[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 2]
[Senate]
[Pages 1697-1709]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           EXECUTIVE SESSION

                                 ______
                                 

     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.

  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Under the previous order, the 
motion to proceed to the motion to reconsider the vote by which cloture 
was not invoked on the nomination is agreed to and the motion to 
reconsider is agreed to.
  Under the previous order, the time until 12 noon will be equally 
divided in the usual form.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe the business before the Senate 
now is the vote on the reconsideration of the motion to end debate on 
the Hagel nomination. Is that correct?
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator is correct.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, I believe it is now time for us to vote on 
the Hagel nomination.
  Mr. INHOFE. Excuse me. Would the Senator from Michigan yield for a 
question?
  Mr. LEVIN. Of course.
  MR. INHOFE. It is my understanding that we have equally divided our 
time between now and noon. That is about 1 hour 40 minutes. I ask 
unanimous consent, on the Republican side, that I be given the first 10 
minutes and the last 15 minutes of our Republican time.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, it is now time for us to vote up or down on 
the nomination, for many reasons.
  The nomination has been before us for an adequate length of time for 
us to get the information our colleagues have asked for, but also there 
is the looming fact of sequestration. We need to have a Secretary of 
Defense who is not only in office but whose leadership is not in limbo 
but is there. Our troops need it. Their families need it. Our country 
needs it.
  As of today we have 66,000 military personnel in harm's way in 
Afghanistan. The President of Afghanistan has just directed the United 
States to remove its special operations forces from a key Afghan 
province. Our military faces key decisions about the pace of the 
drawdown between now and the end of 2014, the size and composition of a 
residual force, and the terms and conditions for the ongoing presence 
in Afghanistan of the United States and our coalition partners after 
2014.
  At the same time we face new and growing threats elsewhere, including 
the ongoing threat posed by Iran's nuclear weapons program and the 
increasingly destructive civil war in Syria, with the risk that that 
conflict could result in the loss of control over that country's 
substantial stockpile of chemical weapons. There is also the growing 
instability in other countries affected by the Arab spring; the growth 
of al-Qaida affiliates in ungoverned regions, including parts of Yemen, 
Somalia, north Africa; and the continued unpredictable behavior of the 
nuclear-armed regime in North Korea.
  We face these challenges at a time when the Department of Defense 
budget is under unique pressure as a result of cuts previously agreed 
upon by Congress, the budgeting by continuing resolution, and the 
impending threat of a sequester. These across-the-board cuts will 
affect Defense and just about every other agency we have. Those cuts 
are going to be disastrous in many ways. I hope we can still find ways 
to avoid them, but as of right now the threat of a sequester is a real 
one. It is within a few days.
  The Department of Defense has already instituted civilian hiring 
freezes, reduced or eliminated temporary and term employees, deferred 
facilities maintenance, and begun canceling or postponing the 
maintenance of ships, aircraft, and ground vehicles. In the next few 
days, the Department will begin to implement additional actions, 
including furloughs for most civilian employees, cutbacks in flying 
hours, steaming hours and other military training, and cancellation of 
contracts. And those contracts, when they are cancelled, have major 
costs to the Treasury. Those are not savings, except in the short term, 
perhaps. But in the long term, we not only lose the equipment and the 
product of the contracts, but we also have these cancellation costs 
which will hit the Treasury.
  The result of these looming cuts is truly devastating and it is 
serious. For example, the Army informs us that if sequestration 
continues through the end of the fiscal year, two-thirds of its brigade 
combat teams will fall below acceptable readiness levels. The Air Force 
says it will not be able to support requirements outside of Afghanistan 
and will experience significant degradation in its airdrop and 
refueling capabilities. The Navy says the Nimitz and the George H.W. 
Bush carrier strike groups will not be ready for scheduled deployments 
later this year, resulting in an indefinite extension of the Truman and 
Eisenhower deployments, with the resulting impact on morale and 
retention.
  Hundreds of Department of Defense investment programs, acquisition 
programs, and research and development

[[Page 1698]]

projects may become unexecutable because we have insufficient funds to 
enter needed contracts. By the end of the summer, the Department of 
Defense says it will be unable to pay its TRICARE bills and will be in 
a position of having to deny that critical health care service to 
military members, families, and retirees.
  Our men and women in uniform need a Secretary of Defense to lead them 
through these difficult challenges. They need a Secretary of Defense to 
defend their interests in the budget battles we know are about to come. 
They need a Secretary of Defense to speak out and ensure that Congress 
and the country understand the consequences of sequester and, if the 
sequester cannot be avoided, to help them avoid the worst of those 
consequences and to end the impacts as quickly as possible. Now, as 
much as anytime in the recent past, is not a time when we can afford to 
leave the Department of Defense with leadership that is in limbo.
  Information has been requested, appropriately, by colleagues about 
the nominee. Information has been provided to the best of the nominee's 
ability. This information falls into two categories: requests for 
Senator Hagel's speeches and requests for additional financial 
disclosure.
  With regard to the speeches, Senator Hagel and his team have 
conducted an exhaustive review and have provided us with all of the 
speeches available to them--not only the prepared statements requested 
in our committee questionnaire but also transcripts and even videos of 
speeches he has been able to obtain from outside sources. Before the 
recess, I placed in the Record links to several other speeches that had 
surfaced on the Internet.
  In recent days, Senator Hagel has received additional requests for 
speeches in the exclusive control of the Washington Speakers Bureau and 
for access to his senatorial archives at the University of Nebraska.
  On the first point, the Washington Speakers Bureau has informed 
Senator Hagel and the Department of Defense that all speeches given 
under its auspices are ``private, off the record, and not recorded''--
except in rare cases where a customer requests that a recording be kept 
for archival purposes only. Further, the Department of Defense informs 
us that the Washington Speakers Bureau will not provide any recordings 
of speeches that were given by Senator Hagel or even confirm which of 
its clients may have recorded speeches. Since neither Senator Hagel nor 
the Department of Defense has access to these speeches, they cannot be 
provided to the Senate.
  On the second point, the University of Nebraska holds title to 
Senator Hagel's archives. The University has publicly stated that once 
the archives are processed and indexed according to the standards of 
the Society of American Archivists, they will be open to the public. 
Until that time, the archives will not be open to the public. Again, 
since neither Senator Hagel nor DOD has access to these materials, they 
cannot provide them to us. It is also worth noting that these archives 
cover the period of Senator Hagel's service in the Senate. Senator 
Hagel has an extensive record of speeches and votes during this period 
that are readily accessible to the Senate and the public through the 
Congressional Record and other official documents.
  With regard to financial disclosure, Senator Hagel has complied with 
the same disclosure requirements and conflict of interest rules that 
have applied to at least the last eight Secretaries of Defense and to 
hundreds of other nominees for senior DOD positions over the course of 
the last five administrations.
  Despite his compliance with the same disclosure rules that apply to 
everybody else, we have heard innuendos that Senator Hagel is trying to 
hide something. Senator Hagel serves with a number of distinguished 
individuals on the Board of Advisors of a private equity firm. We had 
one Senator suggest, without any evidence, that ``it is, at a minimum, 
relevant to know'' if the fees that Senator Hagel received for his 
service on this Board ``came directly from Saudi Arabia, [or] . . . 
from North Korea.'' Another Senator suggested that we should postpone a 
vote on the nomination because ``FOX News is going to run a story 
tomorrow regarding some speeches . . . which were made and paid for by 
foreign governments 
. . . [that] may not be friendly to us.'' This story apparently died 
before it was aired, because it was apparently based on a hoax.
  These are unfair innuendos and they have been answered even though 
they are unfair.
  Senator Hagel has an extensive record of service to his country. As a 
young man, he enlisted in the Army and served with distinction in 
Vietnam. He served as the head of the USO, and as the Deputy 
Administrator of the VA during the Reagan Administration. He was a 
businessman. Many of us served with him during his two terms in the 
Senate. Since he left the Senate, he has continued to serve, as co-
chairman of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, a 
member of the Defense Policy Board, and a member of the Energy 
Department's Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future.
  Senator Hagel has been endorsed by five former Secretaries of 
Defense, three former Secretaries of State, and six former National 
Security Advisors, who served under both Democratic and Republican 
Presidents. He has been endorsed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the 
Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of 
America, and the American Legion. He has received the support of the 
Military Officers Association of America, the Foreign Area Officers 
Association, and the Non Commissioned Officers Association.
  Last month, Senator Hagel was endorsed in a letter signed by six 
former U.S. Ambassadors to Israel, along with dozens of other retired 
senior diplomats. The letter stated:

       We support, strongly and without qualification, President 
     Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of 
     Defense. Most of us have known the Senator for a decade or 
     more and consistently have found him to be one of the best 
     informed leaders in the U.S. Congress on national security 
     issues.
       Senator Hagel's political courage has impressed us all. He 
     has stood and argued publicly for what he believes is best 
     for the United States. Time and again, he has chosen to take 
     the path of standing up for our nation, rather than the path 
     of political expediency. He has always supported the pillars 
     of American foreign policy: a strong military; a robust 
     Atlantic partnership; a commitment to the security of Israel, 
     as a friend and ally; a determination to stop the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons; and the defense of human 
     rights as a core principle of America's role in the world. . 
     . .
       We urge speedy confirmation of this outstanding American 
     patriot to be the next Secretary of Defense.

  If confirmed, Senator Hagel would be the first former enlisted man, 
and the first veteran of the Vietnam War, to serve as Secretary of 
Defense. This background gives Senator Hagel an invaluable perspective 
not only with respect to the difficult decisions and recommendations 
that a Secretary of Defense must make regarding the use of force and 
the commitment of U.S. troops overseas, but also with respect to the 
day-to-day decisions a Secretary must make to ensure that our men and 
women in uniform and their families receive the support and assistance 
that they need and deserve. It would be a positive message for our 
soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines in harm's way around the world 
to know that one of their own holds the highest office in the 
Department of Defense.
  The President needs to have a Secretary of Defense in whom he has 
trust, who will give him independent advice, a person of integrity and 
one who has a personal understanding of the consequences of decisions 
relative to the use of military force. Senator Hagel certainly has 
those critically important qualifications and he is well-qualified to 
lead the Department of Defense.
  The vote which is coming at noon is a vote to invoke cloture to end 
the debate so we can finally, later on today, hopefully, but at some 
future hour, finally vote on this important nomination and end the 
situation where this nominee is in limbo and the leadership of the 
Department of Defense is uncertain and in limbo as well. The time has 
come to vote on the nomination of Senator Hagel, and to do that we must 
end debate and invoke cloture.

