be 
corrected. There is a reason for it.
  Lord knows I was one of the key voices of dissent on the Iraq war, 
and I was not happy about a lot of the people who were put into place 
by George W. Bush. Believe me, I didn't want to see them continue in 
those positions. I think they led us astray in Iraq, and it led to so 
many thousands of deaths. However, I never dreamed of requiring a 60-
vote majority. In my view, this is not a good day for the Senate.
  I know my friend, Senator Inhofe, is very sincere. I am on the 
Foreign Relations Committee; I am a senior member of that committee. We 
have listened to the State Department on Benghazi. We have had 
briefings and hearings and answers came in. We had secret briefings 
that were highly classified. We had open hearings--I would ask for 30 
seconds.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mrs. BOXER. I have to say, what more are you trying to get out of 
this? Benghazi was a crisis. It was a disaster. It was terrible. There 
should have been more security there, but don't blame the brave 
Americans for it. Blame the terrorists who did this.
  As the facts became available, those facts came right out. Why are we 
trying to stop this good man because of something he had nothing to do 
with?
  In closing, I hope if you are on the fence, you will vote today for 
Chuck Hagel, and a ``yes'' vote on cloture.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Parliamentary inquiry before the clock starts: I 
understand we have 3 minutes left on our side. How many minutes are 
left on the majority side?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The majority has 7 minutes 15 seconds.
  Mr. INHOFE. I don't see anyone seeking recognition, so I will go 
ahead and take the last 3 minutes.
  First of all, it is very interesting that all of those on the other 
side who are supporting Senator Hagel to be the next Secretary of 
Defense, not one of them has said anything at all about the issues. 
They all talk about the things with which we agree. He was a hero; we 
said it. Senator McCain said it and Senator Graham said it. We all 
agree he was a hero in the war, and he is deserving of this type of 
thing.
  Why is it that no one has mentioned that Senator Hagel is one of only 
two Senators who voted against sanctions against Iran? Why is it they 
don't mention that he was one of only four--in fact, all of them in the 
Majority signed a letter for solidarity with Israel. Senator Hagel was 
one of four Senators who didn't sign that letter of solidarity for 
Israel. The same thing with declaring the Iranian Revolutionary Guard 
as a terrorist group. He was one of only four Senators who did that.
  I would only say this is not a filibuster. Everybody knows it is not 
a filibuster. I hope the media is listening: This is not a filibuster. 
This is the same process that was required by the Democrats in the case 
of John Bolton, in the case of Steve Johnson, in the case of Rob 
Portman, and in the case of Dirk Kempthorne. It is a prerogative of the 
Senate. It is not a filibuster. We merely want a 60-vote margin. We 
received it in all of those cases.

  I commented earlier that when we had a Republican in the White House 
and a Democratic majority in the Senate they made that same 
requirement. I was here in the Senate for all four of them. I never 
objected to requiring a 60-vote threshold.
  Then, of course, we had a 60-vote threshold for the nomination of 
Kathleen Sebelius, who is serving now in a Cabinet position. The same 
thing. This is a Cabinet position. We had the Secretary of Commerce, 
John Bryson. I objected to him. He passed the 60-vote margin. The only 
issue is the 60-vote margin, and that is what we are talking about. It 
is not a filibuster.
  The last thing I will do is read--since our last speaker is my very 
good friend and chairman of the committee--what he said the other day. 
I wholeheartedly agreed with him when he said every Member should add 
his or her voice to the demand for the production of relevant documents 
which Senators need to decide on confirmation. I agree with that. What 
we object to is the process where we have Members who have made 
requests for information that is relevant to this appointment, and they 
have been unable to receive that information. So it is a process.
  As the ranking minority on the Senate Armed Services Committee, I 
will stand up for the rights of every single minority member of that 
committee. Senator Levin would do the same thing and stand up for the 
rights of every majority member of that committee in this process.
  I thank the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Coons). The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. I yield myself the remainder of the time.
  First of all, the questions which have been asked of us to provide 
materials of the nominee have fallen into three categories: The first 
one is to the White House about Benghazi, and those questions have been 
answered. There have been requests for Senator Hagel's speeches, and 
those speeches have been provided. Relative to financial disclosure, 
additional financial disclosure, disclosure which is required by the 
rules, that has been provided.
  The statement that was made by one of our colleagues about Corsair 
Capital is a statement which, frankly, is out of bounds. It is 
inappropriate for anyone to be asked about that when he is an adviser 
to a perfectly legitimate equity fund and has perfectly legitimate 
members on the board. There is no evidence--and the person making the 
innuendo acknowledged that there is no evidence--that the funding came 
from Saudi Arabia, Iran, or any other inappropriate place.
  So as for the information that has been provided, it is probably more 
information than probably any nominee--at least in recent memory--has 
had to provide. We have done everything we possibly can.
  Now in terms of the qualifications for Senator Hagel, this comes from 
former Secretaries of State, National Security Advisers, National 
Secretaries of Defense, including Secretary of State Albright, National 
Security Adviser Berger, Secretary of Defense Brown, National Security 
Adviser Brezezinski, Secretary of Defense Cohen, Secretary of Defense 
Gates, National Security Adviser Jones, Secretary of Defense Laird, 
National Security Adviser McFarlane, Secretary of Defense Perry, 
Secretary of State and National Security Adviser Powell, Secretary of 
State Schultz, and National Security Adviser Scowcroft.
  This is what they said, and this is the validation: We, obviously, 
know Senator Hagel. We trust Senator Hagel. We believe in his 
qualifications.
  These people are Democrats and Republicans who are outside of this 
body, and here is what they say: From his