[[Page 1699]]

  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, first of all, I agree with a lot of what 
the distinguished chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee has 
said. Certainly Senator Hagel has had a brilliant military career. I 
sometimes look at my time in the Army and his time in the Army and mine 
is very unimpressive. That is not what the issue is.
  I do think it is interesting in the debate we have had on the floor, 
all the time from the Democrats has been talking about his military 
record. Nobody disagrees with that. That is a fact. But there are some 
things that have to come out because they are very significant.
  First of all, what we are going to vote on at noon is the vote. There 
is not any other vote. The vote after that is merely a simple majority 
and that would be automatic. Those who are expressing where they are on 
the Hagel nomination must be reflected in the vote that takes place 
now, the cloture vote at noon today. Our time is equally divided. 
Leadership time did take up some of that so we are a little bit scarce 
on time. First, let me make it real clear this is the one vote that 
makes a difference. If they are able to get 60 votes for the Hagel 
nomination, it is history. It is over.
  I do wish to say a couple things for clarification before others on 
our side start speaking. One is about the whole idea of a 60-vote 
threshold. I have been listening to some of the pundits on television. 
One of my favorites--I will not mention her by name, but she is kind of 
the leader of the far left on television. I was watching her a couple 
days ago and she was talking about how this is something that never 
happened before, we have never had a 60-vote margin on a Cabinet-level 
position.
  This is not true. It happens all the time. It is normal. This is how 
significant this confirmation vote is. It is not something that would 
make it go for a long period of time. Actually, I have lists. Later on, 
if there is time, I am going to go over some of these. Kathleen 
Sebelius, for example, that was a 60-vote margin; John Bryson for 
Secretary of Commerce, 60-vote margin.
  Here is an interesting one. Back when President Bush, who was a 
Republican, was President, he nominated Stephen Johnson to be the EPA 
Administrator. He was a Republican. The President was a Republican. 
Stephen Johnson was a Democrat. Of course the other side was saying, 
no, we are going to demand to have cloture, and they finally did get 61 
votes on that; Dirk Kempthorne, same thing, Secretary of the Interior.
  This idea that this is the first time is just not right. I would 
appreciate it if people would be a little more honest when they are 
looking at that issue.
  They also have said we are in the middle of the wars, which we are. I 
am the ranking member on the Armed Services Committee. No one is more 
sensitive to it, no one spends more time talking to the troops than I 
do, and we do need to have confirmed a Secretary of Defense. Leon 
Panetta has said he will serve until such time as one is confirmed. But 
if we go ahead and if this should for some reason not be able to come 
up with 60 votes, I suggest they go ahead and nominate someone else and 
we will run it through. I would even help them.
  I called Leon Panetta not too long ago--I guess I should not say this 
on the floor--and asked: Why don't you agree to serve again? He has, of 
course, family reasons, and I certainly understand he was unable to do 
it. Michele Flournoy, I commented, would be one. I don't agree with her 
philosophically on a lot of things, but I think she is one who would 
not be controversial. Ash Carter--we have a number who could be 
confirmed in a matter of minutes, and I would be right there with them 
in order to help that take place.
  I do wish to say something about advice and consent. Sometimes people 
do not understand it. I had someone go back and research this. It 
started back in 1787. At the Constitutional Convention they talked 
about it. Back then they used the term ``approbation or rejection of 
the Senate.'' It means the same thing. This has been going on for a 
long period of time. Certainly, in the Federalist Papers, Hamilton 
talked about it as long as he talked about any other subject. So 
``approbation or rejection of the Senate'' is the rejection language 
that was used at that time that is advice and consent today.
  Where are we today? Certainly, the distinguished chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee, from whom we just heard, is one of the 
strongest supporters of advice and consent who has said: ``It is 
shocking and sad to me that the Senate may vote on this nominee''--it 
doesn't matter, it could be any nominee--``while Senators are being 
denied critical, relevant information.''
  The leader of the Senate has also said many times, he said ``raising 
the impression that the nominee and the White House have something to 
hide.''
  This is exactly what now is going on in reverse. It goes on and on 
with different ones who have stated over and over again the 
significance of the role that the Senate has in advice and consent.
  John Kerry said: What the Senate has to decide is whether it is going 
to stand for the rights of the committees, the rights of advice and 
consent. The Senators ought to respect the fact that both the chairman 
and ranking members had requests and those requests had not been 
fulfilled.
  That is exactly what happened. We have one of the new Senators for 
whom I have a great deal of respect, Senator Cruz. I was talking to him 
last night. I said: You ought to come down and let them know why it is 
you are not speaking on this. He said: Look, what else can I do? I have 
requested over and over and over again for information on our nominee 
for Secretary of Defense and I have been denied. I have been 
stonewalled. What else can I say?
  I said--maybe it sounded a little extreme the other day when I said I 
would walk through fire for the ability of our members on the committee 
to get all the information they are entitled to. Senator Cruz has not 
received that information. That is something that I think is very 
critical.
  What I want to do, in the short time I have left over--by the way, I 
ask unanimous consent, if following me, if Senator Coats could be 
acknowledged for 5 minutes.
  Mr. DURBIN. Reserving the right to object, I have been waiting to 
speak on this subject.
  Mr. INHOFE. After the remarks of the Senator from Illinois, I have no 
objection.
  Mr. LEVIN. I have no objection after the Senator from Illinois is 
recognized.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. INHOFE. The problem I had is not with information I had. I didn't 
need any additional information. I didn't request additional 
information. Many of the members on the Republican side of our 
committee did not receive the information they asked for. That was the 
case with Senator Cruz.
  I had a different reason. My reason is that while I think so highly 
of Senator Hagel and the work he did while he was in the Vietnam war--
he was, in fact, a hero--I have to also look at nominees and ask what 
their philosophy is. Senator Hagel was one of only two who voted 
against sanctions for Iran. He was one of only four who voted against 
an effort to designate the Iran Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, 
and one of only four who refused to sign a letter of solidarity with 
Israel.
  The Global Zero movement advocates a nuke-free world. That sounds so 
good, and it is something President Obama has talked about. He 
wistfully looks to the day when we have a nuke-free world. That sounded 
good back in the days of the Cold War. I look wistfully back at the 
days of the Cold War. Back then we had two superpowers. They were 
predictable. We knew what they had. Mutual assured destruction meant 
something to them. Mutually assured destruction doesn't mean much to 
some people in the Middle East, and I think we all understand that. So 
Global Zero sounds good until we realize that we have countries such as 
Iran--even our nonclassified intelligence says

[[Page 1700]]

it is going to have the nuclear capability and delivery system by 2015. 
I am concerned with that.
  I was in shock--and, first of all, I have to thank the chairman of 
the committee because in the years I served on the Armed Services 
Committee, I have never seen this done before--when the chairman agreed 
to allow Senator Cruz, a member of the committee, to use a video that 
had the Al Jazeera interview where Senator Hagel agreed with Al 
Jazeera's position that Israel has committed war crimes, that Israel 
has committed sickening slaughter, and that America is the world's 
bully. These are things which concern me about the attitude toward 
Israel. I understand we can go back and get a lot of people in the past 
to sign a letter, but I have to say that is still very much a concern 
of mine.
  With that, I will yield the floor to my good friend from Illinois.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Illinois.
  Mr. DURBIN. I thank the Senator from Oklahoma and the Senator from 
Indiana. I rise today to express my support for our former colleague 
Chuck Hagel to be America's 24th Secretary of Defense. We hoped Chuck 
Hagel would have been named Secretary of Defense 2 weeks ago and could 
have led the delegation to Brussels last week to meet with our NATO 
partners on the challenges we face in Afghanistan and around the world.
  Instead, he was subjected to a rare and historic filibuster by the 
other side of the aisle. What a way to give an opportunity to a man of 
Chuck Hagel's background to serve our Nation. What we have seen over 
the past 2 weeks is the cost of apostasy, the cost of breaking with a 
party, or a leadership, and what it means when their name comes up 
again for consideration.
  There is no question that there are some who bear some negative 
feelings toward Chuck Hagel because of his independence and some of his 
votes in the past--even his support of President Obama in the last 
Presidential election. But this has been taken to a level I never 
expected.
  Chuck Hagel is no stranger to most of us in the Senate. We served 
with him. I served with him on the Intelligence Committee for 4 years. 
Not once did I have any question about this man's commitment to America 
and its national defense--not once. I watched votes being taken behind 
closed doors on some very sensitive issues, and I saw Chuck Hagel 
respond in a nonpartisan way to those votes. I believe, as many have 
said on the floor, he is an extraordinary individual who has proven 
with his life his commitment to this Nation and its defense.
  He has big shoes to fill with Secretary Leon Panetta leaving. Leon 
Panetta has been an extraordinary public servant and a very close 
personal friend of mine for years now. The fact that he received a 
unanimous vote to be Secretary of Defense is as solid a tribute as 
anyone can expect in this life of public service. I believe Chuck Hagel 
is up to this task.
  There is an expression that adversity doesn't build character, it 
reveals it.
  Chuck Hagel enlisted in the Army and served in Vietnam. He received 
two Purple Hearts, the Army Commendation Medal, and the Combat 
Infantryman Badge for his service. Less well known is how he got there. 
Hagel was drafted and immediately volunteered for the Army, but he 
lucked out. He was assigned to Europe during the Vietnam war. There 
wasn't much of a war going on in Europe, so this brave, future nominee 
to head the Department of Defense literally told his commanders: I want 
to volunteer to actually go to Vietnam and risk my life.
  As he recounted it to me, he said: ``The room just stopped.'' This 
wasn't something that many people in Europe saw--in those days an 
enlisted man, who received a safe assignment in Europe, would volunteer 
to go to war. He convinced his leaders to give him that chance and he 
served alongside his brother Tom in the same unit. He said they saved 
each other's lives more than once, and thankfully they both came home 
safe to Nebraska. That was the first chapter of Chuck Hagel's public 
service and his commitment to servicemembers and veterans.
  A second chapter came in 1981 when President Ronald Reagan appointed 
Chuck Hagel Deputy Administrator of the Veterans' Administration. The 
Washington Post speculated at the time of his appointment that Hagel 
``might be expected to toe the company line.'' How wrong they were. He 
went to work immediately to be an advocate for veterans. He quickly ran 
into roadblocks while serving Vietnam vets. At one point the head of 
the VA publicly called Vietnam vets ``crybabies.''
  After months of unsuccessful attempts to bring attention to the care 
of our veterans, as they deserved, including repeatedly raising the 
issue to the White House, he did the right thing. As a matter of 
principle, he resigned in order to bring the poor treatment of veterans 
to light in America.
  He went on to start Vanguard Cellular, a very large multimillion-
dollar mobile phone company. He served as president and CEO of the USO, 
which brings a smile, a laugh, and some comfort and entertainment to 
our servicemembers around the world.
  Later, as a U.S. Senator, he shepherded the post-9/11 GI Bill into 
law along with fellow veteran Jim Webb. It was a substantial and 
overdue update of the law to ensure that we continue to keep our 
commitment to veterans. It should not surprise any of us that this 
commitment is among the reasons so many organizations back Senator 
Hagel's nomination, including the Veterans of Foreign Wars, the Iraq 
and Afghanistan Veterans of America, the AMVETS, Vietnam Veterans of 
America, the American Legion, Military Officers Association of America, 
and the Noncommissioned Officers Association. They recognize that a 
person of his character is precisely the person we need to head the 
Department of Defense.
  When I spoke with Senator Hagel in my office a few weeks ago, he 
discussed his views on security challenges around the world, including 
the challenges to the Pentagon's budget and the Iran nuclear program 
and its threat to peace in the world. It included safeguarding our 
rock-solid commitments to allies such as Israel.
  I am firmly convinced that Senator Hagel shares President Obama's 
commitment to addressing these challenges and supporting our allies. He 
is committed to the President's Iran strategy and he voted for many 
multilateral sanction packages against their nuclear program.
  My friend from Oklahoma raised one vote when it comes to Iran, but I 
wish to make a record of the fact that Chuck Hagel voted for the Iran 
Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act of 1998, the Iran Nonproliferation 
Act of 2000, and the Iran Freedom Support Act of 2006.
  In his book ``America: Our Next Chapter,'' Chuck Hagel stated that 
Iran is a ``state sponsor of terrorism,'' and that it ``provides 
material support to Hezbollah and Hamas.'' Chuck Hagel's public 
statements and voting record in the Senate demonstrate a strong 
commitment to Israel, a commitment that the United States-Israeli 
relationship will grow even stronger in the future.
  As he said in his book in 2008:

       [a]t its core, there will always be a special and historic 
     bond with Israel exemplified by our continued commitment to 
     Israel's defense.

  He also understands the budget challenges facing the Pentagon. During 
his testimony to the Armed Services Committee, he said that 
sequestration ``would send a terrible signal to our military and 
civilian workforce.''
  On this, and many other issues, Senator Hagel continues to 
demonstrate a clear-eyed commitment to our core national security 
interests and a nuanced, personal understanding of the gravity of the 
use of force. This is not just my judgment; 13 former Secretaries of 
State and Defense and former National Security Advisors wrote to the 
Senate recently, urging Senator Hagel's swift confirmation. The 
signatories included senior leaders from both parties across several 
decades of Presidential administrations, such as Robert Gates, Colin 
Powell, Brent Scowcroft, and William Cohen. These men--all of whom have 
been part of the responsibility of keeping America

[[Page 1701]]

safe--believe Chuck Hagel, as Secretary of Defense, will do exactly 
that. There are some here who may question that, and this is their 
right. But men who have had that responsibility trust Chuck Hagel, as 
do I.
  Let me quote from their letter:

       His approach to national security debates about the use of 
     American power is marked by a disciplined habit of 
     thoughtfulness that is sorely needed and these qualities will 
     serve him well as Secretary of Defense at a time when the 
     United States must address a range of international security 
     issues that are unprecedented in scope.

  Allow me to conclude by pointing to the 2002 interview Chuck Hagel 
gave to the Library of Congress Vietnam History Project. He discussed 
how he and his brother Tom would volunteer to ``walk point.'' In other 
words, to watch, be out in front watching for ambushes, booby traps, 
leading his men safely through the day. He said, ``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.''
  Forty-five years after first walking point for our servicemen in 
Vietnam, I hope Chuck Hagel may be out in front again walking point as 
our next Secretary of Defense. We need his wise counsel on matters of 
war and peace and his rock-solid commitment to our men and women in 
uniform.
  Let me conclude by saying that over this past week, in my new 
capacity as chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, I 
traveled to Africa and the Middle East. While I was there, I met with 
some of our great men and women in uniform. It was humbling to see the 
sacrifice they are making personally for the safety of the United 
States. I visited places where people we don't even know are working on 
the job every single day to protect this great Nation. I am confident 
that Chuck Hagel, as Secretary of Defense, will keep them in mind and 
keep our national security in his heart.
  I hope my colleagues on the other side will relent and spare us this 
filibuster on Chuck Hagel, and will, in fact, give him an opportunity 
to continue to serve this Nation in the capacity of Secretary of 
Defense. I look forward to working with him when that happens.
  I yield the floor.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Senator from Indiana.
  Mr. COATS. Mr. President, normally I would be talking about the 
sequester and the Nation's fiscal health, but we are about to vote on a 
critical nomination for a very critical position in this government. I 
wish to spend a few minutes defining why I came to the decision I have 
to oppose the confirmation of Senator Hagel to be Secretary of Defense.
  Chuck Hagel is a former colleague. He is someone I respect for his 
honorable service to this country, both in uniform and out of uniform. 
I respect him as a human being and as a person and, as I said, a 
colleague. I also recognize that elections have consequences, and in 
most situations the President has the right to choose his own advisers, 
but this is no ordinary Cabinet position. This is Secretary of Defense 
and one of the most critical positions in this government to protect 
the American people and to deal with national security issues.
  Based on a number of positions Senator Hagel has taken and a number 
of statements he has made throughout his career, I have serious concern 
that his nomination and confirmation will send the wrong signal and 
could have a very adverse effect on our national security. I will list 
those.
  First, and the primary reason, goes to the question of Iran and its 
relentless pursuit of nuclear weapons capability. As a Senator, Chuck 
Hagel repeatedly voted against sanctions legislation. He even opposed 
sanctions aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps who were 
killing and maiming our troops in Iraq.
  As someone who, as ambassador to Germany, made many trips to 
Landstuhl, the first stop for those maimed by improvised explosive 
devices supported by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, I saw the 
tragic consequences of their action. I could not come to grips with how 
it is possible to vote against efforts to try to sanction and punish 
those who were injuring and maiming our soldiers. During his recent 
testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Senator Hagel 
also proclaimed the legitimacy of the current regime in Tehran which 
has violently repressed its own citizens. We have seen that played out 
before our very eyes. They have rigged recent elections, provided 
material support for terrorism and denied the Holocaust.
  Regarding U.S. policy in Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, Senator 
Hagel displayed an embarrassing lack of knowledge and confusion 
regarding our official policy toward Iran--a well-understood policy. 
One of the most critical topics facing our Nation is Iran's threat to 
world stability by the possession of nuclear capability and weapons. 
Senator Hagel had to be handed a note by an aide, indicating he was not 
aware his answer was contrary to even the administration's position. 
And his attempt to correct his answer had to be further clarified by 
the chairman of the Armed Services Committee. This is central to our 
position, to our policy relative to how we deal with Iran. Yet our next 
Secretary of Defense stated a position exactly opposite from what that 
current policy is.
  The second issue of concern to me is that it is widely accepted, I 
think in a bipartisan way, that any sound strategy on Iran must be 
underpinned by the highly credible threat of U.S. military force if all 
other efforts fail; if diplomacy fails, if our ever-ratcheting 
sanctions fail as they have to this particular point. They may have had 
an impact on the Iranian public, but it has not had an impact on those 
leaders who are making the decisions about the pursuit of nuclear 
weapons. This has broad bipartisan support: Four U.S. Presidents, 
including President Obama, has declared that an Iranian nuclear arms 
capability is ``unacceptable.'' Use of military force as the last 
option, if all other options fail, is central to our ability to success 
in preventing Iran from achieving this capability.
  Senator Hagel's previous statements and record contradict all that. 
He has publicly stated that military action to stop Iran's weapons 
programs is--and I quote his statement: ``Not viable, feasible, or 
reasonable.'' Not reasonable? Is it not reasonable to have a policy the 
administration has adopted and four U.S. Presidents have endorsed? When 
asked about this at the hearing, he again failed to offer, in my 
opinion, a coherent response.
  Senator Hagel has long called for direct, unconditional talks with 
the Iranian regime, not to mention direct talks with Hamas, Hezbollah, 
and Syria as well. He has pressed that such talks should proceed 
without the backing gained from other more forceful, credible options. 
This approach is far too weak, in my opinion, to be effective and 
reveals a person less committed to results than this critical moment--
particularly regarding the Iranian intentions--demands. In fact, I fear 
a military option will have virtually zero credibility if Senator Hagel 
becomes Secretary of Defense because it sends a dangerous message to 
the regime in Tehran and undermines our efforts to prevent their 
intentions as it seeks to obtain the means necessary to harm both the 
United States and the country of Israel.
  Lastly, and the third reason I have problems with this nomination, is 
that it does not have bipartisan support. Over the last half century, 
no Secretary of Defense has been confirmed and taken office with more 
than three Senators voting against him. Further, in the history of this 
Nation, in this position, none has ever been confirmed with more than 
11 opposing votes.
  The occupant of this critical office should be someone whose 
candidacy is neither controversial nor divisive. It would be 
unprecedented for a Secretary of Defense to take office without the 
broad base of bipartisan support and confidence needed to serve 
effectively in this critical position.
  At this critical time in our Nation's history, we need a Secretary of 
Defense who commands bipartisan support and is willing to take every 
action necessary to defend the United States if the need arises. Based 
on the years of public statements and actions taken