[[Page S747]]

time as the Deputy Veterans' Administrator managing a quarter of a 
million employees, to during the Reagan Presidency, to turning around 
the financially troubled World USO, to shepherding the post-9/11 GI 
bill into law as a United States Senator, and most recently through his 
service on the Defense Policy Board at the Pentagon and as cochairman 
of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, Chuck Hagel is uniquely 
qualified to meet the challenges facing the Department of Defense.
  I have already put into the Record many of the statements that have 
been written by veterans organizations in support of Senator Hagel.
  Senator Inhofe said when no one talks about his position on Iran, 
well, yes, we do. Here is what he says:

       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.

  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 relative to Israel, he has said he is a strong supporter 
of Israel. Even more importantly, the Deputy Minister of Israel said he 
is a good friend of Israel, and, indeed, in the words of Danny Ayalone, 
said he believes--and I am now talking about Senator Hagel--Hagel 
believes in the natural partnership between Israel and the United 
States and is proud of the volume of defense relations between Israel 
and the United States which are so important to both countries.
  Now the only question that remains is what we are voting on. What we 
are voting on is to end the filibuster. My good friend from Oklahoma 
says it is not a filibuster, but the definition of ``filibuster,'' 
under our rules, is you are going to continue to talk unless there are 
60 votes to end debate. That is what we are voting on. It is called 
cloture.
  If we get cloture today, then there will be another vote on the 
nomination of Senator Hagel. The proof of that is that we have three 
Republican Senators who stood up today and said that while they are 
going to vote against cloture today, they are going to vote for cloture 
a week from this Tuesday. That is a procedural vote if I ever heard it. 
They are still going to vote against his nomination, but they have 
decided that they will vote for cloture a week from Tuesday. That is 
the difference between the vote to end debate and the vote on the 
nomination itself. What we are deciding here today is whether a 
filibuster will continue. That is not just me talking; that is the 
rules speaking. That is what the rules provide for, that we need 60 
votes to end debate.

  Has there ever been a requirement before by opponents of a nominee 
that there be 60 votes to end debate? Has this ever happened in 
history? Not for a nominee for the Defense Department, no; Secretary of 
Defense, no. For other Cabinet officers, there have been in the past 
requirements set by opponents that to stop talking we are going to have 
to get 60 votes. But that only means what the rules say it means, which 
is that under the rules of this body, conversation or debate does not 
end if the opponents insist on it until there are 60 votes. That is the 
definition of a filibuster and that is what I hope we could bring to an 
end today. If we don't bring it to an end today, then there will be 
another vote a week from Tuesday.
  I hope we don't have to do that. This position is too important. The 
dangers in this world are too severe to leave this position in this 
ambiguous state between now and a week from Tuesday, or whenever the 
final vote on approval of this nomination is. The world is too 
dangerous to have this period of uncertainty. There is no need for it. 
We have provided the documents which have been required. The 
information relative to the financial situation of Senator Hagel has 
been provided. It is time for us now to bring the debate to an end, 
require 60 votes and then, hopefully, if we can get 60 votes today, 
then vote on the final approval of this nominee. But, again, if 60 
votes aren't there today, the majority leader has made it clear he will 
then, of course, reconsider the cloture motion for a week from Tuesday. 
Either way, it is critically important that Senator Hagel's 
confirmation take place and that we fill this position of Secretary of 
Defense.
  Mr. President, I don't know if there is any time left but, if so, I 
yield it back.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.
  Under the previous order and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays 
before the Senate the pending cloture motion, which the clerk will 
state.
  The bill clerk read as follows:

                             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.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
nomination of Charles Timothy Hagel, of Nebraska, to be Secretary of 
Defense shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. HATCH (when his name was called). Present.
  Mr. CORNYN. The following Senator is necessarily absent: the Senator 
from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 58, nays 40, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 21 Ex.]

                                YEAS--58

     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Shaheen
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--40

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Barrasso
     Blunt
     Boozman
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coats
     Coburn
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Flake
     Graham
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McCain
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Reid
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Thune
     Toomey
     Wicker

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Hatch
       

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Vitter
       
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I enter a motion to reconsider the vote by 
which cloture was not invoked.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The motion is entered.