[[Page 1702]]

during his career, I cannot say Chuck Hagel meets the criteria needed 
for this position that is so critical--the position of Secretary of 
Defense; therefore, I will oppose his nomination when the vote comes 
before us.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Schatz). The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, I know the distinguished Senator from 
Delaware, Mr. Carper, wishes to be heard. He is not on the floor now, 
so I think it is acceptable to go ahead with another Republican now; is 
that correct?
  Mr. LEVIN. Yes.
  Mr. INHOFE. I recognize the senior Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Texas.
  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, we all know the Chamber is about to hold a 
cloture vote on the President's nominee to be the next Secretary of 
Defense. If former Senator Chuck Hagel is eventually confirmed, he will 
take office with the weakest support of any Defense Secretary in modern 
history, which will make him less effective on his job.
  I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record a letter 
regarding this nomination following my remarks. It is a letter dated 
February 21, signed by 15 Senators, to the President asking him to 
withdraw the nomination, noting that no Secretary of Defense since that 
position has been created has received more than 11 opposing votes. I 
am confident this vote will eclipse that former record demonstrating 
what the Senator from Indiana was just talking about, and that is a 
lack of bipartisan support for this critical position in the 
President's Cabinet.
  What should we expect from Senator Hagel if he is confirmed as 
Secretary of Defense? Well, it is hard to say. Over the last 2 months 
he has repudiated many of his past votes and stated positions related 
to the Middle East and the Defense Department. During his confirmation 
hearings, he actually said the Defense Secretary was not a policymaking 
position. I had to scratch my head at that one.
  I also had to scratch my head when Senator Hagel described President 
Obama's policy toward Iran and its nuclear program as containment. When 
he tried to correct himself, he said President Obama does not have a 
position on containment, but that is not true either. The U.S. 
position--as the distinguished chairman of the Armed Services Committee 
reminded Senator Hagel during that hearing, and which reflects a wide 
bipartisan consensus--is that we oppose containment and will prevent 
Iran from getting nuclear weapons. That is the U.S. policy, one that 
people would think the nominee for Secretary of Defense would be aware 
of.
  Unfortunately, I fear Senator Hagel is actually expressing his own 
personal views. I fear he really does think a nuclear Iran could be 
contained. He suggested as much in the book he wrote in 2008.
  At another point during the hearing, Senator Hagel described the 
murderous, terror-sponsoring Iranian theocracy as an ``elected, 
legitimate government.'' That comment is a slap in the face to all of 
the courageous Iranian democracy activists who have risked their lives 
and, in many cases, given their lives to oppose the dictatorship and 
promote freedom.
  There is simply no way to sugarcoat it. Senator Hagel's performance 
before the Senate Armed Services Committee was remarkably inept, and we 
should not be installing a Defense Secretary who is obviously not 
qualified for the job and who holds dangerously misguided views on some 
of the most important issues facing national security policy for our 
country. For that matter, Senator Hagel was candid to admit there are 
many things about the Department he doesn't really know. He has assured 
us he will learn on the job. That doesn't inspire a lot of confidence 
in me because I don't think we want a Secretary of Defense who has to 
learn on the job.
  A moment ago I mentioned Senator Hagel holds dangerously misguided 
views about many critical issues. His supporters have called him a 
realist. In fact, there is nothing realistic about his world view.
  It is not realistic to think that by offering unconditional talks or 
establishing a new U.S. diplomatic post in Iran it will change the 
character of a regime that has spent the past 34 years waging war 
against America and our allies--a regime that was recently discovered 
to have been plotting to assassinate a Saudi diplomat by blowing up a 
crowded restaurant in Washington, DC. Likewise, it is not realistic to 
think that further engagement with Hamas will dissuade it from pursuing 
Israel's destruction. A terrorist organization that promotes genocidal 
violence is never going to be reformed by dialogue or concessions.
  Finally, it is not realistic to think that browbeating Israel will 
jumpstart the Middle East peace process. President Obama tried that 
approach himself during his first term, and it was a spectacular 
failure. We are further from a lasting peace agreement today than we 
were in January 2009, and many Israelis, along with many Arabs, believe 
the United States is no longer a reliable ally.
  When we look around the Middle East, not only do we see a theocratic 
dictatorship trying to acquire nuclear weapons, we see a terrible civil 
war raging in Syria which is led by a desperate, pro-Iranian regime 
with massive stockpiles of chemical weapons that has no reservation 
whatsoever at killing tens of thousands of its own civilians. We see 
the Muslim Brotherhood attempting to create a new dictatorship in 
Egypt. We see rising sectarian violence in Iraq because of our 
withdrawal without a status of forces agreement that would stabilize 
the country and a democracy earned by the blood and treasure of so many 
Americans. We see a substantial al-Qaida presence in countries such as 
Libya and Yemen.
  President Obama would like to pivot away from the Middle East, but 
the region isn't cooperating. Now, more than ever, we need a Secretary 
of Defense who understands the disastrous consequences of a nuclear 
Iran.
  We need a Defense Secretary who understands the importance of a 
robust U.S.-Israeli alliance.
  We need a Defense Secretary who understands Hamas for what it is: a 
genocidal terrorist group sworn to Israel's destruction.
  In a larger sense, we need a Secretary of Defense who understands why 
U.S. leadership is indispensable to solving our greatest challenges in 
the Middle East and beyond.
  Senator Hagel is clearly the wrong man for the job. This isn't about 
personality, this isn't about politics, but I will be voting against 
his confirmation for that reason: because he is clearly the wrong man 
for the job.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                Washington, DC, February 21, 2013.
     President Barack H. Obama,
     The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW., Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear President Obama: Last Thursday, the Senate voted to 
     continue its consideration of your nomination of former 
     Senator Chuck Hagel to serve as our nation's next Secretary 
     of Defense. While we respect Senator Hagel's honorable 
     military service, in the interest of national security, we 
     respectfully request that you withdraw his nomination.
       It would be unprecedented for a Secretary of Defense to 
     take office without the broad base of bipartisan support and 
     confidence needed to serve effectively in this critical 
     position. Over the last half-century, no Secretary of Defense 
     has been confirmed and taken office with more than three 
     Senators voting against him. Further, in the history of this 
     position, none has ever been confirmed with more than 11 
     opposing votes. The occupant of this critical office should 
     be someone whose candidacy is neither controversial nor 
     divisive.
       In contrast, in 2011, you nominated Leon Panetta, who was 
     confirmed by the Senate with unanimous support. His Pentagon 
     tenure has been a huge success, due in part to the high 
     degree of trust and confidence that Senators on both sides of 
     the aisle have placed in him. The next Secretary of Defense 
     should have a similar level of broad-based bipartisan support 
     and confidence in order to succeed at a time when the 
     Department of Defense faces monumental challenges, including 
     Iran's relentless drive to obtain nuclear weapons, a 
     heightened threat of nuclear attack from North Korea, 
     potentially

[[Page 1703]]

     deep budget cuts, a strategic pivot to the Asia-Pacific 
     region, military operations in Afghanistan, the ongoing 
     Global War on Terror, the continued slaughter of Syrian 
     civilians at the hands of their own government, and other 
     aftermath of the Arab Spring.
       Likewise, Senator Hagel's performance at his confirmation 
     hearing was deeply concerning, leading to serious doubts 
     about his basic competence to meet the substantial demands of 
     the office. While Senator Hagel's erratic record and myriad 
     conversions on key national security issues are troubling 
     enough, his statements regarding Iran were disconcerting. 
     More than once during the hearing, he proclaimed the 
     legitimacy of the current regime in Tehran, which has 
     violently repressed its own citizens, rigged recent 
     elections, provided material support for terrorism, and 
     denied the Holocaust.
       Regarding U.S. policy on Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, 
     Senator Hagel displayed a seeming ambivalence about whether 
     containment or prevention is the best approach, which gives 
     us great concern. Any sound strategy on Iran must be 
     underpinned by the highly credible threat of U.S. military 
     force, and there is broad bipartisan agreement on that point. 
     If Senator Hagel becomes Secretary of Defense, the military 
     option will have near zero credibility. This sends a 
     dangerous message to the regime in Tehran, as it seeks to 
     obtain the means necessary to harm both the United States and 
     Israel.
       We have concluded that Senator Hagel is not the right 
     candidate to hold the office of Secretary of Defense, and we 
     respectfully request that you withdraw his nomination. Thank 
     you for your consideration.
           Sincerely.
         John Cornyn; Lindsey Graham; David Vitter; Mike Lee; 
           Marco Rubio; Ron Johnson; Tom Coburn; Tim Scott; James 
           Inhofe; Roger Wicker; Ted Cruz; Patrick J. Toomey; 
           Daniel Coats; James E. Risch; John Barrasso.

  Mr. CORNYN. Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. CARPER. Mr. President, it is rare that I disagree with the 
Senator from Texas--maybe once or twice in the last half a dozen years. 
Seriously, we disagree from time to time, but we do it in a way that we 
are not disagreeable with one another.
  I support the President's nomination of Chuck Hagel to be our 
Secretary of Defense, and I wish to take a couple of minutes to explain 
why.
  For folks who might be watching this from afar, this body used to 
operate very differently than it does today. The President would 
nominate people to serve in a cabinet or to serve as judges and there 
would be hearings. There would be debate. Sometimes people would 
disagree. But, certainly, for Cabinet appointments and for sub-Cabinet 
level appointments, for the most part, the President got the team he, 
or someday she, asked for. That is the way we have done it as Governors 
across the country, and it is the way we still do it. The idea of 4 
years of this administration to still be playing a game of executive 
branch Swiss cheese--we have so many relatively high level positions, 
confirmable positions that are still vacant--is not good, whether it 
happens to be a Democratic administration or a Republican 
administration.
  The President, regardless of what party they are from, needs, for the 
most part, to have the team they want to put in place. They have been 
elected to lead. Let's give them a chance to lead. If they screw up, we 
can hold them accountable.
  I had the pleasure of serving with Chuck Hagel for, I guess, my first 
8 years as a Senator. I like him and respect him as a fellow Vietnam 
veteran. He is a war hero. He was wounded not once but twice. He has 
the Purple Hearts and some other decorations to show, to demonstrate 
his valor.
  He came back, put his life together, built a business, a good-sized 
business, ran that business, and he has led some large government 
entities, including those that look out for our veterans and others 
too.
  As to the question of does one have the kind of intimate knowledge of 
the Department of Defense we would like for a person to have, he has 
had good training. He has had good exposure. He has been there. He has 
done that. He has been able to, as an innovator, as an entrepreneur, 
start a business, grow a business, run that business, build that 
business.
  Here he served on the committees of jurisdiction that actually 
enabled him to drill down on parts of the Department of Defense and 
part of our defense policy and foreign policy that you never have a 
chance to when you are over there serving in Southeast Asia or some 
other area around the world as a member of our Armed Services.
  When I went with Chuck on a codel--I want to say it was maybe in 
2005--that is when we actually get to know people around here. We could 
be here, be kind of airdropped in on Monday afternoons, vote, and then 
by the time Thursday night rolls around, folks here smell the jet fumes 
and they are ready to go back to Hawaii or Michigan or Oklahoma or 
someplace such as that. We go by train to Delaware. But people are 
ready to head for home, and we just do not have the kind of time 
together, quality time together, that we used to have when people would 
actually stay here for weekends, when we were not focused 24/7 on 
fundraising, and we actually had--believe it or not--dinner clubs and 
people carpooled to work. Can you imagine that: Democrats and 
Republicans carpooling to work here? We just do not have those 
opportunities these days. I do not know that we ever will again.
  So one of the great opportunities we have to know people is when we 
go on codels, these congressional delegation trips. I had the 
opportunity to go with Chuck Hagel on a codel he led over one-half 
dozen years ago. We went to the Middle East. We went to Israel. We 
spent time along Gaza. We went to Jordan. We met with leaders of Saudi 
Arabia. I had a chance to actually see him interact up close and 
personal with leaders of all those countries, see how he handled 
himself, to see his knowledge of the issues, his ability to debate, 
discuss those issues with the leaders of three of the most important 
nations, allies of ours in the world.
  I was proud of the job he did then. I was proud of the leadership he 
showed on those occasions. I was proud of his grasp of the issues.
  Do you know the other thing I was proud of? He was willing to be 
honest and frank with people with whom we need to be honest and frank. 
He reminds me of one of the old caveats of leadership, which is that 
leadership is having the courage to stay out of step when everybody 
else is marching to the wrong tune. Leadership is also the willingness 
to speak truth to power, to tell people--sometimes our leaders, whether 
they be the President or, frankly, sometimes leaders of other 
countries--what they need to hear, maybe not what they want to hear.
  Chuck Hagel is that kind of person. I believe he is principled. I 
think he is hard working, that he will surround himself with good 
people, ethical people, honest people, capable people, bright people.
  I think as a former Member here, he understands the importance of the 
interaction between us and the Department of Defense, which I hope he 
will have the opportunity to lead.
  When we passed something called the Chief Financial Officer Act, I 
think in 1990 in this Chamber, coauthored, I think, by Bill Roth, my 
predecessor, one of the requirements of that legislation was not only 
would every major department in our government be required to have a 
chief financial officer, but also, in addition, there was a full 
expectation that all these departments which were not auditable--could 
not be audited--had to become auditable. They had to be capable of 
being audited. Then there was the full expectation that once they were 
auditable, they would be able to pass an audit fully without 
qualification.
  Today, there are two departments in the Federal Government that are 
not auditable and have not passed an audit in an unqualified manner. 
One of them is the Department of Homeland Security. They are getting 
real close. They are knocking on the door. I think they will get it 
done by next year. I congratulate the Secretary and their team for 
doing that.
  The other is the Department of Defense. For years and years and years 
they would say: Well, manana. We will do that manana, next year or the 
year after that. They have not. Why is this important? What you cannot 
measure you cannot manage. What we cannot

[[Page 1704]]

measure we cannot manage. The Department of Defense is unable to 
measure well and, as a result, they do not manage as well as they need 
to.
  We just got a high risk update from the GAO, the General 
Accountability Office, 2 weeks ago. High on their list of issues that 
need to be addressed is the Department of Defense's need to be able to 
pass an unqualified audit so their financials, their accounting systems 
and supply systems, their spare parts systems, personnel systems 
actually work.
  Leon Panetta has done much in the 2 years he has served as Secretary 
of Defense to make sure the Department of Defense takes this obligation 
seriously. I commend him and I thank him for that. He has been like a 
breath of fresh air.
  Second, Chuck Hagel has given me his personal commitment that he will 
not relent, he will not turn back, but he will continue on this path of 
undertaking and be in a position by the next 3 years to do what the 
Department of Homeland Security is about to complete, the benchmark 
they are about to reach, the milestone they are about to reach, and the 
milestone that virtually every other Department of the Federal 
Government has reached.
  We are looking down the barrel of a gun this Friday--sequestration. 
If we are serious about making sure we do not get shot by that gun, 
mortally wounded by that gun, along with our economy, we are going to 
have to make sure we are doing three things better.
  One of those is, we need some additional revenues. We need to have 
revenues closer to the level of where revenues were in the 4 years we 
had balanced budgets under Bill Clinton, where revenues as a percentage 
of GDP, my colleagues will recall, ranged anywhere from 19\1/2\ percent 
of GDP to 20\1/2\ percent of GDP--somewhere in that range. Last year, 
it was about 15\1/2\, maybe 16 percent of GDP.
  With the fiscal cliff deal adopted in this body and signed by the 
President back in early January, revenues as a percentage of GDP by the 
end of these 10 years will be up to about 18, 18\1/2\ percent. But some 
additional revenues are needed, very much in line with what we had when 
we actually had four balanced budgets in a row under the Clinton 
administration. Remember, those were the first balanced budgets we had 
since 1969. So, No. 1, we need some additional revenues--in smart ways.
  The second thing we need to do is entitlement program reform. Over 
half the money we spend is on entitlements. Is it possible? The 
President says we need entitlement reform that saves money, does not 
savage old people, poor people, and actually makes sure these programs 
are around for future generations. I could not agree more. That is No. 
2.
  The third thing we need to do is find ways to save money in 
everything we do--everything we do--from agriculture to transportation 
and everything in between, including defense.
  I am told--and I am going to look over here at Senator Levin, the 
chairman of the committee, and the ranking member, Senator Inhofe, and 
just ask a rhetorical question. I recall hearing not long ago that we 
spend more as a nation on defense--I say this as a 23-year veteran 
naval flight officer, Active and Reserve Duty, a Vietnam veteran--but I 
am told we spend as much money on defense as maybe the next 5, 6, 7 
nations combined.
  As important as it is for our next Secretary of Defense to have a 
good grasp of military issues--foreign issues, intelligence issues, the 
ability to manage big operations, to have strong managers under him or 
her--as important as that is, it is important for us to spend more 
wisely.
  A good place to start is the GAO high risk list for high-risk places 
where we are wasting money and that we get a good to-do list out of 
GAO. It is one I think we ought to take seriously. I know the chairman 
of our committee and the ranking member take it seriously. Believe me, 
I do too.
  One of things we are going to use from our commitment of Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs--on which Senator Levin serves, and 
he chairs the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations--we are going to 
make sure we hold the feet of the Department of Defense to the fire, 
and we need a Secretary of Defense who will do that as well--someone 
who is a fiscal hawk, someone who understands the importance of getting 
better results for less money in everything we do, including providing 
for the defense of our country.
  That is not the speech I brought with me to the floor, but it is the 
speech that is in my heart.
  I just say to my colleagues, if you are on the fence and you are not 
sure whether you ought to vote for cloture, someday we are going to 
have a Republican President again. Someday we will have a Republican 
majority here. There is an old saying: Every dog has its day. Today we 
have a Democratic President and we have a Democratic Senate for 
confirmations. Someday that will not be the case. I will say to our 
Republican friends, just be careful. Just be careful. I say this with 
respect: Be careful of the bed we make because someday our friends on 
the other side will get to lie in it. Do we want to continue to go on 
with this precedent of maybe even denying an up-or-down vote on the 
nomination of a Secretary? I do not think so. I do not think that is a 
good precedent. An even worse precedent is to have all these sub-
Cabinet-level positions that are vacant and have been vacant, in some 
cases, for weeks, months, in some cases for longer. That is a terrible 
precedent to have, and we need to stop it. A good time to stop it is 
right now.
  I am pleased to stand and endorse the nomination of Chuck Hagel. I 
think he was a credit to his State, to this body when he served here, 
and I think he will be a credit to us if he is confirmed. I urge his 
confirmation starting with today's vote for cloture.
  Thank you very much.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. President, I too rise in opposition to the nomination 
of Chuck Hagel to lead the Department of Defense. Mr. Hagel is probably 
going to get his vote, but let me say this to my friend from Delaware. 
If a Republican President in the future brings a nomination for Defense 
Secretary to this Senate and he does not get as many as 60 votes, I 
will ask that Republican President to withdraw that nomination, and I 
wish this President would do the same. This could have been an easy 
matter. The selection of the Defense Secretary for President Obama's 
second term could have been a unifying moment. There were a host of 
qualified, able candidates, both Republican and Democrat, who could 
have sailed through the process. The President knew controversy was 
ahead and decided to name Senator Hagel anyway.
  There were signals from the right and from the left that Senator 
Hagel would be a divisive and distracting choice. The Washington Post 
editorial board gave the President good advice on December 18 by 
saying: ``Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary.''
  The differences surrounding Senator Hagel's nomination during the 
last few weeks stand in stark contrast to the unanimous support for 
outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta. Mr. Hagel's nomination is 
markedly different from the overwhelming confirmation of Senator John 
Kerry for Secretary of State.
  With so much at stake in the coming days, this should be a time for 
consensus and cooperation. A nominee who could draw unequivocal support 
would have served our defense priorities better--and those of our 
allies.
  This confirmation fight occurs against the backdrop of severe across-
the-board cuts to America's defense programs that are set to take 
effect this week unless current policy is changed. The Joint Chiefs of 
Staff reiterated this disastrous reality at a hearing on February 12. 
The generals and admirals who testified are some of the most respected 
in the Pentagon. They are some of the most respected in the world. They 
made it clear that these cuts, at nearly one-half trillion dollars, 
threaten America's military readiness and national security. Based on 
their expertise, we are obliged to believe them.
  By contrast, Senator Hagel has called the defense budget ``bloated.'' 
He

[[Page 1705]]

did not simply say there is some fat we can trim or that there is room 
for savings, as we all believe. No, he said it was bloated.
  Which is it? Are the Joint Chiefs of Staff correct or is Chuck Hagel 
correct? The testimony from Defense officials is clearly at odds with 
Mr. Hagel's shortsighted assessment.
  Would Senator Hagel defend a robust defense budget in the face of 
indiscriminate cuts that could weaken our national security or does he 
believe sequestration is the answer to what he calls a bloated defense 
budget?
  The statement that our national security budget is bloated is only 
one of many outlandish pronouncements Senator Hagel has used to grab 
attention rather than give an accurate evaluation of the situation at 
hand.
  Senator Hagel has in fact made a career out of speaking against the 
bipartisan mainstream and taking positions on the fringe of public 
opinion. Here are a few other examples: Senator Hagel has accused 
Israel of ``playing games'' and committing ``sickening slaughter'' when 
it was defending itself from Hezbollah terrorists in Lebanon. He has 
said that Israel should not keep the Palestinians ``caged up like 
animals.''
  We never had a Defense Secretary who would have said such a thing. 
Senator Hagel has said the ``Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people 
up here'' and forces Congress to do ``dumb things.''
  On Iran, Senator Hagel has stated he is both for and against 
unilateral sanctions. He wrote to Senator Boxer's office on January 14:

       I agree that, with Iran's continued rejection of diplomatic 
     overtures, further effective sanctions, both multilateral and 
     unilateral--may be necessary.

  A week earlier, Senator Hagel told the Lincoln Journal Star that he 
opposed unilateral sanctions because they ``don't work and they just 
isolate the United States.''
  When speaking about the Iraq war, Senator Hagel has described it as a 
``meat grinder,'' a crude characterization that succeeded, once again, 
in gaining him some additional headlines.
  Perhaps, in an effort to minimize his inconsistent record, Senator 
Hagel said during the Armed Services hearing on January 31 that he 
``won't be in a policy-making position'' as Defense Secretary. This 
comment illustrates either naivety or a disturbing abdication of the 
Defense Secretary's responsibilities, which include well-informed 
policy decisions that will affect the lives of men and women in 
uniform. Of course the Secretary of Defense makes policy.
  During the Armed Services hearing, Senator McCain was correct to try 
to ascertain what Senator Hagel's feelings are today about the surge in 
Iraq. A number of people agreed with Senator Hagel at the time but are 
now willing to admit with hindsight that the surge went better than 
expected, but not Senator Hagel.
  Let's not forget that Senator Hagel did not merely oppose the surge. 
It was not enough to say he had misgivings or doubts. He called it the 
greatest foreign policy blunder since the Vietnam war. This has been 
the extreme, outlandish, rhetorical approach of Chuck Hagel throughout 
his career.
  People involved in a position of this importance need to be careful 
about what they say. When one is being interviewed for a book, they 
should choose words wisely. That is why, during the Armed Services 
hearing, I asked Senator Hagel about why he told author Aaron David 
Miller ``the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up here'' and 
that he ``always argued against some of the dumb things they do.''
  Let me make this clear. Americans who come to Washington and advocate 
for Israel do meaningful work to advance a strong, sovereign, and 
democratic Israel, America's closest ally in the Middle East. Mr. Hagel 
did not defend his comments at the hearing. Instead, he blamed his 
statements on a poor choice of words.
  Congressional actions, such as tough Iran sanctions and greater 
military cooperation with Israel, are not the products of intimidation. 
To suggest otherwise challenges the bipartisan judgment of the men and 
women elected to serve in this Chamber.
  When questioned by Senator Graham during the hearing, Senator Hagel 
could not name one person in Congress who had been intimidated or one 
dumb thing that Congress had done because of the pro-Israel lobby. One 
or two troubling statements might not be disqualifying when taken 
alone, but all of the positions taken together paint what I believe is 
an accurate picture of this nominee. Our troops and allies need to rely 
on the words of the Secretary of Defense. Changing viewpoints for the 
purpose of political expediency or to make headlines is not the 
hallmark of a steadfast leader.
  Weeks after the process began, two conclusions emerged from the 
totality of the information that has come to light about Senator Hagel: 
Either we should disregard everything he has said and stood for as 
merely hyperbole---- The PRESIDING OFFICER. The time of the Senator has 
expired.
  Mr. WICKER. May I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute?
  Mr. INHOFE. I yield 2 additional minutes to the Senator from 
Mississippi.
  Mr. WICKER. I thank the gentleman.
  Let's say everything the Senator has said is merely hyperbole or this 
is a nominee with a very unsettling and naive world view. You can't 
have it both ways. Either he means what he said over his career or it 
has all been theater.
  The President is entitled to make his nomination, but the Senate must 
uphold its important constitutional duty to provide advice and consent 
on this nomination.
  Early on, many friends on the Democratic side of the aisle voiced 
their very real concerns. Let me ask, Has Chuck Hagel truly answered 
those concerns? Which Chuck Hagel are we being asked to confirm: the 
one who shoots from the hip and means what he says or the one who is 
now willing to say anything to be confirmed?
  We need a Secretary of Defense who can stand before the world and 
articulate that America is opposed to a nuclear Iran and rejects a 
policy of containment. We need a Secretary of Defense who can stand 
before the world and be clear that the Iranian Government is not a 
legitimately constituted government. We need a Secretary of Defense who 
has broad, bipartisan support. Sadly, that Secretary is not Chuck 
Hagel.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. President, may I inquire how much time remains on both 
sides?
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan has 11\1/2\ minutes 
remaining, and the Senator from Oklahoma has 11 minutes.
  The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, it is my understanding we each have about 
11 minutes. I will take my time and request to be acknowledged when I 
have 2 minutes remaining.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will do so.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, this has been a good debate. We have 
repeated a lot of things that have been said before. There are just 
some things I think are worth repeating.
  I need to say over and over again, as often as I can, that nobody is 
impugning the integrity of former Senator Hagel. Everyone is very 
complimentary of the great service he has performed in military 
service. That is not the issue. That has nothing to do with it.
  The thing that is important is the fact that they have said 
continuously, over and over again, this is a filibuster. They have said 
this is the first time that there has been a filibuster on a Cabinet 
nominee. That is just not true. This happens all the time. In fact, in 
recent history there have been six demands for cloture on the 
Democratic side as opposed to only one on the Republican side. This is 
not a filibuster.
  Rather than take my word for it, take our Vice President Joe Biden's 
word for it when he said this is not a filibuster. He was talking about 
a controversial appointee. A letter was sent by him to his colleagues 
arguing that opposing cloture was not a filibuster. He said: ``It is a 
vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power to advise and consent 
to nominations.''

[[Page 1706]]

  This is worth repeating. Vice President Joe Biden said it is not a 
filibuster. ``It is a vote to protect the Senate's constitutional power 
to advise and consent to nominations.''
  This expresses the frustration of our new Senator from Texas, Senator 
Cruz, who finally just gave up. He said: You know, I have been wanting 
to exercise my constitutional rights all of this time. Senator Cruz 
said, I have said it over and over again, and I have requested over and 
over again the information to which I am entitled and to which I have a 
constitutional right.
  I am in a position to quote--I have already done it several times 
from this podium--our distinguished chairman, who also agrees we need 
to have those rights. Certainly, we have quoted Senator Kerry and 
others talking about the fact that requiring this information is simply 
something so ingrained in our system. This is not just Jim Inhofe and 
Alexander Hamilton talking, this is everybody throughout this country's 
history.
  This is one of the things that people should consider: This is not a 
filibuster, and we have not received the information to which we are 
entitled. It is not just Senator Cruz, it is others too. It doesn't 
happen to be me because I am opposing this nominee for many of the same 
reasons that the previous speakers, Senator Cornyn and Senator Wicker 
from Mississippi, have stated.
  I know we are close to running out of time. I think the senior 
Senator from Texas, Mr. Cornyn, brought out and has probably talked 
more--and has in the last month--about the concerns he has regarding 
the Middle East, with the attitude of former Senator Hagel to the 
various Middle Eastern countries and how Hezbollah, Hamas, all of those 
work into it.
  In the case of Iran, I am and have been concerned about the attitude 
of Mr. Hagel in terms of this group called Global Zero movement that 
wants to do away with nukes, even if it is unilateral.
  This isn't the way it used to be in the old days. As I said a minute 
ago, I look wistfully upon those days because it is not that way 
anymore. Our unclassified intelligence says Iran is going to have 
nuclear capability and a delivery system by 2015. Why would we want to 
bring down our nuclear capability in an environment like that? We also 
know and have watched recently what North Korea has done, all of them 
trading with China, Syria, and these other countries. It is not like it 
was in the old days.
  I need to mention this also because three of the previous speakers 
spoke about Iran, their concern about the statements that have been 
made in support of Iran by Mr. Hagel. If you look at some of the quotes 
that come from Iran, you need to remind people those guys are bad guys 
over there. One of their statements from their ministry was that people 
of the Middle East--the Muslim region and North Africa, people from 
these regions--hate America from the bottom of their hearts. Then they 
go after, of course, Israel. They said Iran's warriors are ready and 
willing to wipe Israel off the map. The Zionists will receive a 
crushing response from the Islamic Republic's armed forces, which will 
lead to their annihilation.
  This is the Islamist Revolutionary Guard, the same group which was to 
be declared a terrorist group when he was then-Senator Hagel, and he 
was only one of four Members of the entire Senate who objected to 
designating the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist group. This quote is 
the one that received my attention the most, and it has directly to do 
with Israel. Iran said:

       They launched the myth of the Holocaust. They lied, they 
     put on a show and then they support the Jews.

  This is interesting they would have that kind of a strong statement. 
I asked my staff this morning if they remembered a movie called 
``Schindler's List.'' ``Schindler's List'' was a movie I never saw 
until it was on national TV 3 days ago, and I couldn't stop watching 
it. I couldn't turn it off. You need to look at the Holocaust from that 
perspective. Iran denies it even took place.
  You will not find any country or any area we have dealt with in the 
past that is more anti-Israel than Iran. I have to say also, if anyone 
wants to know some of my feelings, I have made over five speeches more 
than 1 hour each on the floor of this Senate about Israel, and they are 
entitled to the land. All of these issues are very important--the mere 
fact Iran would say the Holocaust didn't exist.
  Now, keep in mind--and I know the response to this is that we don't 
have any control over who supports him, but it is interesting, though--
that Iran supports Chuck Hagel's nomination to be Secretary of Defense. 
I mean, Iran arguably could be considered to be the greatest foe that 
is out there for the United States, recognizing the capabilities they 
are going to have and the statements they have made about the United 
States of America. That is frightening.
  So those are the reasons I was concerned initially about this 
nomination--and I think it has been said and said very well by the 
Senator from Mississippi, who went over all the details--and I think it 
is something that has to be looked at and looked at seriously.
  The idea that this process of requiring a 60 vote margin is new at a 
Cabinet level--I mentioned that a very prominent leftwing television 
station was talking about that over and over again, that this has never 
happened, there has never been a Cabinet position that has been 
filibustered. First of all, it is not filibustering. We know that 
because we heard that from John Kerry, Joe Biden, and all the rest of 
the people who have been concerned about the fact that there is 
something improper about cloture when it comes to nominees. There is 
nothing more important than a President nominating someone for these 
Cabinet positions, and it is very common that they are questioned by 
the opposition, by an opposition party to the President in the Senate. 
We are the ones who have that constitutional responsibility.
  I remember because I was sitting here when Kathleen Sebelius went 
through the same thing. She, obviously, had to finally have a 60-vote 
margin. John Bryson, Secretary of Commerce--I remember what he went 
through. Also, I recall very well Miguel Estrada. I remember being down 
here with Miguel Estrada, and they rejected him seven different times. 
They required a 60-vote margin. He always got in the fifties. The 
highest he got was 55. But he was rejected.
  So what we are saying is that this is not anything unusual. We all 
know about Dirk Kempthorne and Steven Johnson. Steven Johnson happened 
to be an appointee of Republican President Bush, yet he was a Democrat, 
and he was one where finally we were able to get the 60 votes. We got 
61 votes. So, again, there is nothing unusual about this.
  My only plea is that we consider some of the things that are in the 
background of this nominee to be Secretary of Defense, as has been 
stated before. The fact that he is one of only two who were against 
sanctions in Iran, one of only four who opposed designating the Iranian 
Revolutionary Guard as terrorists, one of only four who refused to sign 
a letter of solidarity with Israel, and the fact that--and I do applaud 
and appreciate the chairman of the committee for allowing Senator Cruz 
to show the video of an interview on Al Jazeera--Senator Hagel agreed 
with the comment that Israel made war crimes or the statement that 
Israel committed sickening slaughters and that America is the world's 
bully. These all underscore the fact that Senator Hagel is not the kind 
of person we need as Secretary of Defense for the United States of 
America.
  With that, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Michigan.
  Mr. LEVIN. First, on the question of whether this is a filibuster, 
under our rules Senators have a right to speak and debate as long as 
they want until 60 Senators decide it is time to end debate. That is 
the definition, under our rules, of a filibuster. And that is the right 
of Senators to engage in. That is not the issue, as to whether it is 
right; the issue is whether it is now time to end debate. Under our 
rules, in order to

[[Page 1707]]

bring debate to an end, where Senators insist on continuing a debate 
unless 60 Senators vote to end it, this is what this vote will be about 
at noon--whether we want to bring this debate to an end. Why? Well, 
first of all, we need a Secretary of Defense. But before we can get a 
Secretary of Defense, there has to be a vote on the nomination itself. 
The vote at noon will be a vote as to whether we want to bring this 
debate to an end so that we can, at a later time--hopefully today--then 
vote on the nomination itself. That is a majority vote, not 60 votes. 
In fact, the final vote on either a nominee or on a bill is always a 
majority vote. The 60 votes comes into play when Senators say: We are 
not going to end debate. We have a right to talk as long as we want in 
the Senate until 60 Senators vote to end it. And we demand that vote of 
60 Senators takes place to see if there are 60 Senators who want to end 
debate. That is called cloture. That is what we will be voting on at 
noon. That is the very definition of a filibuster, under our rules.
  So it is not unusual, as the Senator from Oklahoma says, for there to 
be a demand for a cloture vote on positions in the Cabinet. That has 
happened before. But what has never happened is that that has been 
insisted upon for a nomination to be Secretary of Defense. That is what 
is unusual.
  It seems to me it is essential now that we get to the vote on the 
nomination itself, which will come later on today--again, I hope--and 
the only way to do that is if we vote to end the debate on this 
nomination, which is what will take place at noon. Whether there will 
be 60 votes, we will find out at noon, but hopefully there will be 
because this is a position which needs to be filled.
  There have been many misstatements about quotes of Senator Hagel. 
Obviously, not all of the statements that have been attributed to him 
are misstatements, but some of them are. Just one of them we heard 
earlier this morning was about the fact that he has talked about the 
sickening slaughter by the Israelis in the case of Lebanon. So here is 
the quote, and it was a full speech. It was on C-SPAN. The quote is--
and this involves the issue of Lebanon--``The sickening slaughter on 
both sides must end.'' So what Senator Hagel was bemoaning was the loss 
of lives on both sides. I would hope that decent people everywhere 
would bemoan the massive loss of lives on both sides that occurred 
during those events in Lebanon. I was there, and I saw what happened--
the huge loss of life. So he was bemoaning the sickening slaughter on 
both sides and saying it must end and calling on President Bush to call 
for an immediate cease-fire. I find nothing reprehensible about such a 
call.
  This has been a debate which has raised a lot of issues, but, to me, 
some of the most compelling arguments have been made by former 
Secretaries of Defense and State urging that we approve and confirm 
Senator Hagel.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have printed in the Record 
letters of support to which I will refer. At an earlier time, they were 
made part of the Record, but it is important that they be made a part 
of the Record of today's debate and not just previous debates.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                December 20, 2012.
     Ambassadors' Open Letter: Senator Hagel Impeccable Choice for 
         Defense Secretary
       We support, most strongly and without qualification, 
     President Obama's reported intention to nominate Senator 
     Chuck Hagel to be the next secretary of defense. Each of us 
     has known the senator over the past twenty years and has 
     found him invariably one of the best informed leaders in the 
     U.S. Congress on the issues of U.S. national security. 
     Senator Hagel's credentials for the job are impeccable. As a 
     decorated Vietnam veteran, an extremely successful 
     entrepreneur in the private sector and as a two-term senator, 
     he brings unusually high qualifications and experiences to 
     the Department of Defense at this time of budget constraint 
     and challenges to reshape America's military power while 
     keeping it strong for the coming decades.
       Senator Hagel's political courage has impressed us all. He 
     has stood and argued publicly for what he believes is best 
     for the United States. When he was attacked for opposing the 
     war in Iraq as ``unpatriotic,'' he replied, ``To question 
     your government is not unpatriotic--to not question your 
     government is unpatriotic.''
       Time and again he chose to take the path of standing up for 
     our nation over political expediency. He has always supported 
     the pillars of American foreign policy--such as: a strong 
     NATO and Atlantic partnership; a commitment to the security 
     of Israel, as a friend and ally; a determination to stop the 
     proliferation of nuclear weapons; and the defense of human 
     rights as a core principle of America's role in the world.
       Each of us has had the opportunity to work with Senator 
     Hagel at one time or another on the issues of the Middle 
     East. He has invariably demonstrated strong support for 
     Israel and for a two state solution and has been opposed to 
     those who would undermine or threaten Israel's security.
       We can think of few more qualified, more non-partisan, more 
     courageous or better equipped to head the Department of 
     Defense at this critical moment in strengthening America's 
     role in the world. If he is nominated, we urge the speedy 
     confirmation of Senator Hagel's appointment.
           Sincerely,
         Nicholas Burns, former Under Secretary of State for 
           Political Affairs, Ambassador to NATO and Greece; Ryan 
           Crocker, former Ambassador to Iraq and Afghanistan; 
           Edward Djerejian, former Ambassador to Israel and 
           Syria; William Harrop, former Ambassador to Israel; 
           Daniel Kurtzer, former Ambassador to Israel and Egypt; 
           Sam Lewis, former Ambassador to Israel; William H. 
           Luers, former Ambassador to Venezuela and 
           Czechoslovakia; Thomas R. Pickering, former Under 
           Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Ambassador to 
           Israel and Russia; Frank G. Wisner, former Under 
           Secretary of Defense for Policy, Ambassador to Egypt 
           and India.
                                  ____



                                                  U.S. Senate,

                                 Washington, DC, January 24, 2013.
     Re Support Senator Hagel's Nomination

       Dear Colleague: I wanted to share the attached letter from 
     thirteen former Secretaries of Defense, Secretaries of State, 
     and National Security Advisors in support of Senator Hagel's 
     nomination for Secretary of Defense.
       These eminent national security experts advised Presidents 
     Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and George W. Bush on a 
     host of international matters.
       I hope that you will take a moment to review their letter 
     as you consider Senator Hagel's nomination.
           Sincerely,
                                                        Jack Reed,
     U.S. Senator.
                                  ____

                                                 January 24, 2013.
       To Members of the U.S. Senate: We, as former Secretaries of 
     State, Defense, and National Security Advisors, are writing 
     to express our strong endorsement of Chuck Hagel to be the 
     next Secretary of Defense.
       Chuck Hagel has an impeccable record of public service that 
     reflects leadership, integrity, and a keen reading of global 
     dynamics. From his time as Deputy Veterans Administrator 
     managing a quarter of a million employees 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 co-
     Chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, 
     Chuck Hagel is uniquely qualified to meet the challenges 
     facing the Department of Defense and our men and women in 
     uniform. As President Obama noted in announcing the 
     nomination, this twice-wounded combat veteran ``is a champion 
     of our troops and our veterans and our military families'' 
     and would have the distinction of being the first person of 
     enlisted rank and the first Vietnam veteran to serve as 
     Secretary of Defense.
       His approach to national security and debates about the use 
     of American power is marked by a disciplined habit of 
     thoughtfulness that is sorely needed and these qualities will 
     serve him well as Secretary of Defense at a time when the 
     United States must address a range of international issues 
     that are unprecedented in scope. Our extensive experience 
     working with Senator Hagel over the years has left us 
     confident that he has the necessary background to succeed in 
     the job of leading the largest federal agency.
       Hagel has declared that we ``knew we needed the world's 
     best military not because we wanted war but because we wanted 
     to prevent war.'' For those of us honored to have served as 
     members of a president's national security team, Senator 
     Hagel clearly understands the essence and the burdens of 
     leadership required of this high office. We hope this 
     Committee and the U.S. Senate will promptly and favorably act 
     on his nomination.
           Sincerely,
         Hon. Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State; Hon. 
           Samuel Berger, former National Security Advisor; Hon. 
           Harold Brown, former Secretary of Defense; Hon. 
           Zbigniew Brzezinski, former National Security Advisor; 
           Hon.

[[Page 1708]]

           William Cohen, former Secretary of Defense; Hon. Robert 
           Gates, former Secretary of Defense; Hon. James Jones, 
           former National Security Advisor; Hon. Melvin Laird, 
           former Secretary of Defense; Hon. Robert McFarlane, 
           former National Security Advisor; Hon. William Perry, 
           former Secretary of Defense; Hon. Colin Powell, former 
           Secretary of State and National Security Advisor; Hon. 
           George Shultz, former Secretary of State; Hon. Brent 
           Scowcroft, former National Security Advisor.
                                  ____

         Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United 
           States of America,
                                 Alexandria, VA, January 22, 2013.
     Hon. Carl Levin, Chairman,
     Hon. James M. Inhofe, Ranking Member,
     Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, Russell Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe: The Non 
     Commissioned Officers Association of the USA (NCOA) strongly 
     supports the appointment of The Honorable Chuck Hagel to be 
     Secretary of Defense.
       The association's membership is comprised of current and 
     former enlisted members of the active duty military, Guard 
     and Reserve Components to include all elements of the United 
     States Coast Guard. The members of NCOA share a common 
     experience with Senator Hagel who personally experienced the 
     rigors of military service to include combat in the Vietnam 
     War.
       His military service including being twice wounded in 
     action has instilled the values of service and personal 
     sacrifice and for which he knows well the human cost of war.
       He has been an advocate for Soldiers, Marines, Sailors, 
     Airmen, and Coasties to ensure the training and equipage of 
     America's 21st Century Military Force to coincide with a 
     solid revised Defense posture to meet conventional and 
     unconventional world challenges.
       Senator Hagel has also championed personnel issues relating 
     to combat dwell time, force protection, transition issues 
     including electronic medical issues, preparation for future 
     employment and training, veterans benefits including 
     enhancements to Post 9/11 educational benefits. He also 
     recognizes the value and sacrifice of families of the men and 
     women who serve in this nation's Uniformed Services.
       The NCOA has no hesitation in asking that Senator Hagel 
     receive an expeditious hearing that confirms his confirmation 
     to be the next Secretary of Defense. This Association 
     recognizes the challenges that will be faced as Secretary of 
     Defense and believe Senator Hagel is well qualified to lead 
     the Department of Defense.
           Sincerely,
                                             Richard C. Schneider,
     Executive Director for Government Affairs.
                                  ____



                                                       AMVETS,

                                      Lanham, Md, January 8, 2013.
     AMVETS NATIONAL COMMANDER APPROVES DEFENSE SECRETARY 
         NOMINATION

       This afternoon, AMVETS National Commander Cleve Geer 
     endorsed President Barack Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel 
     as the next Secretary of Defense. Obama announced the 
     nomination yesterday, Jan. 7, 2013.
       ``AMVETS fully supports President Obama's nomination of 
     Chuck Hagel for the future Secretary of Defense,'' said Geer. 
     ``As a veterans service organization, AMVETS' main mission is 
     to serve as an advocate for veterans, their families and the 
     community in which they live. I am confident that former Sen. 
     Hagel will utilize his experience and understanding of 
     America's military to lead this nation's troops and the 
     Department of Defense.''
       If confirmed by the Senate, Hagel will be the first 
     infantryman to serve as the Secretary of Defense. He will 
     replace current Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, who has 
     been in this position since 2011. Hagel's experience ranges 
     from serving in the Army during the Vietnam War to 
     representing Nebraska as a senator.
       About AMVETS:
       A leader since 1944 in preserving the freedoms secured by 
     America's armed forces, AMVETS provides support for veterans 
     and the active military in procuring their earned 
     entitlements, as well as community service and legislative 
     reform that enhances the quality of life for this nation's 
     citizens and veterans alike. AMVETS is one of the largest 
     congressionally-chartered veterans' service organizations in 
     the United States, and includes members from each branch of 
     the military, including the National Guard and Reserves.
       To learn more, visit: www.amvets.org.
                                  ____


       Chuck Hagel Would Make an Outstanding Secretary of Defense

                                                 January 16, 2013.
     Hon. Carl Levin, 
     Chairman,
     Hon. James M. Inhofe, 
     Ranking Member, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate, 
         Russell Senate Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Levin and Ranking Member Inhofe: While some 
     of our organizations cannot recommend whom the President 
     should appoint to his cabinet, we believe that Senator Chuck 
     Hagel would make an outstanding Secretary of Defense, and is 
     uniquely qualified to lead the men and women of America's 
     Armed Forces.
       Chuck Hagel is a true patriot who volunteered to fight in 
     the war of his generation when he could easily have opted for 
     a safe assignment. Twice wounded in the service of our 
     nation, this combat veteran knows first-hand what it means to 
     wear the uniform, what it means when the nation sends its 
     young people to war, and the price that our Soldiers, 
     Sailors, Airmen and Marines sometimes pay in our defense.
       He has fought with and for our troops his entire adult 
     life: as a 21-year-old infantry sergeant in Vietnam; as the 
     deputy head of the VA who pushed for Agent Orange Benefits 
     and for the Vietnam Veterans Memorial; as the President of 
     the USO; and as a U.S. Senator who coauthored the Post-9/11 
     GI Bill. As Secretary of Defense he will be a strong advocate 
     of preparing servicemen and women for a smooth transition 
     from the military to the VA system, including making jobs and 
     training, and efficient electronic records a top priority. 
     His door would always be open to veterans' service 
     organizations.
       Chuck Hagel knows that, while military force in defense of 
     the nation is unfortunately sometimes necessary, decisions 
     concerning war and peace, life and death, never should be 
     undertaken lightly. This is the least that we can ask of our 
     leaders.
       The President has said that ``in Chuck Hagel our troops see 
     a decorated combat veteran of character and strength. They 
     see one of their own. Chuck is a champion of our troops and 
     our veterans and our military families.'' ``Chuck knows that 
     war is not an abstraction. He understands that sending young 
     Americans to fight and bleed in the dirt and mud, that's 
     something we only do when it's absolutely necessary.'' As 
     veterans, we could not agree more. As the nation commemorates 
     the 50th anniversary of the Vietnam War, it is fitting and 
     proper that the next Secretary of Defense should be a wounded 
     and decorated veteran of that conflict--the first Vietnam 
     veteran and the first enlisted man to hold this post.
           Sincerely,
                                                Stewart M. Hickey,
                                               Executive Director.

  Mr. LEVIN. The first letter is a letter of 11 Ambassadors, including 
four former Ambassadors to Israel, in which these Ambassadors say that 
Senator Hagel ``has always supported the pillars of American foreign 
policy--such as a strong NATO and Atlantic partnership; a commitment to 
the security of Israel, as a friend and ally . . . ''
  The second letter is from 13 former Secretaries of Defense, State, 
and National Security Advisers, including a number of Republicans who 
served in Republican administrations. Part of their letter reads as 
follows:

       His approach to national security and debates about the use 
     of American power is marked by a disciplined habit of 
     thoughtfulness that is sorely needed.

  It also says:

       Our extensive experience working with Senator Hagel over 
     the years has left us confident that he has the necessary 
     background to succeed in the job of leading the Department of 
     Defense.

  These, again, are 13 former Secretaries of Defense.
  Then there is a series of letters that came in from veterans 
organizations. These are elegant pleas for Senator Hagel to be 
confirmed.
  This is from the Non Commissioned Officers Association of the United 
States:

       Senator Hagel has championed personnel issues relating to 
     combat dwell time, force protection, transition issues 
     including electronic medical issues, preparation for future 
     employment and training . . . He also recognizes the value 
     and sacrifice of families of the men and women who serve in 
     this Nation's Uniformed Services.

  This is from AMVETS:

       AMVETS fully supports President Obama's nomination of Chuck 
     Hagel for the future Secretary of Defense. As a veterans 
     service organization, AMVETS' main mission is to serve as an 
     advocate for veterans, their families and the community in 
     which they live. I am confident that former Senator Hagel 
     will utilize his experience and understanding of America's 
     military to lead this nation's troops and the Department of 
     Defense.

  In terms of Israel and in terms of Iran, I wish to read a couple of 
statements of Senator Hagel and about Senator Hagel--first in terms of 
his statements about Iran. In his 2008 book, he said:

       At its core, there will always be a special and historic 
     bond with Israel, exemplified by

[[Page 1709]]

     our continued commitment to Israel's defense.

  And this is a statement made by an Israeli Deputy Foreign Minister 
whose name is Danny Ayalon. This is what he said just recently:

       Senator Hagel believes in the natural partnership between 
     Israel and the United States. Senator Hagel is proud of the 
     volume of defense relations between Israel and the United 
     States, which are so important for both countries. Hagel is a 
     true American Patriot and the support America gives Israel is 
     in America's interest, so I am optimistic.

  Relative to Iran, this is what Senator Hagel has said about Iran:

       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 nonproliferation regime. Iran is one of the main 
     state sponsors of terrorism and could spark conflict, 
     including against U.S. personnel and interests.

  He has also said that he is ``fully committed to President Obama's 
goal of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon,'' and he has 
said that ``all options must be on the table to achieve that goal.'' He 
specifically said that his policy will be that of the President's 
policy--one of prevention and not containment.
  Relative to sequestration--and we are facing sequestration--Senator 
Hagel has said the following, which is also what Secretary Panetta has 
said.

       Sequestration, if allowed to occur, would damage our 
     readiness, our people and our military families. It would 
     result in the grounding of aircraft and returning ships to 
     port, reducing the Department's global presence and ability 
     to rapidly respond to contingencies. Vital training would be 
     reduced by half of current plans and the Department would be 
     unable to reset equipment from Afghanistan in a timely 
     manner. The Department would reduce training and maintenance 
     for nondeploying units and would be forced to reduce 
     procurement of vital weapon systems and suffer the subsequent 
     schedule delays and price increases. Civilian employees would 
     be furloughed. All these effects negatively impact long-term 
     readiness as well. It would send a terrible signal to our 
     military and our civilian workforce, to those we hope to 
     recruit, and to both our allies and adversaries around the 
     world.

  Mr. President, we must end this uncertainty about this position. It 
is time for us to end this debate, and that is what we will be voting 
on now. Later on there will be a vote on whether to confirm Senator 
Hagel. The vote now is whether to bring this debate to an end. I hope 
we will do so and get on to the nomination vote.
  I yield the floor, as I think it is noon and time for a vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Oklahoma.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, let me just say everything has been said, 
not everyone has said it. However, I would like to make sure everyone 
understands the actual statements were made by the former Senator Hagel 
in terms of the relationship of our country with Israel and Iran prior 
to the time he was nominated because many of those statements were 
changed at that time.
  I encourage a ``no'' vote.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired.


                             Cloture Motion

  Under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke 
cloture.
  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 on reconsideration?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk called the roll.
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from New Jersey (Mr. 
Lautenberg) and the Senator from Colorado (Mr. Udall) are necessarily 
absent.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Heitkamp). Are there any other Senators in 
the Chamber desiring to vote?
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 71, nays 27, as follows:

                       [Rollcall Vote No. 23 Ex.]

                                YEAS--71

     Alexander
     Ayotte
     Baldwin
     Baucus
     Begich
     Bennet
     Blumenthal
     Blunt
     Boxer
     Brown
     Burr
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Collins
     Coons
     Corker
     Cowan
     Donnelly
     Durbin
     Feinstein
     Flake
     Franken
     Gillibrand
     Graham
     Hagan
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Heinrich
     Heitkamp
     Hirono
     Johanns
     Johnson (SD)
     Kaine
     King
     Klobuchar
     Landrieu
     Leahy
     Levin
     Manchin
     McCain
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Merkley
     Mikulski
     Murkowski
     Murphy
     Murray
     Nelson
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Sanders
     Schatz
     Schumer
     Sessions
     Shaheen
     Shelby
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Thune
     Udall (NM)
     Warner
     Warren
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--27

     Barrasso
     Boozman
     Coats
     Cornyn
     Crapo
     Cruz
     Enzi
     Fischer
     Grassley
     Heller
     Hoeven
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Johnson (WI)
     Kirk
     Lee
     McConnell
     Moran
     Paul
     Portman
     Risch
     Roberts
     Rubio
     Scott
     Toomey
     Vitter
     Wicker

                             NOT VOTING--2

     Lautenberg
     Udall (CO)
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 71 and the nays are 
27. Upon reconsideration, three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and 
sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.
  The majority leader.
  Mr. REID. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that following the 
recess for the weekly party conferences, the time until 4:30 p.m. be 
equally divided in the usual form and that at 4:30 p.m. all postcloture 
time be yielded back and the Senate proceed to vote on the nomination 
of Chuck Hagel, without intervening action or debate; the motion to 
reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, with no 
intervening action or debate; that no further motions be in order; that 
President Obama be immediately notified of the Senate's action, and the 
Senate then resume legislative session.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________